Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[Skull Pilot]

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

i can reload a fixed magazine faster than i can change one out.

now what?

Bully for you! Does a crazed shooter in the midst of his killing spree have the same presence of mind and dexterity?

Maybe maybe not

Tell me does a person hiding in the bathroom during a shooting who can take out his phone a Tweet to people have the focus and ability to shoot back at the person trying to kill him?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

 

[Nosmo King]

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

i can reload a fixed magazine faster than i can change one out.

now what?

Bully for you! Does a crazed shooter in the midst of his killing spree have the same presence of mind and dexterity?

Maybe maybe not

Tell me does a person hiding in the bathroom during a shooting who can take out his phone a Tweet to people have the focus and ability to shoot back at the person trying to kill him?

Would you arm every student?

 

[iceberg]

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

so when i say "the look of the gun can be a factor" you choose to ignore it so you can keep your fears alive and well.

got it. you don't want to talk this over, you want to be right, ergo selective in what you see. and killing 1 person isn't a mass shooting so those people wouldn't apply now would it?

and THIS is why we can't have common sense gun laws.

No. I am just incredulous that the media boogeyman can serve as a universal whipping boy.

Rather than take the toy appeal away from deadly weapons, you think piling on a free press can serve as a solution.

kinda the same way about trump being the sole reason for everyones anger, huh? but something tells me that's ok.

and when the "free press" gets the facts correct, i'll listen. til then the "Free Press" is a blog of crap under the guise of news.

 

[iceberg]

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

i can reload a fixed magazine faster than i can change one out.

now what?

Bully for you! Does a crazed shooter in the midst of his killing spree have the same presence of mind and dexterity?

dunno. do they?

look up mean reloaders. they can put 10 rounds back into an AR faster than most people can change the mag anyway. stop attacking me and why not attack the problem with an open mind?

 

[martybegan]

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

The problem is people look for an ultimate solution, when the best you can do is just improve on the chance the failure chain gets broken earlier.

Better mental health care might have prevented him from going on with the attack.
Better lawful methods of detaining those with mental issues might have put him under controlled treatment.
better security at the school might have stopped him at the perimeter.
A ban on guns might have made it harder for him to get one.
Armed security or teachers in the school might have stopped him
A rapid penetration response by the cops instead of containment might have stopped him earlier.

But you can end each of these statements with "it might have not mattered" and all would still be valid.

Just saying "something must be done" without having a plan beyond "ban things and hope for the best" leads to nothing being done, or something useless being done.

Remember the old adage, "before you can remove the fence, find out why it was there in the first place"

 

[Skull Pilot]

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

i can reload a fixed magazine faster than i can change one out.

now what?

Bully for you! Does a crazed shooter in the midst of his killing spree have the same presence of mind and dexterity?

Maybe maybe not

Tell me does a person hiding in the bathroom during a shooting who can take out his phone a Tweet to people have the focus and ability to shoot back at the person trying to kill him?

Would you arm every student?

HS students are not usually old enough to carry concealed weapons or buy handguns

and I didn't say the shooting was in a school did I?

I was referring to the FL nightclub shooting where people were actually hiding in the bathroom tweeting while waiting to be shot

 

[iceberg]

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

The problem is people look for an ultimate solution, when the best you can do is just improve on the chance the failure chain gets broken earlier.

Better mental health care might have prevented him from going on with the attack.
Better lawful methods of detaining those with mental issues might have put him under controlled treatment.
better security at the school might have stopped him at the perimeter.
A ban on guns might have made it harder for him to get one.
Armed security or teachers in the school might have stopped him
A rapid penetration response by the cops instead of containment might have stopped him earlier.

But you can end each of these statements with "it might have not mattered" and all would still be valid.

Just saying "something must be done" without having a plan beyond "ban things and hope for the best" leads to nothing being done, or something useless being done.

Remember the old adage, "before you can remove the fence, find out why it was there in the first place"

a long time ago when i was in my microsoft heyday, i'd sit in meeting after meeting listening to well intentioned people scream SOMETHING MUST BE DONE but offer nothing up in what to do. and what they would offer up would be at best a band aid, putting off the problem itself for someone else to deal with. it got to be a running joke on our account management team.

 

[Nosmo King]

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

 

[iceberg]

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

 

[Skull Pilot]

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

It suggests none of the above.

People kill
People have always killed
People will always kill

And it is an extremely small percentage of people who will kill. And those people will kill regardless of any laws. So all your background checks and mandated mental health screenings will do absolutely nothing but make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves

Therefore those of us that would be the victims have the right to defend ourselves with the best tool possible.

 

[Nosmo King]

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

 

[Nosmo King]

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

It suggests none of the above.

People kill
People have always killed
People will always kill

And it is an extremely small percentage of people who will kill. And those people will kill regardless of any laws. So all your background checks and mandated mental health screenings will do absolutely nothing but make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves

Therefore those of us that would be the victims have the right to defend ourselves with the best tool possible.

Then help us solve the problem of man, if the gun is not the problem and man is the problem, you are suggesting our uniquely American problem with gun violence is a problem created by God. Why is God so vengeful against Americans?

 

[iceberg]

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the looks are the appeal then you have blasted your own position.

If it is a matter of style and look then banning such things is irrelevant - a mass shooter is not suddenly going drop their plans because the gun does not look right.

who said the looks

you guys are the ones hung up on looks

it is the hype by antis over the years

that has caused to popularity

every time you antis talk gun ban gun registration gun confiscation

thousands of people flock out to buy them for example

Are you serious?

Maybe it is the scary looking gun

It's the thread title.

Here is a hint - if there is no quote in my post and there is no active convo between me and another poster then the question is directed at the OP - the person who CLEARLY was talking about the looks.

it is a free country

then stop telling people which guns they can and can't buy.

you got the wrong guy

i believe that people should have much easier access to full autos

 

[Nosmo King]

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

 

[martybegan]

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

if government is so concerned about doing the background check, they should put in the effort to be able to do it in a few minutes.

What happens is 3-4 days turns into 3-6 months like you have to wait in NYC just to get a permit to keep a revolver in your house.

Would you be OK with a 1 week waiting period for an abortion? Just so the person can "cool down, think it over"?

 

[iceberg]

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

please explain why it makes a difference?

i go shopping, i see a gun i'd like, i buy it. why would i need to wait 3 days or more cause .01% of the population will abuse this?

 

[martybegan]

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

 

[Nosmo King]

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

please explain why it makes a difference?

i go shopping, i see a gun i'd like, i buy it. why would i need to wait 3 days or more cause .01% of the population will abuse this?

Your minor inconvenience trumps public safety?