Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[Rustic]

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

OK so 30 round mags. The only factual thing you've said yet we can look at. Now will this apply to the lowly 22?. 223 only?

Rubber bands allow rapid fire simulation. Now what? And please don't tell me you mean semi automatic guns period.

And please, let's not mix and match discussions again.

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Also, I’m not an activist. I have guns, they are fun to shoot. I don’t feel like a need them for self defense but I live in a safe area. I’m fine with regulations that make sense. So I’m in these discussion for more thought provocation than to push a strong agenda

The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

This is not born out by any of the mass public shootings we have had....as the actual research shows, changing magazines takes 2-3 seconds......they are relaxed, not in a hurry, and easily change magazines in the face of unarmed victims.

The Sandy Hook shooter changed his magazines before they were empty, he used combat reloading which is changing after firing half the magazine then putting in a fresh one....the Gifford's shooter wasn't stopped because he was changing magazines....he was stopped because he allowed someone he thought he had killed to get behind him.

The best opportunity to take down a mass public shooter is to have someone shoot back at them as soon as possible.....limiting magazine capacity is simply a lie promoted by anti-gun activists working on the ignorance of uninformed Americans. And they don't want to ban 30 round magazines, they want to start with anything over 10 bullets...which means just about every regular size semi-auto pistol...made illegal due to their magazine capacity without ever having to actually ban them.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

I have little doubt that there would have been far less damage of the Dayton shooter had a revolver or a hunting riffle with 6-10 bullets instead of his AR with a 100 round mag. I dont see why anybody needs an AR with a 100 round mag, ever.

Varmint hunting

 

[Rustic]

OK so 30 round mags. The only factual thing you've said yet we can look at. Now will this apply to the lowly 22?. 223 only?

Rubber bands allow rapid fire simulation. Now what? And please don't tell me you mean semi automatic guns period.

And please, let's not mix and match discussions again.

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Also, I’m not an activist. I have guns, they are fun to shoot. I don’t feel like a need them for self defense but I live in a safe area. I’m fine with regulations that make sense. So I’m in these discussion for more thought provocation than to push a strong agenda

The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

This is not born out by any of the mass public shootings we have had....as the actual research shows, changing magazines takes 2-3 seconds......they are relaxed, not in a hurry, and easily change magazines in the face of unarmed victims.

The Sandy Hook shooter changed his magazines before they were empty, he used combat reloading which is changing after firing half the magazine then putting in a fresh one....the Gifford's shooter wasn't stopped because he was changing magazines....he was stopped because he allowed someone he thought he had killed to get behind him.

The best opportunity to take down a mass public shooter is to have someone shoot back at them as soon as possible.....limiting magazine capacity is simply a lie promoted by anti-gun activists working on the ignorance of uninformed Americans. And they don't want to ban 30 round magazines, they want to start with anything over 10 bullets...which means just about every regular size semi-auto pistol...made illegal due to their magazine capacity without ever having to actually ban them.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

I have little doubt that there would have been far less damage of the Dayton shooter had a revolver or a hunting riffle with 6-10 bullets instead of his AR with a 100 round mag. I dont see why anybody needs an AR with a 100 round mag, ever.

And we aren't talking 100 round magazines......that is dishonest of you......you know they want to ban anything over 10....which would make millions of legally owned pistols illegal.....without having to vote to ban or confiscate them....

I am talking about 100 round mags because that’s exactly what was used in Dayton. Nothing dishonest about that. And I’d be fine with a 10 round limit

10, 10 round magazine’s versus 100 round magazine... No difference

 

[Rustic]

You compared the regulations of automobiles to the regulations of guns.

No I didn’t. I was talking about machine guns

Then the AR-15, the civilian AK-47 are not machine guns by any definition......so you don't want those banned...right?

I don’t think so... wouldnt mind hearing a debate about it

That's what this is. So far it's emotions not changing facts.

And let me know if I'm wasting my time asking for the top 5 cities of gun control and how that's faring. That's getting ignored by you more than I was ignored on prom night.

I think gun violence in big cities is a result of poverty and crime and many many other factors... not gun control laws. It’s a much more complicated situation than a simple answer can address

This country does not enforce the laws that we do have, what makes you think more frivolous gun control laws will save a single soul?

 

[Rustic]

That's what this is. So far it's emotions not changing facts.

And let me know if I'm wasting my time asking for the top 5 cities of gun control and how that's faring. That's getting ignored by you more than I was ignored on prom night.

I think gun violence in big cities is a result of poverty and crime and many many other factors... not gun control laws. It’s a much more complicated situation than a simple answer can address

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

The Russian shooter.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun, tube fed, no magazine. 20 killed, 40 injured.

Is the pump action shotgun a super dangerous weapon?

Thank god he didn’t have an uzi or an AK with a 100 round mag. Imagine how many would be shot and killed if he had one of those weapons

Lol
Pray and spray does not result in certain death...

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

Yep.....and that has nothing to do with banning semi-autos or magazines. We already have all the laws and regulations we need to go after criminals and to keep mass public shooters from targeting gun free zones.

How then would you have handled the parkland kid? What would you have arrested him for? Which law wasn’t followed?

They would have arrested him...he would have had a criminal record and a judge might have sentenced him to mental health treatment. He would have failed a background check, and if he wanted a gun he would have had to get it illegally. Bringing a knife and bullets to school as well as fighting......with his general history of violent behavior, an arrest for those things would have been justified.

Arrested him for what?

Bringing a knife to school, and bullets, and he also assaulted other students...then you have the mentioned over 30 home visits......

I never saw a report that he brought a knife to school. I believe that was something that came through the rumor mill, bit of you have a report on it then please share. Also, I don’t think Obama’s promise policy stopped the cops from making an arrest if one of those house calls was for an arrestable offense. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong

 

[Slade3200]

That’s the term Beto is using when stating his confiscation case. If that’s the standard he wants to use for confiscation then the convo turns to defining what a weapon of war is. If AR-15s don’t fit the definition of “weapons of war” then they shouldn’t be included in a confiscation plan.

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the fuck out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

Or saving the life of a loved one with your firearm....as Americans do every single day....according to the CDC 1.1 million times a year......

Considering that more lives are saved with guns than are taken with them here, you should be supporting gun ownership more.....if you care about saving lives.

That’s right and god bless those heros that have had the courage to do so.

 

[Rustic]

That's what this is. So far it's emotions not changing facts.

And let me know if I'm wasting my time asking for the top 5 cities of gun control and how that's faring. That's getting ignored by you more than I was ignored on prom night.

I think gun violence in big cities is a result of poverty and crime and many many other factors... not gun control laws. It’s a much more complicated situation than a simple answer can address

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Addressing your question... I don’t want to punish law abiding citizens I want to be responsible with how we regulate the commerce of weapons made to kill others. I don’t look at seatbelt laws and helmet laws and airbag laws and emissions laws as regulations made to punish citizens. They were made for public safety and responsible commerce.

Lol
You understand very little, helmet laws and seatbelt laws will not save a single soul. People are going to do what they want.
You have to get to the root of the problem the vast majority of violence in this country comes from repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws. We need much better criminal control if we are going to stop any sort of violence. Execute repeat offenders… Problem solved.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s the term Beto is using when stating his confiscation case. If that’s the standard he wants to use for confiscation then the convo turns to defining what a weapon of war is. If AR-15s don’t fit the definition of “weapons of war” then they shouldn’t be included in a confiscation plan.

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the fuck out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

not if you use that unfortunate and yes sad situation to take power from those who did nothing wrong at all. as far as i'm concerned you're about as bad as the shooter for being such an opportunist. esp when you can't correlate your "suggestions" into anything that would have stopped said event from happening.

"well we did something..." isn't good enough.

Well I’m not interested in taking away a responsible citizens right to own a firearm so we are all good there

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

Yep.....and that has nothing to do with banning semi-autos or magazines. We already have all the laws and regulations we need to go after criminals and to keep mass public shooters from targeting gun free zones.

How then would you have handled the parkland kid? What would you have arrested him for? Which law wasn’t followed?

Dear sweet baby Jebus
ANY number of domestic violence laws, Slade.
Where I reside, being underage doesn't allow you to "clear" your record when you come of age when you turn 18. Not when it concerns multiple domestic violence convictions. It carries over with you.
There were at least 39 instances of domestic violence where some form of law enforcement were called out invovling the parkland school shooter... At least 39... And he "legally purchased" his firearm. Someone didn't do their job. He shouldn't have been able to do so. Take any one of those instances and apply it to prevent him from buying a firearm and possibly prevent the massacre from happening.

The mother called the cops every time the brothers got in a fight or threw a fit. It wasn’t always for the shooter kid. The clearest case of violence that I remember is when he pushed his mom into a wall for taking away his xbox. I guessing she didn’t press charges. Would you suggest that the cops arrest him anyways and get him in the system?

Normally, in domestic violence situations...today......when there is evidence of a violent attack of any kind, an arrest is made regardless of the woman filing a complaint.

And what evidence was left in this case? What actually happened?

 

[Rustic]

No, not when we know they won't work we don't. Why would I support a law that only makes it inconvenient and dangerous to the average law abiding citizen? Because let's face it, the criminals will still kill when they want to. All we can do is try to defend ourselves from them. The more firepower we have, the better chance at survival.

I disagree... fighting fire with fire just causes more fire. I prefer water

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

How many guns do we have in this country? Why aren't we the safest country in the world, then?

Lol
Where the vast majority of firearms are, that being rural America is the safest part of America you stupid bitch

 

[iceberg]

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the fuck out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

not if you use that unfortunate and yes sad situation to take power from those who did nothing wrong at all. as far as i'm concerned you're about as bad as the shooter for being such an opportunist. esp when you can't correlate your "suggestions" into anything that would have stopped said event from happening.

"well we did something..." isn't good enough.

Well I’m not interested in taking away a responsible citizens right to own a firearm so we are all good there

but limiting how they can use it you're all up into if i understand you correctly.

 

[Rustic]

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the fuck out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

not if you use that unfortunate and yes sad situation to take power from those who did nothing wrong at all. as far as i'm concerned you're about as bad as the shooter for being such an opportunist. esp when you can't correlate your "suggestions" into anything that would have stopped said event from happening.

"well we did something..." isn't good enough.

Well I’m not interested in taking away a responsible citizens right to own a firearm so we are all good there

Lol
Then quit giving corrupt career politicians any power dumbass

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

Well I somewhat agree with you there but sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing

great. enforce the laws we have. that would be something also.

Excellent idea, how do we do better at that?

Focus on it.....instead of always focusing on taking guns and magazines away from people who don't use them for crime.

Focus on it? Ok I’m focusing. I’m not seeing what’s going to instigate change though. Any other ideas?

 

[Rustic]

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

How many guns do we have in this country? Why aren't we the safest country in the world, then?

How many gun laws does California have? Why are they one of the worst in gun violence?

Lots of cities. Urban areas have more gun crime.

Lol
Because urban America has far less firearms you stupid bitch

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Lol
Ridiculous, Magazine capacity I has no effect on any sort of violence

I disagree

 

[iceberg]

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

Well I somewhat agree with you there but sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing

great. enforce the laws we have. that would be something also.

Excellent idea, how do we do better at that?

Focus on it.....instead of always focusing on taking guns and magazines away from people who don't use them for crime.

Focus on it? Ok I’m focusing. I’m not seeing what’s going to instigate change though. Any other ideas?

and i don't see how limiting mag capacity is going to stop someone from finding a way to create damage. all this "but it stands to reason..." is people thinking out loud because they can't PROVE the actions they would take would work. so you keep saying "well at least we did something!"

yet when it doesn't work you want to do something else, usually around greater regulation OF WHICH isn't working as planned so doing "something" is a bad path.

 

[Rustic]

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

People who want to kill will kill with guns or not. Our two largest mass murders didn't involve one gun. They involved box cutters and fertilizer.

On Friday, some goof drove his SUV into a Sears store in Illinois trying to kill shoppers. He failed, but the point is he figured out a way to try and kill a bunch of people. Last year, London surpassed NYC murder rate, mostly with the use of knives. In France, some crazy drove a truck into a crowd killing 85 people.

So here is the problem: If you take a nice middle-class suburb, make a law that all citizens must have a firearm in their home, and do the reverse in a low income crime riddled area, the crime statistics won't change in either neighborhood. Because it's the people, not the weapon that kills other people.

I like my odds better vs a box cutter or vehicle vs a semi auto with 100 bullets in it. What would you rather go up against?

Terrorists in the Middle East prefer bombs/vehicles… LOL

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

Well I somewhat agree with you there but sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing

great. enforce the laws we have. that would be something also.

Excellent idea, how do we do better at that?

police take advantage of any of what, 39 complaints to do something in this particular case? we now have "red flag laws" that don't even need you on record of doing something wrong, just a complaint and WHAM - come get the guns.

we can't go anywhere via the middle of the road. we want to slam everything through based on our emotional tastes.

Ok good we are getting towards solutions now. So a kid gets in a fight with his brother and the mom calls the cops to help her calm them down. Do both brothers get put on a red flag list? How long do they lose their gun rights for?

I know you don’t have a policy written, just curious of your “top of the head” ideas. I won’t hold you to them... just brainstorming

 

[Slade3200]

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the fuck out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

not if you use that unfortunate and yes sad situation to take power from those who did nothing wrong at all. as far as i'm concerned you're about as bad as the shooter for being such an opportunist. esp when you can't correlate your "suggestions" into anything that would have stopped said event from happening.

"well we did something..." isn't good enough.

Well I’m not interested in taking away a responsible citizens right to own a firearm so we are all good there

but limiting how they can use it you're all up into if i understand you correctly.

Yeah I’m fine limiting their ability to have weapons capable of inflicting a massive amount of damage if misused. Same
Concept as the machine gun restrictions and same reason why F1 race cars are not allowed on the road

 

[Rustic]

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Lol
Ridiculous, Magazine capacity I has no effect on any sort of violence

I disagree

It’s only as good as the firearm it’s placed into...
Over the counter ARs only stand up to a few magazines on full auto...