LightDreams wrote:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Yes, unfortunately, the Onion has had to run its famous headline yet again.  Which happens WAY too often...

Do you really believe that the United States is the only country where people die in shooting incidents? More so than in Ukraine, or in Somalia, or in Colombia? Or is that just a reflection of how socially introspective you're becoming?

JSouthworth wrote:

Do you really believe that the United States is the only country where people die in shooting incidents? More so than in Ukraine, or in Somalia, or in Colombia? Or is that just a reflection of how socially introspective you're becoming?

I believe that the US is the only country in the modern world where Children are regularly slaughtered in schools. It's also the only country where gun ownership is barely regulated at all.

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you really believe that the United States is the only country where people die in shooting incidents? More so than in Ukraine, or in Somalia, or in Colombia? Or is that just a reflection of how socially introspective you're becoming?

Yet another entry in your catalogue of clueless posts.

"Do you really believe that the United States is the only country where people die in shooting incidents?"

Dishonestly distorting the Onion's headline, which refers to MASS MURDER OF SCHOOLCHILDREN ON A REGULAR BASIS. A headline reposted 21 times.

" More so than in Ukraine, or in Somalia, or in Colombia? "

WARZONES? Your dishonesty is staggering. STAGGERING.

Adventure Photos wrote:
It is not the gun. .

In this case it IS the gun! No one is talking about outlawing all guns, just weapons of war designed to efficiently kill as many as possible within a very few seconds!

If we are going to *rightfully* lay claim to being a civilized society, we can no longer allow national policy to permit assault-weapons to be sold or transferred to private citizens, nor used anywhere but in a safe shooting range –if anyplace. 

A national buy-back program might convince at least a few owners of these weapons to give them up in the spirit of the "Christian" and "Patriot" labels they so often and so self-servingly adopt, even though they are neither. Maybe more Christian preachers and priests can be convinced to take up the cause not of "gun rights" but of "gun sanity". I have a difficult time thinking that Christ (or any other spiritual person) would have endorsed their views.

Certainly much more needs to be done by the mental-health and social-service agencies and by law-enforcement agencies to prevent any guns from ever being in the hands of unstable individuals with severe mental or emotional problems. The link between background checks and all such other agencies must be rigorously designed so that these measures are more effective than they have been, as the present case shows so well.

Adventure Photos wrote:
It is not the gun. It is not the registered, legal ownership and responsible people who should be punished.    .

It is precisely "the gun". How many human beings, how many schoolchildren, would still be alive today if the AR-15 style weapon and its firepower were not available to the general public? 10? 20? 50? Why do you consider restricted access to the weapon of choice for mass shooters PUNISHMENT of innocent gun owners? How many children should die because you want the right to play with one particular weapon?

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you really believe that the United States is the only country where people die in shooting incidents? More so than in Ukraine, or in Somalia, or in Colombia? Or is that just a reflection of how socially introspective you're becoming?

-
-
“Or is that just a reflection of how socially introspective you're becoming?” I have to ask, do you know what introspective means?  It is the adjective form of introspection and it means the action of “the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes.”  If you used it correctly, you are criticizing someone for self examination?  How absurd.  However, the way the context of your silly post reads, I doubt that you know what introspective means. 

El Salvador has the highest murder rate in the world most years.  Are you telling us to suck it up and accept kids being murdered with weapons of war in their classrooms because lawless places elsewhere have it worse?  You don’t want to compare the United States to countries that are culturally or politically similar to the US?  You want to compare the United States to undeveloped countries with unstable governments or places fighting for their survival against the hordes of godless communist invaders that are spurned on by the rightist elitists in the US? 

You could have made your comparison to Norway or Japan to illustrate that there is vast room for improvement in gun violence in the USA.  Or you could have suggested Switzerland, which also has a high rate of firearm ownership for comparison, but you selected El Salvador?

What could possibly be your rational for such a ridiculous effort?

Time and time again when reading your posts, the question that arises is what the fuck?  On Wednesday morning, I showed your post to one of my colleagues.  He has never read your garbage before.  He had no idea what your cognitive ability is like, or your habit of continuously posting garbage.  Reading that post, his response to your post was, “What the fuck?”   Dude, the US is not some war torn country or third world government. 

There is no reason that we can't enjoy firearm ownership, freedom and relative safety except for the mental incompetence and moral depravity of our people and leaders on the right. 

”In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three other, less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were unintentional, those that involved law enforcement and those whose circumstances could not be determined. The total excludes deaths in which gunshot injuries played a contributing, but not principal, role.”  The inability of the right to be introspective on this matter is an additional proof that the right values birth, not life.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
///////////////////

Please ignore Southy. He thrives on attention and inducing rancor, and he's truly not worth anyone's getting angered. If we all ignore him, he eventually shuts up, and the adults can resume their discussions as if he doesn't exist.

We have much more important things to be concerned about.

Modelphilia wrote:
In this case it IS the gun! No one is talking about outlawing all guns,

Wrong. Democrats ROUTINELY suggest banning guns they find fearful for stupid reasons. Biden does this frequently.

just weapons of war designed to efficiently kill as many as possible within a very few seconds!

And I'm sure you realize that the scary AR-15 is not a "weapon of war", correct? Because this is the #1 gun type that ignorant leftists want to ban. I'm also sure you are aware that the most recent school shooting was done with a 9mm carbine...that's pistol ammo. You do know this, right?

Focuspuller wrote:
It is precisely "the gun". How many human beings, how many schoolchildren, would still be alive today if the AR-15 style weapon and its firepower were not available to the general public? 10? 20? 50? Why do you consider restricted access to the weapon of choice for mass shooters PUNISHMENT of innocent gun owners? How many children should die because you want the right to play with one particular weapon?

For the record, an AR-15 is what stopped the most recent shooter. That person was using a carbine shooting pistol ammo.

Focuspuller wrote:
How many human beings, how many schoolchildren, would still be alive today if the AR-15 style weapon and its firepower were not available to the general public? 10? 20? 50? Why do you consider restricted access to the weapon of choice for mass shooters PUNISHMENT of innocent gun owners? How many children should die because you want the right to play with one particular weapon?

Well said, but I think the total number of slain children and adults killed by psychopathic wielders of assault-weapons in this country must surely be nearing or over 1000 by now. It's been a long and disgracefully-enabled siege.

Shot By Adam wrote:
For the record, an AR-15 is what stopped the most recent shooter. That person was using a carbine shooting pistol ammo.

And that assault-weapon was used by a policeman stopping a murderous, confused and vengeful person who, while having used a smaller gun, was also carrying an assault-weapon among the three he/she had brought to the school. Please don't try to make a lawful and heroic use serve as a false justification for free-for-all civilian use, which is only your attempt to confuse the issue at hand.

And, by-the-way, your nom-de-camera is beginning to take on a wholly different and not very wholesome connotation with such posts.

Modelphilia wrote:
In this case it IS the gun! No one is talking about outlawing all guns,

Shot By Adam wrote:
Wrong. Democrats ROUTINELY suggest banning guns they find fearful for stupid reasons. Biden does this frequently.

Modelphilia wrote:
just weapons of war designed to efficiently kill as many as possible within a very few seconds!

There is always the problem with people talking in absolute generalities- yeah, there may be one public figure somewhere that wants to ban all guns, but a realistic generalization describing the majority opinion of that side would not include all guns.  He is not wrong because you changed the argument.  He said they aren't talking about banning all guns.  Even you narrowed the claim to the guns that you claim the left are in fear of, after you exhorted he was wrong.  (BTW, no matter where we are on the political spectrum, many of us are in fear of a gun that is or may be pointed at us.)

Shot By Adam wrote:
And I'm sure you realize that the scary AR-15 is not a "weapon of war", correct? Because this is the #1 gun type that ignorant leftists want to ban. I'm also sure you are aware that the most recent school shooting was done with a 9mm carbine...that's pistol ammo. You do know this, right?

I am sure that you know that a 9mm fired from a rifle will have greater velocity and accuracy than the same cartridge fired from a short barreled handgun, right?  https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the AR-10, is it not?  The AR-15 does not have full auto capability, but it can be modified with a bump stock to increase speed of fire. (The trump era ban on bump stocks has been struck down by a panel of three radical right judges representing the lunatic right fringes at the 5th Circuit after the ban survived challenges in two other circuit courts.)  Aren't there other easily made modifications to the gun that can convert it to fully automatic?  Also, it had been reported at one time that the military was considering removing the full auto ability of their weapon to encourage the troops to actually aim the damn thing.  While ignorant rightists may want to parse through all of the minutiae that disqualifies a specific weapon as weapon of war, the perception of vast numbers of people isn't going to be changed- including the ignorant rightist that buys civilian versions of military weapons because they get a hard on handling one and because it is as close to a weapon of war as they can find to cuddle up with at night.

We might as well also look at what a carbine is, since you seem to think that is an important distinction.  A carbine is a rifle with a shorter barrel.  It can still be semi-automatic.  It can still be an assault rifle mimic.  Carbines are chambered for less powerful rounds, which are still deadly, like the 9mm or 30-30, but Ruger has a .223 carbine available. Carbines are also meant to be lighter weight and more easily handled, which is important for the impotent mass-shooting wanna be.

The most recent school shooting was done with a 9mm carbine?  What was the weapon used in the shootings in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Sutherland Springs, El Paso, Robb Elementary School, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Aurora, and Dayton? 

I wonder why you call it the most recent SCHOOL shooting the most recent SCHOOL shooting instead of specifying the March 27th SCHOOL shooting or the Nashville SCHOOL shooting or the Covenant SCHOOL shooting?  Today is March 30th, was there another SCHOOL shooting since March 27th that I don't know about?

You are aware that in SCHOOL shootings, the target isn't really the SCHOOL but the children in the SCHOOL.  So really, we should be emphasizing what is really important and call them SCHOOLCHILDREN shootings.

You claim ignorant leftists want to ban the AR-15. but isn't the real problem that ignorant rightists won't work with anyone to find middle ground?  That some ignorant rightists claim there is no such thing as common sense gun regulations?  That ignorant rightists think the only laws that should be applied to firearms are the laws that allow everyone to have every type of weapon on demand so they can murder people on the slightest provocation of self defense (as Trayvon Martin was fatally shot by George Zimmerman) or while they are in the process of committing treason to stop a perceived tyranny that exists only in their ignorant minds? 

While technically, the AR-15 type firearm is not a weapon of war because it is not fully automatic, according to some ignorant rightists.  If it is the weapon you have, would you use it in a battle rather than to go unarmed or to go with a less efficient weapon?  It seems like a better choice than my Remington pump action 30-06 with a four or five cartridge clip.  Or my .308 which has an internal magazine and would probably be very hard to reload one cartridge at a time while laying in the mud with bullets whizzing over my head.  Or my shotguns which are either double barrels, granting me two shots between reloading, or my pumps which can give me five.  So, when you have a guy like the one in Idaho that asked in a public meeting, "When do we get to use the guns" against the Democrats that he ignorantly believed were stealing elections, what firearm do you think he and his cohorts are going to be holding when they run down the street killing Democrats, gays, trans, and all non-white people, along with some SCHOOLCHILDREN for good measure?

Perhaps you can identify the caliber and brand of the weapon being used in the video linked below and tell us exactly what weapon was being used because I can't find a single source that says it was a 9mm carbine.   But I have to really wonder if it would have made any difference to the SCHOOLCHILDREN standing in the line of fire what caliber or brand the weapon is or if the barrel is a little shorter.  Would you have breathed a sigh of relief if you came around a corner in the hallway and saw a gun pointed at you was a 9mm semi-automatic carbine instead of a .223?

https://www.newsweek.com/what-we-know-g … ng-1790784
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlK3CxuTGNE

I did find this:
"-A shooting at a Christian elementary  SCHOOL in Nashville left three SCHOOLCHILDREN, three adults and the shooter dead.
-Police said the shooter, ****** ****, was armed with two "assault-type" guns and a 9 mm pistol.
-The weapons appear to be semi-automatic rifles manufactured by KelTec and Lead Star Arms and a handgun manufactured by Smith & Wesson."

The videos above also clearly shows one of the two "assault-type" guns in ready position in the hallways and as the deranged gun enthusiast goes through an internal school door looking for SCHOOLCHILDREN to kill.


Instead of complaining about the leftist wanting to ban a class of firearms, how about you provide some workable solutions to the problem of people in America taking these weapons into soft targets like where there are SCHOOLCHILDREN, grocery shoppers and into shopping malls to shoot and kill unarmed children and adults for no more reason than to inflict suffering?  You want multiple police stationed at everyone of America's 115,000 schools?  How many more for all the big box stores, grocery stores, malls and businesses that can be attractive soft targets? 

Is the real problem that buildings have side doors like some ignorant rightists say?  God forbid we should have fire escapes or emergency exits, or loading docks.  No, we should get rid of all glass doors and anything other than bullet proof main doors,  But, if each structure eliminates all but one door, then two shooters working together can make people flee to the only exit while the other shooter waits for them with a .223 with a bump stock.

If we add adequate police presence to every one of the nation's schools, what do we need?  A minimum of two cops each?  Plus coverage for sick days?  How about at the high school level?  A minimum of four?  Six for larger schools?  Of the quarter to half million or more new officers (there are about 700,000 now nationwide), how many will put their own lives ahead of the lives of the SCHOOLCHILDREN like the cops failed to do at Stoneman and Uvalde?

I do notice the display of priorities when I have to go to research records in one of the five county courthouses within my area, and I walk through a metal detector that is sensitive enough to detect a foil cough drop package and is manned by six overweight sheriff's deputies at any given time during the business day, when the county seat's local high school, much less all of the elementary schools and middle schools and other schools across the county don't have a metal detector or full time officers on site.  Judges and county personnel are much more valuable than SCHOOLCHILDREN, right?

(BTW, how do you like my copious use of the adjective ignorant in response to your use of it?)

Modelphilia wrote:
It's Time To Make Gun Manufacturers Uncomfortable!

Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturer brought by Sandy Hook families
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 565344001/

Sandy Hook families reach 73 million dollar settlement with Remington
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyre … ement.html

More relatives of Colorado shooting victims sue Sturm Ruger
https://apnews.com/article/colorado-sup … 0de0d64ef5

They feel some discomfort because of these suits.  There is no statute of limitations on the faulty advertising the manufacturers have used. 

The problem is that gun manufacturers are like drug dealers- you take one evil villain down and another pops up.  The manufacturers are working from designs that are not copyright protected anymore and their customers are fear filled addicts in search of manhood.

Modelphilia wrote:
I think the total number of slain children and adults killed by psychopathic wielders of assault-weapons in this country must surely be nearing or over 1000 by now. It's been a long and disgracefully-enabled siege.

True, but to account for the anticipated gunny response, replacing the assault-weapon with a lesser weapon would still have resulted in many deaths; the question being,"Aren't the lives saved worth banning sales to civilians?" True gun nuts would answer, "NO"!

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
While our colleague complains about the call to ban the type of gun that the left fears, the right is terrified of ALL GUNS in the hands of nebulous nondescript criminals, though we all know who they fear, when any gun is in the hands of those the rightists fear.

BINGO!

THE NRA SUPPORTED GUN CONTROL WHEN THE BLACK PANTHERS HAD THE WEAPONS
https://www.history.com/news/black-pant … ulford-act

Shot By Adam wrote:
For the record, an AR-15 is what stopped the most recent shooter. That person was using a carbine shooting pistol ammo.

For the record, law enforcement is a legitimate use of the weapon. What's your point? And the shooter was carrying a pistol, hence the 9mm "pistol" ammo. You knew that, right? And two "assault type weapons." You knew that too, right?

"Police said the shooter, Audrey Hale, was armed with two "assault-type" guns and a 9 mm pistol."

"The weapons appear to be semi-automatic rifles manufactured by KelTec and Lead Star Arms and a handgun manufactured by Smith & Wesson."

https://www.newsweek.com/what-we-know-g … ng-1790784

Shot By Adam wrote:
And I'm sure you realize that the scary AR-15 is not a "weapon of war", correct? Because this is the #1 gun type that ignorant leftists want to ban.

THE ORIGIN STORY OF THE AR-15: FROM MISFIT TO ‘AMERICA’S RIFLE’

https://www.newsweek.com/what-we-know-g … ng-1790784

"Armalite, founded in Hollywood, California, first developed the AR(Armalite Rifle)-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle. But the company struggled to sell it.

Eventually, Colt Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company of Hartford, Connecticut, purchased Armalite’s plans for the AR-15 (and the predecessor, the AR-10) for $75,000.

Meanwhile, American troops in Vietnam were using M14 rifles on the ground in Vietnam while Viet Cong guerillas and North Vietnamese soldiers carried the lighter, superior, Soviet-made, AK-47s.

Robert S. McNamara, the defense secretary at the time, pushed the Pentagon to hurry production of a new firearm for U.S. troops.

The military selected Colt to manufacture a new, American automatic rifle. The company began producing a military grade version of the AR-15 it had purchased from Armalite, known as the M16. It would soon become standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War.

Emboldened by the success of the M16, Colt ramped up production of AR-15s available for law enforcement and civilian consumers."

"Not a weapon of war" you say? Who is ignorant? Why do you think ruff, tuff gun fetishists cosplay in their camo-SWAT gear and prance around brandishing their customized  (but semi-auto) AR-15's with their fellow cultists and pretend they are "in the shit" fighting commies and leftists?

I'm sure you realize THAT, right?

Focuspuller wrote:

It is precisely "the gun". How many human beings, how many schoolchildren, would still be alive today if the AR-15 style weapon and its firepower were not available to the general public? 10? 20? 50? Why do you consider restricted access to the weapon of choice for mass shooters PUNISHMENT of innocent gun owners? How many children should die because you want the right to play with one particular weapon?

Multiple round guns have been available for a longer time than the ugly 'era' of mass shootings on such a regular basis.   It is still a single shot, single trigger weapon, unless the person has illegally changed it.  Most mass murderers have done something to change the weapons in some way, (like the 'bump-stocks' of the Vegas shooting).  I agree there is no need for making a fully auto weapon available.  But the lawmakers are not just focused on this weapon. They are after anything that has multiple rounds, more than 10 seems to be their chosen 'cut off ' number.   That could be a rifle, or a handgun too.
       So a madman who has trained, and is skilled, and is obviously not afraid of the unarmed victims., can squeeze off 10 accurate shots and kill 10 people. Plus reload another mag and do more damage.    If they are disturbed, they will find a weapon to use any way they can that is 'legal' by whatever new laws get passed.   Then just upload with many extra mags to keep shooting .  A 'no gun' society is what they call for, but who will stop the rogue nut case?    Its' mental health that needs services. It's much stronger laws to KEEP the weapons out of the hands of those with issues.  To confiscate them when the danger signs show up.   
I feel for every victim, especially as an educator myself.  And I don't defend the NRA extremists.  I just believe we as citizens do have the right to own and 'bear arms' of our choice.   Criminals will not follow the laws. Only the honest registered gun owner will be punished, and will be left as the next victim if not able to defend family and self.

Focuspuller wrote:
BINGO!

THE NRA SUPPORTED GUN CONTROL WHEN THE BLACK PANTHERS HAD THE WEAPONS
https://www.history.com/news/black-pant … ulford-act

Great find! The Black Panthers' arguments were cogent and correct, their actions brave, disciplined and very effective in making their points clear, while their protecting other Blacks was very much needed at the time when they were under armed attack by out-of-control and extra-legal "law-enforcement" attacks that killed many unjustly.

LightDreams wrote:
Whatever the specific weapon restrictions, the questions surrounding "just how many can be killed extremely quickly and all too easily" has to be a significant factor.
. . .
And no, just because a SWAT team, or the military, should have access to a specific weapon, does not mean that the general public should.  I'm not sure where that idea of "equality" for the bad guys weapons versus the weapons used by the police to stop him, came from.

As far as the general public goes, there's a big difference in terms of rifles that are used for hunting, etc, and those that are designed for (or modified for) mass killings.

As has been pointed out by the studies, the sheer NUMBERS involved are directly related to the capability of the weapons.  And remember that by "numbers", we are actually talking about the numbers of school children killed, and other senseless deaths.
.

Good points!  Thanks for making the issues clearer. Societal sanity starts by simply and calmly pointing to the truth when confronted with emotional political rhetoric.

Onward!

Adventure Photos wrote:
I feel for every victim, especially as an educator myself.  And I don't defend the NRA extremists.  I just believe we as citizens do have the right to own and 'bear arms' of our choice.

That may all be true to some degree, however what is needed is that the arms of your choice need to be restricted if we are ever going to resolve these horrific problems. Your classroom, your students, or you and the people you care about could be the next to be slaughtered –without a chance to run home for your treasured guns.

Adventure Photos wrote:
Criminals will not follow the laws. Only the honest registered gun owner will be punished, and will be left as the next victim if not able to defend family and self.

That is such an old, tired, and convenient argument for those who want unrestricted personal warfare capabilities. Try doing some more realistic and compassionate thinking. These are REAL problems! Someone's purported need for an assault-weapon at home is absurdly over-the-top. You can do better, still have *some* guns, and yet keep AR-15s and the like wholly out of the picture.

Sanity and peace are possible. After all, much of the rest of the world has them in full measure (much of Europe for instance), but they didn't get there by allowing every psycho or manhood-challenged idiot to have full access to every weapon they might desire.

Adventure Photos wrote:
Multiple round guns have been available for a longer time than the ugly 'era' of mass shootings on such a regular basis.   It is still a single shot, single trigger weapon, unless the person has illegally changed it.  Most mass murderers have done something to change the weapons in some way, (like the 'bump-stocks' of the Vegas shooting).  I agree there is no need for making a fully auto weapon available.  But the lawmakers are not just focused on this weapon. They are after anything that has multiple rounds, more than 10 seems to be their chosen 'cut off ' number.   That could be a rifle, or a handgun too.
       So a madman who has trained, and is skilled, and is obviously not afraid of the unarmed victims., can squeeze off 10 accurate shots and kill 10 people. Plus reload another mag and do more damage.    If they are disturbed, they will find a weapon to use any way they can that is 'legal' by whatever new laws get passed.   Then just upload with many extra mags to keep shooting .  A 'no gun' society is what they call for, but who will stop the rogue nut case?    Its' mental health that needs services. It's much stronger laws to KEEP the weapons out of the hands of those with issues.  To confiscate them when the danger signs show up.   
I feel for every victim, especially as an educator myself.  And I don't defend the NRA extremists.  I just believe we as citizens do have the right to own and 'bear arms' of our choice.   Criminals will not follow the laws. Only the honest registered gun owner will be punished, and will be left as the next victim if not able to defend family and self.

-
-
The no gun society has zero chance of passing.  "They can take my guns from cold dead hands," right?  "If you take away the guns, then only the criminals will have guns." 

What really are the differences between what you have said and what the extremists of the NRA say? 

You have framed the argument in terms of the extreme.  No room for compromise.  And, I agree with your sentiments to a point.  I am not giving my guns up easily, though I don't own any weapons of war.

The only shooting I am aware of that involved modifying the weapons was the Vegas shooting.  Semi-auto is plenty fast enough.

I disagree with your arguments regarding functionality. 

Look at the video of the Nashville school shooter going through the hallways in an assault position.  Gun to the shoulder, looking down the barrel.  Ready to shoot.  I would never hunt like that.  Going through brush and briars?  No.  If I am on stand and I see a deer coming through the woods, I would raise the gun to my shoulder, follow it until there is a clear safe shot and fire once.  If I miss, then I have the disadvantage that I have to chamber another round.  That requires motion.  I have to move the bolt or slide the pump.  The motion takes me off target.  I have to aim again, now at a running deer.  There are few times that I would ever get a second shot in the forest and shooting at a running deer is dangerous and stupid.  You never know who is in the line fire at just that instant.  With a semi, except for adjusting the aim due to recoil, I don't have to go through any motions.  Does hunting with a semi encourage dangerous behavior like shooting a running deer?  Taking less care in aiming?  It would depend on the individual, but people that do things the easy way often do things the easy way.  But I hunt in Pennsylvania, not Wyoming.  There are other hunters out there.  There are hikers and campers and farmers in the woods and fields and women and children in the yards behind the farm houses.  .30 caliber bullets fly a lot further away than anything that I would aim at and shoot at.  There isn't alway a tree right behind the target.  Is a boulder behind the target a good thing or is that a ricochet waiting to happen?  A water surface?  That is a ricochet situation.  How much of a twig is required to deflect it, or how many?

When I lived in Idaho in 1979, it was legal to hunt with semi-autos.  My roommate flipped out on me one day because I expressed that hunting with a semi wasn't sporting.  Sporting or not, hunting with a semi is adding that much more mechanical ability to the hunter and allowing the hunter to have less skill.  The more shots the hunter has, the less skill he needs.  The more powerful the weapon, the less skill he needs.   Who is the better hunter?  The guy able to shoot an elk from 50 yards or the one that shoots from 500 yards?  The easier it is to take multiple shots, the less skill he needs.  Who is the better hunter?  The guy that drops the bear with one round, or the guy that perforates it 25 times?

What is wrong with a cut off number of ten in the magazine?  I can put six in my revolver.  For safety, it would be loaded with five.  That was good enough when I was in LE.  It wouldn't be now.

If I go hunting in Pennsylvania with a centerfire rifle, I am already limited to a magazine that can hold five rounds.  I am permitted to load a sixth in the chamber.  That is the limit for hunting with a semiautomatic as well.  Why, in the name of God, would I need six rounds?  Because I am a lousy shot?  Because I take shots that aren't safe to take? 

If I go hunting for rabbits, pheasants or grouse, I am limited to 3 shots including the one in the chamber.  I tend to hunt with my uncle's double barrel, so I get two.  I don't remember a single time I ever fired that gun's second barrel. 

When I was in college, we went duck hunting this one afternoon.  We were jump shooting ducks.  The last place we went there were a lot of ducks.  When they flushed, I took three shots with my 20 gauge pump.  The other guy got off two shots.  I knocked down three ducks.  The first one I never found.  But that is an extremely unusual situation.  I never flush two pheasants, grouse or rabbits at one time. 

I use to hunt with a guy that was really into guns.  I bet he has an AR, though I haven't seen him in years and the last time I will ever hunt with him was decades ago.  My dad and I use to take him grouse hunting with us.  A grouse would flush and he would empty his semi auto 12 gauge shotgun at the sound of the grouse.  My father and I would both hit the dirt.  We were going through rhododendron 15-20 feet tall.  We couldn't see him.  He couldn't see us.  He couldn't see what he was shooting at.

One winter a group of us went up to Jim Thorpe and he shot a snowshoe hare.  It was out of season and he was going to leave it laying in the woods.  I carried that sucker all morning.  We built a fire and cooked it up for lunch.  I wasn't going to waste it, but I was pissed.

Another time, he was telling us about how he shot an owl.  I asked him why he shot an owl.  He said it was because he wanted to see what it was.  I was livid. 

You are right,  Criminals will always have guns.  He was a criminal.  He shot a federally protected bird.  He shot an out season mammal.  Coupled with his disregard for safety while hunting, any wonder why I would never hunt with him again?

There are going to be guys that break the law.  Pete would have shot that owl if he was carrying a single shot gun.  Having a semi just gave him more power.  The semi reflected his attitude.  But none of this addresses the problem, does it?  Or does it? 

So, why does the argument need to be framed on the extremes?  Why do you listen to the guys that say, "Take away all the guns?"  Why do you listen to guys that demand access to everything and won't be limited at all?

Why can't we have universal background checks?  Why can't we have background checks that include mental health history?    And I know that there has to be some kind of balance on that too, because there are doctors out there that will flag someone just because they can.  Why can't we have red flag laws? 

The year I lived in the dorms, I had to leave my guns with the campus police.  I had to drive over there in the middle of the night, pick up the one I needed and allow time to be out in the forest well before dawn.  But hey, it wasn't that big of a deal.  I got up at 3 instead of 3:30.

Why can't we even talk about reforms that allow us to hunt, shoot skeet, and defend ourselves without making six year olds into cannon fodder to protect our rights?

Why can't we talk about destigmatizing mental health and making it available and affordable- free, even. 

We aren't protecting our families with an AR-15 as we walk down the street.  We are threatening everyone else.  What do you do with your semi-automatic carbine while you have dinner in a fancy restaurant?  Lay it across you lap?  What if you bump the safety under the table and shoot the woman at the next table and the one that is on the other side of her?  Isn't a .380 PPK what you need to protect yourself?  Or, are you planning on laying in a foxhole in your front yard to protect yourself from marauders?  If I am mugged, it is most likely an ambush.  They already have their guns out.   I am going to beat them to the draw?  If my home is invaded, they have their guns out.  I am supposed to have my gun loaded, cocked and in my hand 24/7? 

We don't need to have permitless concealed carry anymore than we need a state like New Jersey that will not issue a license to buy, possess or carry a firearm- not even a long gun for hunting.  And we ought to be able to cross state lines with our legal firearm.  So, I get what you are saying, but we have a problem when we have 175 people, mostly children, shot dead in their classrooms and 129 MASS shootings in 87 days.  "I just believe we as citizens do have the right to own and 'bear arms' of our choice.   Criminals will not follow the laws. Only the honest registered gun owner will be punished, and will be left as the next victim if not able to defend family and self."  Those old NRA arguments aren't cutting it in "the ugly 'era' of mass shootings on such a regular basis."  Law abiding gun owners do have something to lose in this era.  What are we going to do?  Take our arms into the street and shoot the non-gun owners so we can keep our guns?  Or help to find solutions?

Modelphilia wrote:
––> Hunter GWPB

Thanks for that EPIC TAKE-DOWN of Shot By Adam.

It isn't about taking someone down.  It is about education.  Will they harden their hearts or open their eyes?

We have a problem. 

We aren't going to address the problem if we are approaching it from dug in positions, especially when those positions are based on hyperbole, fear and distorted information.

An AR-15 is illegal to use in a hunt for big game in Pennsylvania.  I don't know about other states.  It is illegal for big game here because the standard caliber is too small.  But it could be used for hunting groundhogs, and coyotes here or jack rabbits out west. 

An AR-15 is a weapon of war, for all practical purposes.  People need to understand that, and right now, like the Russians in Ukraine, the target is the civilian population- children.  Shoppers.  If you love guns, it is a self-defeating situation to find no room for compromise or solutions.  Carnage is not going to win the hearts and minds of non-gun owners.  Or, for that matter, sane gun owners.

We need the people that own these weapons to understand reality because a culture that shrugs when children are slaughtered is a culture that needs to change and someone will implement change- sooner or later.

Has anyone noticed how these attacks on children and people just going about their daily lives are often committed by people who recently bought the weapons?  The Nashville shooter seems to be an anomaly in age and gender.  The purchase date is unclear.  The Vegas shooter was an anomaly in age and method and considering what he had with him, I do not understand why he stopped shooting.  Thankfully, he did.  His bump stock may have reduced the number of kills.  Suppression fire isn't nearly as deadly as picking a target, aiming and firing.

Adventure Photos wrote:
Multiple round guns have been available for a longer time than the ugly 'era' of mass shootings on such a regular basis.   It is still a single shot, single trigger weapon, unless the person has illegally changed it.  Most mass murderers have done something to change the weapons in some way, (like the 'bump-stocks' of the Vegas shooting).  I agree there is no need for making a fully auto weapon available.  But the lawmakers are not just focused on this weapon. They are after anything that has multiple rounds, more than 10 seems to be their chosen 'cut off ' number.   That could be a rifle, or a handgun too.
       So a madman who has trained, and is skilled, and is obviously not afraid of the unarmed victims., can squeeze off 10 accurate shots and kill 10 people. Plus reload another mag and do more damage.    If they are disturbed, they will find a weapon to use any way they can that is 'legal' by whatever new laws get passed.   Then just upload with many extra mags to keep shooting .  A 'no gun' society is what they call for, but who will stop the rogue nut case?    Its' mental health that needs services. It's much stronger laws to KEEP the weapons out of the hands of those with issues.  To confiscate them when the danger signs show up.   
I feel for every victim, especially as an educator myself.  And I don't defend the NRA extremists.  I just believe we as citizens do have the right to own and 'bear arms' of our choice.   Criminals will not follow the laws. Only the honest registered gun owner will be punished, and will be left as the next victim if not able to defend family and self.

Let's lay some misconceptions to rest.There is no serious proposal to ban all guns or to confiscate guns already out there. If you want to cite extremist positions then I will point to those on your side who want every man, woman, and child in the United States openly armed. There are already more guns in the hands of the people than there are people. If more guns were the answer we should already have less homicide by firearm than any country on earth. Instead....?

The argument that semi-auto, single fire, range, firepower, and destructiveness is equivalent in AR-15 style weapons and handguns is just not true. Why then is the AR-15 style so popular among mass murderers?

Mental health problem? Absolutely. Why can't your side even accept background checks?


‘I feel for every victim, especially as an educator myself.  And I don't defend the NRA extremists”

Commendable. But then you do, in fact, "defend the NRA extremists”.

"I just believe we as citizens do have the right to own and 'bear arms' of our choice."

You still affirm the right to bear any weapon your whim demands. That is as extremist as it gets.

Restricting the "choice of arms" is not prevented by the Second Amendment. Is a backpack nuclear device permitted? "The right of the people to bear arms" does not imply ANY arm. In fact, it refers to arms that would be necessary for the people to possess for the requirements of a well-regulated militia. It is the ONLY stated reason for the people to bear arms - "being necessary to the security of a free State." Free State - NOT “free populace”. Personal self defense has never been a questionable right, and even then, there are restrictions; lethal force limited to IMMINENT danger to life or limb. Misinterpreting the Second Amendment is a cottage industry among the gun lobby absolutists, a favorite of which is the absurd proposition that the second Amendment is meant to protect the right of the people to take up arms AGAINST the State, should it become tyrannical.

‘Only the honest registered gun owner will be punished, and will be left as the next victim if not able to defend family and self”

NOT TRUE. Are you really saying the only way you can defend self and family is with an AR-15 style weapon that is the favored weapon of child-killers? Really?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
It isn't about taking someone down.  It is about education.

You are right of course, and thank you for that reminder.

You are also very adept at marshaling facts, information, and clear reasoning. Your posts here, and those of some others who have responded to this thread, are worthy of a much wider distribution throughout the country. I find myself wishing there might be some way of accomplishing that.

Have you ever written or considered writing on these topics for the wider populace?

I can see a lot of potential value in your writing essays to submit to outlets like The Washington Post and the New York Times, and also in writing a more thorough explication in book form. You have a very informed voice, a lot of responsible gun-ownership experience, and a good writing style. It could be of great value in our efforts to engage more people who could create the conditions for the political, legal, and societal changes that are so critical to ending the horrid spiral of violence against our innocent children and fellow citizens. I hope you will consider expanding into those arenas, if you have not already done so.

Again, thank you!

Focuspuller wrote:

Let's lay some misconceptions to rest.There is no serious proposal to ban all guns or to confiscate guns already out there. If you want to cite extremist positions then I will point to those on your side who want every man, woman, and child in the United States openly armed. There are already more guns in the hands of the people than there are people. If more guns were the answer we should already have less homicide by firearm than any country on earth. Instead....?

The argument that semi-auto, single fire, range, firepower, and destructiveness is equivalent in AR-15 style weapons and handguns is just not true. Why then is the AR-15 style so popular among mass murderers?

Mental health problem? Absolutely. Why can't your side even accept background checks?


‘I feel for every victim, especially as an educator myself.  And I don't defend the NRA extremists”

Commendable. But then you do, in fact, "defend the NRA extremists”.

"I just believe we as citizens do have the right to own and 'bear arms' of our choice."

You still affirm the right to bear any weapon your whim demands. That is as extremist as it gets.

Restricting the "choice of arms" is not prevented by the Second Amendment. Is a backpack nuclear device permitted? "The right of the people to bear arms" does not imply ANY arm. In fact, it refers to arms that would be necessary for the people to possess for the requirements of a well-regulated militia. It is the ONLY stated reason for the people to bear arms - "being necessary to the security of a free State." Free State - NOT “free populace”. Personal self defense has never been a questionable right, and even then, there are restrictions; lethal force limited to IMMINENT danger to life or limb. Misinterpreting the Second Amendment is a cottage industry among the gun lobby absolutists, a favorite of which is the absurd proposition that the second Amendment is meant to protect the right of the people to take up arms AGAINST the State, should it become tyrannical.

‘Only the honest registered gun owner will be punished, and will be left as the next victim if not able to defend family and self”

NOT TRUE. Are you really saying the only way you can defend self and family is with an AR-15 style weapon that is the favored weapon of child-killers? Really?

NO,,,you misread somewhere.  The gun lovers who want to arm everybody are NOT MY PEOPLE. Shame on you for that imlication  I'm saying I'm a gun owner .legally LONG before these issued began.  I read and stay informed via NRA publications but not in support of their chaos and wild claims.   NEVER said only way to defend is with an AR....once again you seem to want to put me in the gun-nut group   So can I safely guess or imply that you are a gun hater , or a 'crazy liberal'  as the gun lobby would charge?    I want serious bills proposed for solutions,, not just one sided ones.  Criminals are law breakers. Why would they comply with registering their guns?  The law abiding gun owners would be the ones who are victims IF every wild gun hater got their wish to remove ALL guns. That's when I'm saying the law abiding citizen is then left defenseless against criminals.    Sorry you wish to twist the words, my intent, my sincere hope to solve the issues without taking away all the 2nd amendment rights.  You have your right to hate guns, and think all gun owners are fools.    Sad you didn't grow up with the chance to learn respect, lessons and exposure to that part of our history, or chose to not want that as part of your life.
         I had my old rifle, never thought of buyng another gun until I was under attack, with drive by shootings intended for me, because I was a teacher with rules and expectations.  Gang kids dont' get disciplined in school (guess why, uh,)  So I armed myself in defense at my home back in the mid 80's.  Learned and gained knowledge of weapons use and such.  No encounters for years , but times are changing rapidly.    No more false statements will be responded to.  I've made my sincere point, and didnt' come to this discussion to have my words and intent all changes.    Done. Enjoy saying anything you wish about the subject from here on.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
So far this year the Philadelphia school district has had 18 students killed by gunfire, plus a few preschoolers.. None of reports mentioned the weapon used as the only thing recovered were the shell casing . Might be a good idea to make the shooters feel uncomfortable IMO other that focusing on a particular type of gun used in a small % of alll gun deaths.

BTW what is a "Weapon of war"? the Ar 15 to the best of my knowledge is not used by any military in the world and while it was derived from a military weapon it lacks the things military looks for , namely full auto, a flash suppressor and a bayonet stud. What if it was military weapon? The 03 Springfield was military now it is primarily a parade piece even though it is more accurate than most rifles. The British Brown Bess was a military weapon while the colonists used hunting rifles, were better marksmen, the Brits could load faster but rellied on mass folly to hi a formation.

It is the shooter, not the gun we need to work on and while the gun grabbers use Australia and Scotland as examples the number of guns they confiscated was small, in the U/s the estimate is 400MILLION guns. The gun is going away and sadly the shooters aren't either as we did not prosecute gun crimes, just ask Hunter

-
-
Sure, ya'll can feel free to ask me well reasoned questions.  Please try to use proper punctuation and phrasing so I can understand what you are asking. 

What you are saying, Bob, is the difference between a weapon of war and a gun that is not, is the lack a flash suppressor, which can be added to the AR-15, ( https://ar15discounts.com/collections/muzzle-devices/  ) and a bayonet stud, which can be added to the AR-15 ( https://www.apgdefense.com/product-page … g-extender ).  And of course, the full auto capability that can be mimicked with a bump stock.  There are also auto-sears.    ( https://www.recoilweb.com/turning-your- … 50631.html ).

BTW, the military versions have a selector switch.  If you are carrying all the ammo you have available on your person, and you are off base where you can't be resupplied, you are a damn fool to be using your weapon on full automatic unless you are going to die and your dead comrades all around you have more ammo that you can steal off their bodies.  Using full auto makes the enemy take cover or hinders an advance.  Better have lots of ammo because they are often going to advance.

If a firearm is not legal for hunting, is it a hunting rifle?  The calibers of hunting rifles that are closely associated with the standard caliber of the AR-15 are usually used for varmint hunting.  Groundhogs (aka: woodchucks. whistle pigs, ground beavers) and coyotes.  Animals that are shot at long distances are often, but not always, left to rot where they fall.  Varmint rifles are usually set up with a high powered scope because the shots are often taken from hilltop to an opposite hillside.  They could be sniper rifles.  But, as oft said, the caliber of an AR-15 is not legal, in Pennsylvania, for deer or bear.  As a hunting firearm, the AR-15 is very limited.  When I was a kid, I often shot groundhogs with my dad's .22 long rifle because that is what I had.  If a 100 yard shot was presented, it was rare, and the iron peep sights were sufficient.  To take a 200 yard shot would have been difficult because the forward site would have covered more than the entire animal, where a head shot is needed with a .22.  Who would want to wound one?  The varmint rifles, though the caliber was small at .222 or .223, were high powered rifles that could traverse the distance and have explosive force upon impact, literally tearing the animal apart.  That may have been effective and it was a challenge for someone that liked to do long range shooting, but my woodchucks became stew.  What those rifles did wasn't useful for me.

Many firearms over the years were both weapons of war and hunting rifles.  There was little difference in the applications of the use except for the fact that in war, people were shooting back.  After wars, some rifles were in surplus and they became hunting rifles.  That option started to disappear when the weapons of war became semi-automatic.  Had semi automatics been permitted for hunting, more infantry weapons may have become hunting rifles, but there is a limit to the functionality- just as a grenade launcher or mortars are not appropriate for hunting.

As previously stated, some people want to justify an AR-15 as somehow being not a weapon of war because of the minor differences, like Bob mentioned above, or because no country uses it, even though the military version isn't that different.  The arguments are logical fallacies.  They are bullshit, as explained up the page more than once.  Notice how no new arguments have been present as to why the AR-15 type of firearm is not a weapon of war?  It just isn't to them.  (It is easier than having a conscience, I guess.)

The practical application is that mass shooters chose the assault rifle look a likes and those people are at war.  They are committing what would be war crimes.  They are planning and executing attacks against unarmed, helpless civilian populations.  They are going on suicide missions.  Why would they use an assault rifle look a like when a 9 mm semi auto handgun is really a better choice for shooting up schoolchildren or shoppers?  It is easier to carry and conceal two handguns than two rifles.  The mags are lighter and a person could carry a lot more ammo.  But the mass shooters chose assault rifles mimics to shoot up schoolchildren or shoppers!. Why, Bob?

We can look at every firearm the world has ever known that had a duel use in war and use on the homestead and not one of them is going to match the destructive power of the assault rifle types, which were designed for close combat- civilian version or not.

What Bob has done in this most recent post is to join the bandwagon of people calling for outlawing all guns.  He is right.  Why go after a type of firearm that is used in a small number of killings?  Obviously, there must be a predetermined percentage of killings that are required before a gun becomes a public nuisance.  Though they keep that percentage secret so we never obtain that level.  Or, we can look at the numbers differently.  Maybe, something like the percentage of children that are killed in mass shootings by a particular firearm type?  Does that work for you?

Bob likes to talk about crime and people getting away with it.  Today, it is gun violence that isn't being prosecuted.  Perhaps in a future post he would come back with some data that indicates how many violent crimes that are committed with guns are not prosecuted when the police and prosecutors have enough evidence to charge and attempt to convict someone?  But he won't come back with any data.  First off, because it is Bob and he isn't writing term papers so he doesn't have to develop rational arguments or support his contentions with facts.  Second, because it is a bullshit claim.  Lots of crimes are committed, of all types, where no one is tried because the authorities have not identified a suspect or found the evidence that is required.  It isn't because the crimes are being ignored, like the Republicans are demanding trump's crimes be ignored.  (An interesting conflict in ideals, isn't it?)  I remember Bob insisting that the police didn't have any discretion when the park police arrested Springsteen for DUI, but now he seems to imply that discretion is the reason that murderers aren't prosecuted.   (I hope I addressed your last sentence there, Bob.  It is hard to tell since it is a nebulous sentence that is almost incoherent.)

Another interesting thing is that Bob wants to make the criminals feel uncomfortable.  He has reminded us that criminals will be criminals.  I am sure many of them read these threads and are taking the words to heart.  But somehow, it seems that other people that are involved should not be held accountable.  Like the corporations that make millions manufacturing guns, and have used unethical marketing techniques- unethical enough to result in a 73 million dollar judgement against Remington.  No, we shouldn't make those people uncomfortable at all.  We can make the shooters uncomfortable by shooting them on the scene or applying due process, something the right really hates when criminals get constitutional protections, and then locking them up.  But, the problem with that is that they have already hurt other people. 

There is nothing we can do before criminals hurt other people?  Before the angry young man becomes a mass murderer?  To the rightists, no we can't.  To people that value people over firearms, yes we can.  We can't make weapons difficult to get for people that shouldn't have them?  We can't provide services for people that need them to help them cope?  But that shit takes money and the right doesn't want to pay the taxes to make the world safer.  They just want to be able to pretend that they are safe because they are armed, even though they aren't safe- four fifths (4/5ths) of murders are committed by someone the victim knows, which makes self defense plans untenable.   Ya'll hide your head in the sand regarding that problem some more!

The number one killer of youths, under age 21, in the US, is gun violence.  But what matters , to the rightist, is the percentage of kids who are killed by a class of firearms more than the totals.  With that kind of logic, why are there any Republicans in office?  Vote for Republicans because they love their guns more than their kids?


https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/p … d-nations/
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/ … 18-508.pdf

Adventure Photos wrote:
NO,,,you misread somewhere.  The gun lovers who want to arm everybody are NOT MY PEOPLE. Shame on you for that imlication  I'm saying I'm a gun owner .legally LONG before these issued began.  I read and stay informed via NRA publications but not in support of their chaos and wild claims.   NEVER said only way to defend is with an AR....once again you seem to want to put me in the gun-nut group   So can I safely guess or imply that you are a gun hater , or a 'crazy liberal'  as the gun lobby would charge?    I want serious bills proposed for solutions,, not just one sided ones.  Criminals are law breakers. Why would they comply with registering their guns?  The law abiding gun owners would be the ones who are victims IF every wild gun hater got their wish to remove ALL guns. That's when I'm saying the law abiding citizen is then left defenseless against criminals.    Sorry you wish to twist the words, my intent, my sincere hope to solve the issues without taking away all the 2nd amendment rights.  You have your right to hate guns, and think all gun owners are fools.    Sad you didn't grow up with the chance to learn respect, lessons and exposure to that part of our history, or chose to not want that as part of your life.
         I had my old rifle, never thought of buyng another gun until I was under attack, with drive by shootings intended for me, because I was a teacher with rules and expectations.  Gang kids dont' get disciplined in school (guess why, uh,)  So I armed myself in defense at my home back in the mid 80's.  Learned and gained knowledge of weapons use and such.  No encounters for years , but times are changing rapidly.    No more false statements will be responded to.  I've made my sincere point, and didnt' come to this discussion to have my words and intent all changes.    Done. Enjoy saying anything you wish about the subject from here on.

Your indignation is misplaced.

For the record, I own three semi-auto handguns; two .45 cal and one 9mm. I have taken training from an LAPD SWAT instructor, and others. I absolutely support the right of citizens to own firearms for self-defense, and for reasonable regulation of that right, LIKE EVERY OTHER RIGHT. The First Amendment guarantees free speech - can you libel/slander without penalty? No, you cannot.

AND, I accept that on MY SIDE OF THE ISSUE, there are those who would indeed confiscate all guns, and make it difficult to qualify for gun ownership. I understand, as you should, that there is a spectrum on each side from extreme to moderate. Your side includes extremists, as does mine. You have to own that.

You also mistakenly equate banning the sale of AR-15 style weapons, which is on the table, with banning all weapons, which is NOT. When you use the most extreme position of some with the general proposition to ban a specific weapon, YOU are being disingenuous when you state, "A 'no gun' society is what they call for, but who will stop the rogue nut case?... Only the honest registered gun owner will be punished, and will be left as the next victim if not able to defend family and self."

"They" are not coming for your guns.

Do you understand sawed-off shotguns have been severely restricted for years? Have you felt particularly defenseless and vulnerable because of that? HAVE YOU?

Finally, I have to ask, "Just what is it about a GUN, that you insist on having the right to choose whatever weapon you want to own, regardless of its danger to the general welfare?"

Now excuse me while I drive to the supermarket in my vintage Sherman tank.