Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School

[Arturo Bandini]

Women used to have rights on their own body and it sounds that it might change and some of you think it is deserved so why not for weapons ?

[CKwi88]

(05-31-2022, 05:25 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Women used to have rights on their own body and it sounds that it might change and some of you think it is deserved so why not for weapons ?

Because it was a poor interpretation of a constitutional amendment.

Oh.....wait.

Because it's killing children.

Oh.....wait.

Whelp.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2022, 05:25 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Women used to have rights on their own body and it sounds that it might change and some of you think it is deserved so why not for weapons ?

There's literally a whole thread on the subject here, which you need only read to get the answer to this.  Very short summation, abortion is obviously not listed in Constitution nor in any amendment.  It was adjudged a right under the 14th amendment's right to privacy, which was, for many, a rather large stretch, by SCOTUS.  Weapons, as you say, or "arms" (which is the weapon and ammunition and basically anything needed for said weapon to function properly) is absolutely and specifically listed in the 2nd amendment.  In fact the entire amendment is specifically about said "arms."  Does that clear up the enormous difference, constitutionally, between the two?

[grampahol]

I've said it before, but..As it stands right now YOU have more rights to buy as many guns as you want..weapons of war, not JUST to defend your home from intruders, but to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time than your own children do to safely attend grade school.. 
Your rights are privileges..period and can be revoked at any time the government wants.. None of it is permanent intended to be forever and ever..  Remember, laws can be changed and the constitution can be too.. Amendments are additions to and have been altered many times in the past..
It should be said you DON'T have the right to kill as many people as possible, but in effect that's exactly what happens in these circumstances..

[CKwi88]

(05-31-2022, 11:47 AM)grampahol Wrote: I've said it before, but..As it stands right now YOU have more rights to buy as many guns as you want..weapons of war, not JUST to defend your home from intruders, but to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time than your own children do to safely attend grade school.. 
Your rights are privileges..period and can be revoked at any time the government wants.. None of it is permanent intended to be forever and ever..  Remember, laws can be changed and the constitution can be too.. Amendments are additions to and have been altered many times in the past..
It should be said you DON'T have the right to kill as many people as possible, but in effect that's exactly what happens in these circumstances..

I mean, the constitution doesn't absolutely and specifically state that children have the right to attend school without fearing being mowed down by a nut with a gun so......Guns 1 Kids 0 I guess.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2022, 11:47 AM)grampahol Wrote: I've said it before, but..As it stands right now YOU have more rights to buy as many guns as you want..weapons of war, not JUST to defend your home from intruders, but to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time than your own children do to safely attend grade school.. 
Your rights are privileges..period and can be revoked at any time the government wants.. None of it is permanent intended to be forever and ever..  Remember, laws can be changed and the constitution can be too.. Amendments are additions to and have been altered many times in the past..
It should be said you DON'T have the right to kill as many people as possible, but in effect that's exactly what happens in these circumstances..

The underlined is so wrong, and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution, that your opinion on this subject holds no weight whatsoever.  Seriously, educate yourself before spouting off such drivel.

[Mickeypoo]

(05-25-2022, 09:47 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: isnt there a full gun ban in Chicago?  they have shootings every weekend    the point still remains gun bans only stop law abiding citizens

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-weekend-shootings-at-least-48-shot-8-fatally-in-memorial-day-weekend-gun-violence/2845854/

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2022, 11:47 AM)grampahol Wrote: I've said it before, but..As it stands right now YOU have more rights to buy as many guns as you want..weapons of war, not JUST to defend your home from intruders, but to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time than your own children do to safely attend grade school.. 
Your rights are privileges..period and can be revoked at any time the government wants.. None of it is permanent intended to be forever and ever..  Remember, laws can be changed and the constitution can be too.. Amendments are additions to and have been altered many times in the past..
It should be said you DON'T have the right to kill as many people as possible, but in effect that's exactly what happens in these circumstances..

That is a very undemocratic position you have there.

[KillerGoose]

Somewhat on topic, but there was just an active shooter situation near where I live. A medical clinic here in Tulsa, Oklahoma was just shot up about an hour ago. Below is a link to the news article.

https://ktul.com/amp/news/local/tpd-responds-to-active-shooter-at-warren-clinic

[Vas Deferens]

(06-01-2022, 08:23 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Somewhat on topic, but there was just an active shooter situation near where I live. A medical clinic here in Tulsa, Oklahoma was just shot up about an hour ago. Below is a link to the news article.

https://ktul.com/amp/news/local/tpd-responds-to-active-shooter-at-warren-clinic

Mental health. Jesus. Etc.

[Arturo Bandini]

This is not going to stop anytime soon. Unfortunately.
233th time this year.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

We had an assault weapons ban before in the late 90's. Supreme court also ruled it constitutional. Guess what else Mass shootings went way down. Once again Republicans and some Democrats are putting gun lobbying money before people's safety.

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2022, 11:37 AM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: We had an assault weapons ban before in the late 90's. Supreme court also ruled it constitutional. Guess what else Mass shootings went way down. Once again Republicans and some Democrats are putting gun lobbying money before people's safety.

Show me the evidence to support your claim.

[KillerGoose]

Quote:Show me the evidence to support your claim.

Sorry for not quoting you directly, I received a 500 error when I tried to do so. Here is a link from statista.com for data on mass shootings going back to 1982.

I don't see evidence of mass shootings decreasing as they were already very rare in the 1980s. The 1990's saw an increase of 175% in mass shootings in comparison to the 80's. Mass shootings really spiked beginning in 2012. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The Department of Justice has acknowledged that the "assault weapons ban" had zero discernable effect on the number of shootings.  This should surprise no one who actually knows anything about this topic as rifles of any kind account for low triple digit deaths every year, a miniscule fraction of homicides are committed with any kind of rifle.  In fact, far more people are killed with fists, knives or blunt objects every year than with a rifle of any kind.  An "assault weapons ban" besides having zero effect on gun related crime, is a ban based purely on cosmetic features that have nothing to do with the firearm's lethality.  It's a feel good sop to those ignorant enough to believe they actually achieved something.  If you doubt the above claim simply google "uniform crime report homicide by weapon type" and use literally any year to discern the truth of the statement.

It's very telling that one extremely obvious way to limit shootings hasn't even been discussed in this thread, actually enforce laws on the books.  The Parkland guy, the Buffalo shooter and the current scumbag should all have been prohibited persons based on their past actions.  That is, if everyone involved had actually done their job properly.  You want a great example of how the current left doesn't really care about this issue look no further than California.  Just this week the state legislature passed a bill that would allow schools to choose not to report violent threats from students.

https://www.sandiegonewsdesk.com/2022/05/new-ca-bill-would-no-longer-require-schools-to-report-bad-student-behavior-to-police/

This bill would take the mandatory requirement for schools to report any violent threat to the law enforcement away from schools; meaning schools don’t have to report these violent threats to law authorities.

This is "ostensibly" to reduce the bullshit talking point of the "school to prison pipeline."  I can tell you first hand that teachers and other school staff are often instructed not to file criminal charges against minority students because of "systemic racism."  I can also tell you first hand that many schools impose far lighter punishments, if any, on "minority" students.  Now CA wants to make it even easier for a potentially violent teenager to engage in threatening behavior with zero consequences.  Not only does this enable further, more serious behavior, it prevents the person in question from entering the system as a "prohibited person" who is not legally able to purchase firearms.  As usual, what the far left says they want and what they actually do are very different things.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

Those that wanted proof to earlier post.


https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/06/01/fact-check-did-mass-shootings-triple-after-assault-weapon-ban-ended/9941501002/

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2022, 01:55 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: Those that wanted proof to earlier post.


https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/06/01/fact-check-did-mass-shootings-triple-after-assault-weapon-ban-ended/9941501002/

I don't even need to click on the link to tell you that your link does not support your claim.

(06-02-2022, 11:37 AM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: We had an assault weapons ban before in the late 90's. Supreme court also ruled it constitutional. Guess what else Mass shootings went way down. Once again Republicans and some Democrats are putting gun lobbying money before people's safety.

A rise in mass shootings post the lapse of the AWB is not the same thing as a decrease in them following the implementation of the ban. I know the data. I've researched this topic and written white papers on it. There was no decrease in mass shootings following the AWB in 1994. There was a rise following the lapse of the ban. However, this correlation is not at all clear evidence of a causal link. In fact, the lack of a decrease following the passage of the ban is evidence that the end of the AWB is an extraneous variable when looking at the rise in mass shootings.

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2022, 01:09 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Sorry for not quoting you directly, I received a 500 error when I tried to do so. Here is a link from statista.com for data on mass shootings going back to 1982.

I don't see evidence of mass shootings decreasing as they were already very rare in the 1980s. The 1990's saw an increase of 175% in mass shootings in comparison to the 80's. Mass shootings really spiked beginning in 2012. 

I'm aware. I was just curious if there was something the person I was requesting evidence from had that I hadn't seen. I usually like to give people enough rope to hang themselves, first.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

The article you said you didnt need to read mass shootings nearly tripled and you don't see the cause and effect. Your conveniently ignoring argument to support your own agenda.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

As far as Illinois yes they still have mass shootings. Just because 1 state has the ban it doesn't stop someone in another state where their still perfectly legal to purchase and go back to the state in question and perform a mass shooting. we need a 50 state solution state gun laws are pointless without a national law federally.