Mass shootings

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2018, 09:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: It doesn't matter.  What I posted will be the narrative.

Sane people like you (maybe even me) realize you can't stop every crime or every shooting...but there can be no discussion at all about any shootings on a national level because of the loud mouths with their own agendas.

Well it seems almost cliche now since so many people say it, but it comes down to mental health.  But I have no way of figuring out how that can be assessed.  Really it's family and friends.  It's not going to stop everyone.  Dylan Roof was insane by our standards, but looking at that family, nobody there would think he was.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2018, 09:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: It doesn't matter.  What I posted will be the narrative.

Sane people like you (maybe even me) realize you can't stop every crime or every shooting...but there can be no discussion at all about any shootings on a national level because of the loud mouths with their own agendas.

We've tried to have it, we just don't agree on what should be done, if anything.  The indisputable facts are that violent crime has been decreasing for twenty-five years while at the same time gun ownership has exploded.  There were well over 2,000,000 NICS checks conducted in March of 2018 alone.  As for the current shooter, it's become readily apparent she was a mentally unstable political extremist.  But we didn't expect someone who would come to their place of work and shoot people to be rational actors did we?

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2018, 09:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  If she bought it in a gun shop, they did a background check.  If she bought it illegally there's obviously already a law against that.  Hence the term.

You do realize that there is a third option where a person can legally buy a gun with no background check at all, right?

That is by far the biggest hole we have in gun regulations right now.  Since there is no licensing requirement every convicted felon and psychopath can buy a gun with no background check at all.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2018, 04:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You do realize that there is a third option where a person can legally buy a gun with no background check at all, right?

That is by far the biggest hole we have in gun regulations right now.  Since there is no licensing requirement every convicted felon and psychopath can buy a gun with no background check at all.

Yes I’m aware. That’s why I specifically said gun shop and didn’t say those were the only ways.

[*bfine32*]

Quick question:

Can anyone tell me the last mass shooting that took place on a gun range.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2018, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick question:

Can anyone tell me the last mass shooting that took place on a gun range.

Better question: Why would it matter?

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2018, 10:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Better question: Why would it matter?

Although you did not extend me the courtesy of answering my question; I'll answer yours.

It was to illustrate that most mass shootings take place in gun free zones. 

[GMDino]

(04-05-2018, 11:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Although you did not extend me the courtesy of answering my question; I'll answer yours.

It was to illustrate that most mass shootings take place in gun free zones. 

Most mass shootings take lace where there are guns....thus the "shooting" part of it.

More to the "fine" point: There have also been murders and suicides at gun ranges.  More guns does not necessarily equal less violence.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 09:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: Most mass shootings take lace where there are guns....thus the "shooting" part of it.

More to the "fine" point: There have also been murders and suicides at gun ranges.  More guns does not necessarily equal less violence.

So does that mean you cannot tell me the last time there was a mass shooting at a gun range? 

[GMDino]

(04-06-2018, 06:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So does that mean you cannot tell me the last time there was a mass shooting at a gun range? 

I could...and I bet you already know.  And I bet you know it's a red herring. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 09:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: I could...and I bet you already know.  And I bet you know it's a red herring. 

So you can but you wont because it distracts from the point of mass shootings? 

[GMDino]

(04-06-2018, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you can but you wont because it distracts from the point of mass shootings? 

Red herrings DO tend to distract from actual points and conversations.  

[fredtoast]

(04-06-2018, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you can but you wont because it distracts from the point of mass shootings? 

The better question is why you refuse to say anything yourself?

Every time you want to make a point you ask a question instead of making the point.

Why is that?  It is like you are more interested in playing games than making an actual point.

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2018, 10:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  The indisputable facts are that violent crime has been decreasing for twenty-five years while at the same time gun ownership has exploded. 

For those that want to truth instead of NRA propaganda the percentage of people that own guns has actually been about the same in the United States over that 25 year period.  The percentage of housholds that own a gun is actually lower now (42%) than it was in 1990 (47%).  https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

The only reason gun ownership has "exploded" is that the gun owners are buying a lot more guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2018, 11:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: For those that want to truth instead of NRA propaganda the percentage of people that own guns has actually been about the same in the United States over that 25 year period.  The percentage of housholds that own a gun is actually lower now (42%) than it was in 1990 (47%).  https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

The only reason gun ownership has "exploded" is that the gun owners are buying a lot more guns.

So, you responded to a post in which I correctly pointed out that private gun ownership has exploded while violent crime has gone down by saying I was correct.  Well done, Fred. Glad you're here.

[fredtoast]

(04-09-2018, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, you responded to a post in which I correctly pointed out that private gun ownership has exploded while violent crime has gone down by saying I was correct.  Well done, Fred. Glad you're here.

No.  I was pointing out that the number of gun owners has not "exploded".  When most people talk about gun ownership as a deterrent to crime they are talking about the number of people who own guns.  

I don't think anyone has ever argued that the crime rate would drop if people who already own guns bought more.  Instead they always talk about more people owning guns.

Yet you tried to directly link the crime rate to the fact that gun owners are buying more guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2018, 11:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I was pointing out that the number of gun owners has not "exploded".  When most people talk about gun ownership as a deterrent to crime they are talking about the number of people who own guns.

I said gun ownership had exploded, which it has.  The rest is your inference. 

Quote:I don't think anyone has ever argued that the crime rate would drop if people who already own guns bought more.  Instead they always talk about more people owning guns.

I was pointing out a fact.  If you want to respond to a post that claims more individuals owning guns will decrease the crime rate then I'd suggest you wait until someone makes one.

Quote:Yet you tried to directly link the crime rate to the fact that gun owners are buying more guns.

No, I pointed out an undeniable fact.  The number of guns in private hands has exploded while the crime rate decreased.  What one could logically infer from this is that the vast majority of gun owners are exceptionally law abiding citizens.  Makes regulating them and restricting them more seem a bit pointless and foolish doesn't it?  Seems to me unlawful gun owners, i.e. criminals, should be our focus. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2018, 12:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I pointed out an undeniable fact.  The number of guns in private hands has exploded while the crime rate decreased.  What one could logically infer from this is that the vast majority of gun owners are exceptionally law abiding citizens.  Makes regulating them and restricting them more seem a bit pointless and foolish doesn't it?  Seems to me unlawful gun owners, i.e. criminals, should be our focus. 

But wouldn't that be the focus if we were to focus on universal/expanded background checks and other such measures? I know you're thinking about the slippery slope that you like to rant about, and that's fine, you do you. But over here where we don't have quite the saturation of ideological nut jobs, we focus more on policies like what I mention. Waiting periods and expanded background checks are talked about more than anything else (except for maybe AWBs). Combine that with actually enforcing the laws already on the books and then we could be in business.

Now, I can't imagine why things like that can't be passed...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2018, 01:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But wouldn't that be the focus if we were to focus on universal/expanded background checks and other such measures? I know you're thinking about the slippery slope that you like to rant about, and that's fine, you do you.

The term rant is a rather loaded word.  I've merely pointed out what I've seen with my own eyes and explained why 2A proponents are leery of the intentions behind proposed legislation.

Quote: But over here where we don't have quite the saturation of ideological nut jobs, we focus more on policies like what I mention. Waiting periods and expanded background checks are talked about more than anything else (except for maybe AWBs). Combine that with actually enforcing the laws already on the books and then we could be in business.

I don't have a problem with waiting periods, although it makes zero sense for someone who owns multiple firearms to have to wait for another one.  I'd like to buy a nice over under within the next few months (Benelli 828U), it doesn't really make any sense that I need to wait ten days to pick it up after purchase.  I don't have a problem with expanded background checks.  I'd almost certainly have major problems with any "assault weapons" ban, based on the facts that rifles account for a miniscule percentage of firearm related homicides, much less rifles with "assault" features.  Why is a mini-14 kosher but an AR15 is a "weapon of war"?  

Quote:Now, I can't imagine why things like that can't be passed...

I get what you're saying here, Matt.  Can you acknowledge that firearms laws in extreme states such as CA and NJ have made a national debate on this subject far more problematic by illustrating just how far the Democrats are willing to go on this subject when given the political power to act?

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2018, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The term rant is a rather loaded word.  I've merely pointed out what I've seen with my own eyes and explained why 2A proponents are leery of the intentions behind proposed legislation.

It may be a loaded term to use. In all sincerity, though, I don't think it was misused based on some of the posts on the subject. Just my personal perspective on the conversations. Take from that what you will.

(04-09-2018, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't have a problem with waiting periods, although it makes zero sense for someone who owns multiple firearms to have to wait for another one.  I'd like to buy a nice over under within the next few months (Benelli 828U), it doesn't really make any sense that I need to wait ten days to pick it up after purchase.  I don't have a problem with expanded background checks.  I'd almost certainly have major problems with any "assault weapons" ban, based on the facts that rifles account for a miniscule percentage of firearm related homicides, much less rifles with "assault" features.  Why is a mini-14 kosher but an AR15 is a "weapon of war"?  

I prefer a situation where waiting periods are sort of built in. For instance, a permit-to-purchase set up would require action prior to purchasing a firearm. You would eliminate the potential for someone, first time purchaser or not, so just walk into a store and purchase a firearm on the spot without prior planning. It's not a perfect solution, but if this were a system funded by grants so that localities could issue permits to purchase (like they do a concealed carry permit in many places, now), there would be a background check built in. Seller contacts issuing jurisdiction to verify the permit is still valid, voila. Since the issuer is usually a court, then they would have the record of any crime to revoke the permit.

Anyway, this is all getting into the weeds on that subject a bit. Suffice it to say I have a policy plan that I think would work great.

As for the AWB, I agree the idea is stupid. I don't care about it too much because I have zero need for a semi-automatic firearm of any sort, let alone something like what would be banned in such a legislation. But I do have an issue with the seemingly arbitrary determining factors in such a legislation.Policy should make sense, and I haven't seen an AWB that does.

(04-09-2018, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get what you're saying here, Matt.  Can you acknowledge that firearms laws in extreme states such as CA and NJ have made a national debate on this subject far more problematic by illustrating just how far the Democrats are willing to go on this subject when given the political power to act?

Oh, extremists on this issue like those in CA and NJ are doing a shit job and do make it harder to have the debate. Extremists on the other side make it equally as difficult. There is a lot of distortion of facts on both sides of this debate, manipulation of data in an effort to score points.