More mass shootings

[billvon 2,464]

>Yes.
>Yes.

I guess we have different values, then.

[normiss 639]

Start with enforcing penalties for existing laws to prosecute irresponsible gun owners, new restrictions to prevent access to rapid fire military type weapons and accessories that enable semi-autos a similar function , universal background checks on ALL transfers of weapons.
We'd probably be wise to include some increased security measures at all public functions, making us ALL sacrifice more for the support of the second.
All because dead people. I'm sure they would gladly trade their sacrifice for ours.

[nolhtairt 0]

normiss

Start with enforcing penalties for existing laws to prosecute irresponsible gun owners, new restrictions to prevent access to rapid fire military type weapons and accessories that enable semi-autos a similar function , universal background checks on ALL transfers of weapons.
We'd probably be wise to include some increased security measures at all public functions, making us ALL sacrifice more for the support of the second.
All because dead people. I'm sure they would gladly trade their sacrifice for ours.

How about forcing gun stores and pawn shops to better secure their firearms for sale? There was just another break-in via vehicle into a gun store with dozens of weapons stolen.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Start with enforcing penalties for existing laws to prosecute irresponsible gun owners, new restrictions to prevent access to rapid fire military type weapons and accessories that enable semi-autos a similar function , universal background checks on ALL transfers of weapons.
We'd probably be wise to include some increased security measures at all public functions, making us ALL sacrifice more for the support of the second.
All because dead people. I'm sure they would gladly trade their sacrifice for ours.

A reasonable list. I'm not sure what you mean, specifically; "rapid fire military type weapons".

The problem is that list will do nothing towards your goal of "ZERO public mass murders".

Derek V

[normiss 639]

OK cool, let's just do nothing and hope it isn't us killed for nothing.
Film of next mass murder at 11!

A reduction towards a goal is a win, more so for the lives saved, which might be yours, your wife's, your kids, your mom....

Rapid fire military type weapon? We could start with the AR platform, since that's what it was designed to be.

[millertime24 8]

normiss

OK cool, let's just do nothing and hope it isn't us killed for nothing.
Film of next mass murder at 11!

A reduction towards a goal is a win, more so for the lives saved, which might be yours, your wife's, your kids, your mom....

Rapid fire military type weapon? We could start with the AR platform, since that's what it was designed to be.

And where would "we" stop.

Muff #5048

[billvon 2,464]

>And where would "we" stop.

Easy. Whenever the number of killings goes down. Say by 20%, which would be a good goal.

In other words, once we get to the sort of gun death rate that Costa Rica has.

[millertime24 8]

billvon

>And where would "we" stop.

Easy. Whenever the number of killings goes down. Say by 20%, which would be a good goal.

In other words, once we get to the sort of gun death rate that Costa Rica has.

Why 20%? How did you arrive to that number being "good deal"? Some would say unless the rate of firearm death is zero then enough isn't being done. And how do you fix the firearm suicide issue? There have been 21,386 suicides by firearms according to (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).

Muff #5048

[yoink 321]

millertime24

And how do you fix the firearm suicide issue? There have been 21,386 suicides by firearms according to (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).

You don't need to fix everything all at once... You don't even need to 'fix' (meaning zero out) anything at once - it's OK to make incremental improvements.
Is your stance that unless we can remove ALL gun deaths in the country then we shouldn't do anything at all? Because that's what makes people go 'well, banning every gun ever' is the only solution.


The suggestion I had on remotely locked weapons would almost entirely cut out the public mass-shootings and a whole bunch of criminal shootings, but wouldn't do anything about domestic murder or suicide -
and I'd be absolutely fine with that. That's my cut-off point.
You'd have your right to shoot yourself at home if you chose, with whatever piece of your arsenal you want, and the domestic murders are a price I'm willing to sacrifice to meet gun rights people halfway in order to stop the mass-killings and cut down on criminal activity.

...But you heard HooknSwoop - his desire to be able to shoot guns whenever and wherever he wants is more important that the almost certain reduction in those types of deaths.

[millertime24 8]

yoink

*** And how do you fix the firearm suicide issue? There have been 21,386 suicides by firearms according to (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).

You don't need to fix everything all at once... You don't even need to 'fix' (meaning zero out) anything at once - it's OK to make incremental improvements.
Is your stance that unless we can remove ALL gun deaths in the country then we shouldn't do anything at all? Because that's what makes people go 'well, banning every gun ever' is the only solution.


The suggestion I had on remotely locked weapons would almost entirely cut out the public mass-shootings and a whole bunch of criminal shootings, but wouldn't do anything about domestic murder or suicide -
and I'd be absolutely fine with that. That's my cut-off point.
You'd have your right to shoot yourself at home if you chose, with whatever piece of your arsenal you want, and the domestic murders are a price I'm willing to sacrifice to meet gun rights people halfway in order to stop the mass-killings and cut down on criminal activity.

...But you heard HooknSwoop - his desire to be able to shoot guns whenever and wherever he wants is more important that the almost certain reduction in those types of deaths.

I feel the same as him. In fact, I think there should be less regulations on firearms. IMO, lawful gun owners have come way more than half way already.

Muff #5048

[kallend 1,672]

Hooknswoop

Quote

So what WOULD constitute a problem for you?

What WOULDN'T constitute a problem for you?

Derek V

A gun homicide rate in line with that in other wealthy, developed democracies, and a child accidental shooting rate also in line with that in other wealthy, developed democracies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,672]

Hooknswoop

Quote

>So much of the anti-gun discussion is driven by emotion.

Yep. Why can't they be more objective, like the pro-gun people, who just want liberals to keep their GUN-GRABBING HANDS OFF MY PRECIOUS GUNS?

I worded that poorly. I wasn't calling anti-gun people emotional. I meant the entire discussion, both sides.

Derek V

It's pretty clear that you have a strong emotional attachment to your guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,464]

>Why 20%?

Because it is a significant reduction; at those numbers (30K a year) well above statistical noise.

[riggerrob 561]

Dear Kallend,
You missed the point.
Laws discourage criminals on the edge of society from committing crimes. Laws also discourage the middle class from committing criminal acts.
When economies slow down, honest workers get idled and some turn to crime to make a living. The bottom edge is vaguely defined, chaw going as often as the weather.
Meanwhile, the top edge of society includes people so ambitious that they will do ANYTHING to turn a profit. Fear of sharing a prison cell with a common criminal is the only thing that keeps the overly-ambitious on the legal side of regulations. Odd how 3 hots and a cot and all the sex they could ever want is not enough to satisfy overly-aminitious billionares??????????
Written regulations will never discourage all criminals, but if a law reduces crime rates, then the law has served its purpose.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I ask you your goal;

"I'd be good with ZERO public mass murders, ZERO bump fire stocks permitted, and ZERO public access to full auto weapons. "

I ask how to get there;

"Start with enforcing penalties for existing laws to prosecute irresponsible gun owners, new restrictions to prevent access to rapid fire military type weapons and accessories that enable semi-autos a similar function , universal background checks on ALL transfers of weapons.
We'd probably be wise to include some increased security measures at all public functions, making us ALL sacrifice more for the support of the second.
All because dead people. I'm sure they would gladly trade their sacrifice for ours. "

I tell you that your solution will not work. Your reply?;

"OK cool, let's just do nothing and hope it isn't us killed for nothing.
Film of next mass murder at 11! "

Come up with a solution that will;

A- Work.
B- Not infringe on my rights.

And we will talk.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

But you heard HooknSwoop - his desire to be able to shoot guns whenever and wherever he wants is more important that the almost certain reduction in those types of deaths.

I don't think you have characterized what I wrote accurately at all.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

A gun homicide rate in line with that in other wealthy, developed democracies, and a child accidental shooting rate also in line with that in other wealthy, developed democracies.

OK. We have a different goal (normiss's goal was "I'd be good with ZERO public mass murders, ZERO bump fire stocks permitted, and ZERO public access to full auto weapons."). How do you suggest we get there? Please be specific.

Derek V

[wolfriverjoe 1,366]

normiss

Start with enforcing penalties for existing laws to prosecute irresponsible gun owners, new restrictions to prevent access to rapid fire military type weapons and accessories that enable semi-autos a similar function , universal background checks on ALL transfers of weapons.
We'd probably be wise to include some increased security measures at all public functions, making us ALL sacrifice more for the support of the second.
All because dead people. I'm sure they would gladly trade their sacrifice for ours.

Well, first off, full auto is already heavily restricted.

Banning "bump fire" stocks is likely to happen, yet they've been around for a while. How come this was the first use in a mass shooting? Will banning them do much? How about the "Hell Fire" spring thingy that goes behind the trigger? It doesn't work anywhere near as well as a bump fire stock, but it works ok (with a lot of practice). How about rubber bands? Wrap several around the magazine well and the trigger and you get the same effect. How about simply holding the gun and the trigger in a manner that does the same thing (recoil of the gun moves it back to reset the trigger, pushing the gun forward pulls the trigger). I knew a young guy who could fire an M1 carbine like that. It was the best simulated full auto I've ever seen done that way. No bump fire stock, no rubber band, no nothing. Just technique.

What would "universal background checks" accomplish? EVERY recent major shooting event used weapons purchased through a dealer, with a check. The only shooter who didn't go through a check was Lanza (Sandy Hook). He murdered his mom and took the guns. He would have, however, passed a check if he had been willing to wait.

You seem to want to "do something, do anything" to feel safer.

The idea of more security at major events is perhaps the most laughable. In the most recent shooting, the shooter wasn't at the event. He was in a hotel room a half a block away. Should we search every hotel, apartment, any room with a window that overlooks a "public function'?

We've had "security theatre" at airports for over 15 years. It's a fucking joke.

"Take off your shoes and let the nice man feel you up". Yet every time there's a test of how good the security really is, the testers have very little difficulty in getting all sorts of stuff through.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bob_Church 7]

There's been one law so far that seemed to really make a difference about gun crime. Stop and Frisk.

[billvon 2,464]

>There's been one law so far that seemed to really make a difference about gun crime.
>Stop and Frisk.

So let's try that. For _everyone._

[gowlerk 1,952]

Quote

We've had "security theatre" at airports for over 15 years. It's a fucking joke.

"Take off your shoes and let the nice man feel you up". Yet every time there's a test of how good the security really is, the testers have very little difficulty in getting all sorts of stuff through.

I keep hearing this. Yet It's been decades since I've heard about a pistol waving hijacker on a western airliner. Deterrence seems to work just fine.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Bob_Church 7]

billvon

>There's been one law so far that seemed to really make a difference about gun crime.
>Stop and Frisk.

So let's try that. For _everyone._

Why not?

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

But you heard HooknSwoop - his desire to be able to shoot guns whenever and wherever he wants is more important that the almost certain reduction in those types of deaths.

I don't think you have characterized what I wrote accurately at all.

Derek V

I'm sure you don't.

But that's how I see the reality of the translation of your post.

You said

Quote

No way am I going to allow my firearms to be remotely locked.

If you were intending to use your firearms in a legal manner my suggestion would allow you to exercise your 2nd amendment rights with absolutely no limitations or restrictions on what type of or how many guns you can own and use, what ammo or modifications you might choose to use, or alter in any way how you went about using them. The is no onerous background check or transfer protocol and you would be able to protect your home, and go target shooting or hunting as often as you like - That is me meeting you more than half way. I'm giving you an option for EVERY reason that gun rights activists say there is for owning a firearm. But somehow that's still not enough.

Your life would not change in the slightest other than the equivalent of a hobbyist lobster diver applying for a temporary fishing permit.


We should also be clear that your desire to exercise your protected rights is a want not a need. I seriously doubt that if you were never allowed to fire a weapon again without oversight that your life would be affected in any meaningful, physical way, and I challenge you to debate that.

So you're right - it's all about emotion. Yours included. Your guns don't give you any freedom. They don't protect you from the government, and your insistence on the ability to use them without restriction puts everyone in danger. But somehow that's OK because you WANT to.

You're very good at putting the burden back on those who are looking for some sort of legislation and simply saying no to everything, but that's my suggestion and you've kicked it to touch based on a juvenile want. Fair enough. So it's YOUR TURN - You come up with something that might be acceptable that would completely remove random mass shootings and decrease the criminal gun murder rate and I'll give it consideration.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If you were intending to use your firearms in a legal manner my suggestion would allow you to exercise your 2nd amendment rights with absolutely no limitations or restrictions on what type of or how many guns you can own and use, what ammo or modifications you might choose to use, or alter in any way how you went about using them.

Until your suggestion didn’t work because the server went down or whatever.

Quote

We should also be clear that your desire to exercise your protected rights is a want not a need.

Well, until it becomes a need....

Quote

So it's YOUR TURN - You come up with something that might be acceptable that would completely remove random mass shootings and decrease the criminal gun murder rate and I'll give it consideration.

Why would I do that? I’m ok with how things are.

Derek V

[kallend 1,672]

Hooknswoop

Quote

But you heard HooknSwoop - his desire to be able to shoot guns whenever and wherever he wants is more important that the almost certain reduction in those types of deaths.

I don't think you have characterized what I wrote accurately at all.

Derek V

Maybe you should re-read what you wrote. His characterization seems very accurate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.