3 3
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Greenwood IN mall shooting. Hooray for a good guy.

"The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began," Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison said.

Hooray indeed! Now we just need more mall shootings to further prove out the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
48 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Greenwood IN mall shooting. Hooray for a good guy.

"The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began," Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison said.

 

39 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Hooray indeed! Now we just need more mall shootings to further prove out the theory.

Well four dead in that shooting so that hypothesis is DOA.

Meanwhile in the good old USA over this past weekend. 13 mass shootings 16 dead and 56 wounded. Clearly the US has better gun injury trauma care than even Ukraine.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, billeisele said:

"The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began," Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison said.

So success today is defined as a mass shooting where ONLY four people die?

Up next  - super successful American Airlines flight from New York Los Angeles where only four people die!  FAA congratulates the crew, the airline and the aircraft manufacturer for being true heroes, and says that there is nothing to be investigated, changed or fixed.  Their spokesman said that we can all look forward to more flights on which only four people die, and that's what they will be working towards in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billvon said:

So success today is defined as a mass shooting where ONLY four people die?

Up next  - super successful American Airlines flight from New York Los Angeles where only four people die!  FAA congratulates the crew, the airline and the aircraft manufacturer for being true heroes, and says that there is nothing to be investigated, changed or fixed.  Their spokesman said that we can all look forward to more flights on which only four people die, and that's what they will be working towards in the future.

Hi Bill,

I often wonder why any foreigners come to this country on vacation.  Almost everywhere else is much safer.

Thoughts, any of you non-USA'ers?

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, billvon said:

So success today is defined as a mass shooting where ONLY four people die?

Up next  - super successful American Airlines flight from New York Los Angeles where only four people die!  FAA congratulates the crew, the airline and the aircraft manufacturer for being true heroes, and says that there is nothing to be investigated, changed or fixed.  Their spokesman said that we can all look forward to more flights on which only four people die, and that's what they will be working towards in the future.

Don't let's forget the Arvata, CO armed hero who stopped a killer was quickly there after killed by the heroic police as a reward. It's just unbelievable how the johnny gotta have a gun crowd would scream Hooray! over another mass shooting no matter how it ended. Of course, it was yet another AR-15 for the murder weapon. And, the hero fired 10 rounds from his Glock. I'm sorry, but I see no cause for celebration in this latest expression of our ongoing national tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

 

I often wonder why any foreigners come to this country on vacation.  Almost everywhere else is much safer.

Thoughts, any of you non-USA'ers?

 

I've pulled all my business out of the US, and will no longer visit for the time being at least. I know many in the same boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Don't let's forget the Arvata, CO armed hero who stopped a killer was quickly there after killed by the heroic police as a reward. It's just unbelievable how the johnny gotta have a gun crowd would scream Hooray! over another mass shooting no matter how it ended. Of course, it was yet another AR-15 for the murder weapon. And, the hero fired 10 rounds from his Glock. I'm sorry, but I see no cause for celebration in this latest expression of our ongoing national tragedy.

The US is relatively safe. Don't go to elementary schools, high schools, malls, etc. Don't go out at night. If you're Black get multiple Intravenous glutathione treatments BEFORE you arrive. Then always travel in the company of a White person. Get the extra travel insurance which includes the $5 million medical. Because ER visits are expensive. Rent your bullet proof vest in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard that all schools in Dallas are going to require see-through backpacks for kids.  My first thought was "so much for bulletproof backpacks."

But then I checked, and someone does indeed make transparent bulletproof backpacks.

I am trying to imagine explaining to someone from the 1970s why kids now need transparent bulletproof backpacks.   Ah progress.

https://kincorner.com/collections/childrens-bulletproof-backacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns in the US will not disappear. Banning a scary looking semi-auto rifle will not stop gun killings. Banning high cap mags may have no impact. Both will only prevent legal ownership and criminals do not obey laws. Gun free zones are a primary target for shooters.

About 10% of gun killings are with a rifle, 90% are with pistols. Focusing primarily on scary looking rifles is not productive. A 50% success rate only reduces gun killings 5%.

Over the 3-day July 4th weekend in Chicago there were 68 shootings and 8 deaths. No national media coverage.

Amen for the citizen that was willing to stop the shooter from killing more than 4. 

Until the facts are recognized and addressed nothing will change. Only one person has answered the basic question: What can be done to reduce gun killings without impacting people's rights under the 2nd?

We've previously agreed that better background checks are needed. If it's legal to delay a purchase to the age of 21 that might help. But.....Only 60% of shooting data is comprehensively reported by law enforcement for the FBI database. Better data should yield better solutions. That's something that should be easy to fix.

The AP stated, “The (media) coverage has given people the impression that things are different today, that we’ve never really experienced these (mass killings) before. But we have. It’s more common now, but it’s still extremely, extremely rare,” given the size of the U.S. population, said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University who has been tracking mass killings since 2006 along with The Associated Press and USA Today. Most homicides are one person killing another."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Guns in the US will not disappear.

And no one thinks they will, or that that should be the goal.  

What people DO hope happens is that we become more like other countries that allow gun ownership - but have less than 10% of the gun deaths we do.

US gun death rate: 12 per 100K
Australia: 1 per 100K
Germany: 1 per 100K
UK: .2 per 100K
India: .2 per 100K

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Until the facts are recognized and addressed nothing will change. Only one person has answered the basic question: What can be done to reduce gun killings without impacting people's rights under the 2nd?

$10,000 tax per cartridge. 2nd Amendment says nothing about a right to fire your arms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, billvon said:

And no one thinks they will, or that that should be the goal.  

What people DO hope happens is that we become more like other countries that allow gun ownership - but have less than 10% of the gun deaths we do.

US gun death rate: 12 per 100K
Australia: 1 per 100K
Germany: 1 per 100K
UK: .2 per 100K
India: .2 per 100K

Absolutely agree with everything after the first sentence. No doubt there are lawmakers and others that would prefer to ban firearms. And all or most of them have armed bodyguards and/or government provided security.   

That gets to the question of why nothing happened for almost 30 years. As I watched the politics unfold it seems that neither party was willing to let the other party have a "win." If one party promotes a bill that is legal and passable the other party knocks it down. It has occurred on both sides. Then there is/was this bipartisan group and their suggestions that finally accomplished something. Biden signed it in June, we'll see what happens.

$750 m for mental health type stuff, under the red flag provision a court order can stop someone from buying a gun (suspect that will be challenged in court), the "boyfriend loophole", allows searches of juvenile records, goes after one type of unregistered gun seller, and provides funds for increased school security. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Absolutely agree with everything after the first sentence. No doubt there are lawmakers and others that would prefer to ban firearms. And all or most of them have armed bodyguards and/or government provided security.   

That gets to the question of why nothing happened for almost 30 years. As I watched the politics unfold it seems that neither party was willing to let the other party have a "win." If one party promotes a bill that is legal and passable the other party knocks it down. It has occurred on both sides. Then there is/was this bipartisan group and their suggestions that finally accomplished something. Biden signed it in June, we'll see what happens.

$750 m for mental health type stuff, under the red flag provision a court order can stop someone from buying a gun (suspect that will be challenged in court), the "boyfriend loophole", allows searches of juvenile records, goes after one type of unregistered gun seller, and provides funds for increased school security. 

Hi Bill,

Re:  As I watched the politics unfold it seems that neither party was willing to let the other party have a "win."

I have long advocated for the elimination of all political parties.  Nebraska has done it at the state level.

Trying to do it at the national level is probably against the Constitution; the right to associate, free speech, etc.

IMO it's a nice dream, but not in reality.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Guns in the US will not disappear. Banning a scary looking semi-auto rifle will not stop gun killings. Banning high cap mags may have no impact. Both will only prevent legal ownership and criminals do not obey laws. Gun free zones are a primary target for shooters.

About 10% of gun killings are with a rifle, 90% are with pistols. Focusing primarily on scary looking rifles is not productive. A 50% success rate only reduces gun killings 5%.

Over the 3-day July 4th weekend in Chicago there were 68 shootings and 8 deaths. No national media coverage.

Amen for the citizen that was willing to stop the shooter from killing more than 4. 

Until the facts are recognized and addressed nothing will change. Only one person has answered the basic question: What can be done to reduce gun killings without impacting people's rights under the 2nd?

We've previously agreed that better background checks are needed. If it's legal to delay a purchase to the age of 21 that might help. But.....Only 60% of shooting data is comprehensively reported by law enforcement for the FBI database. Better data should yield better solutions. That's something that should be easy to fix.

The AP stated, “The (media) coverage has given people the impression that things are different today, that we’ve never really experienced these (mass killings) before. But we have. It’s more common now, but it’s still extremely, extremely rare,” given the size of the U.S. population, said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University who has been tracking mass killings since 2006 along with The Associated Press and USA Today. Most homicides are one person killing another."

 

Damn Bill, stop with the "scary looking guns" trope. It only serves to show a level of ignorance regarding why they are more problematic than non-military appearing semi-automatic weapons: for the mentally harmed souls who use them to kill they confer a sense of belonging because they are emblematic of the resist all change gun culture in America. For the weak of mind they are an in your face snub to society; they're also a palliative for a damaged masculinity and, horribly, for some they are a rite of passage to a moment of fame. We don't need them. You don't need them. Brent doesn't need them and, for goddamn certain they don't need them in South Dakota to shoot prairie dogs as stated by that moron Sen. John Thune. 

Edited by JoeWeber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Damn Bill, stop with the "scary looking guns" trope. It only serves to show a level of ignorance regarding why they are more problematic than non-military appearing semi-automatic weapons: for the mentally harmed souls who use them to kill they confer a sense of belonging because they are emblematic of the resist all change gun culture in America. For the weak of mind they are an in your face snub to society; they're also a palliative for a damaged masculinity and, horribly, for some they are a rite of passage to a moment of fame. We don't need them. You don't need them. Brent doesn't need them and, for goddamn certain they don't need them in South Dakota to shoot prairie dogs as stated by that moron Sen. John Thune. 

Hi Joe,

Re:  We don't need them. You don't need them.

Only those who live in their own fantasies seem to think that they need them.

Jerry  Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, billeisele said:

  ...That gets to the question of why nothing happened for almost 30 years. As I watched the politics unfold it seems that neither party was willing to let the other party have a "win." If one party promotes a bill that is legal and passable the other party knocks it down. It has occurred on both sides. Then there is/was this bipartisan group and their suggestions that finally accomplished something. Biden signed it in June, we'll see what happens.

Not really.

 

Back in the early 90s, the anti-gun crowd scored a number of 'wins'. The got the Brady bill passed, the 'assault weapons' bill passed, they were in the process of taking apart the gun makers through frivolous lawsuits (the suits never went anywhere,  but the manufacturers spent a tin of money fighting them). 

It was pretty clear they wanted to put extensive bans in place (look up "Brady 2"). 

Then the 94 midterms gave the Rs control of both houses, in large part due to the NRA beating the "they're coming for your GUNS!!" drum" which, at the time had a fair amount of truth to it. 

 

There hasn't been any significant legislation passed since. Despite the lack of action, the NRA hasn't shut up, and LOVES to pretend the Ds want to take them all away.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Damn Bill, stop with the "scary looking guns" trope. It only serves to show a level of ignorance regarding why they are more problematic than non-military appearing semi-automatic weapons: for the mentally harmed souls who use them to kill they confer a sense of belonging because they are emblematic of the resist all change gun culture in America. For the weak of mind they are an in your face snub to society; they're also a palliative for a damaged masculinity and, horribly, for some they are a rite of passage to a moment of fame. We don't need them. You don't need them. Brent doesn't need them and, for goddamn certain they don't need them in South Dakota to shoot prairie dogs as stated by that moron Sen. John Thune. 

You appear to be saying that the 99.9+% of responsible AR owners should be denied the opportunity of ownership because of the 0.1-% with mental issues thus conveying that the problem is the gun not the person. Your post infers a unique knowledge of the shooters mindset, one that hasn't been reliably established or backed up by facts. If there are some I'd be thrilled to read them.

The term is used specifically for the ignorant "ban assault weapons" crowd that has no clue what they are talking about.  Kinda like Joe and his AR14 comment.

You profess to be an aviation guy. Have you ever tried hog eradication from a rotary platform with a bolt action? I mean they use semi and full autos, and some offer belt fed weapons.  If one of those pilots went nut job it would be bad. Better ban them too. 

One of the military manufacturers was one of my customers. Strictly from an engineering perspective it was interesting to see how each piece was milled, the barrels hammer forged then a random weapon from a batch was subjected to repeated mag dumps at the indoor factory range in auto mode to seek a failure point.  Simply amazing engineering.

Some would say that the "need" is there. The 2nd uses the term "necessary."  I'm not in that crowd but understand the sentiment. 

Don't know what literature you consume but it makes you grumpy and unnecessarily accusatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Have you ever tried hog eradication from a rotary platform with a bolt action?

Nope.  But if they passed a law that said that everyone had a right to fly an armed helicopter and shoot at stuff without any aviation training or licensing - it might get ugly, don't you think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

You appear to be saying that the 99.9+% of responsible AR owners should be denied the opportunity of ownership because of the 0.1-% with mental issues thus conveying that the problem is the gun not the person. Your post infers a unique knowledge of the shooters mindset, one that hasn't been reliably established or backed up by facts. If there are some I'd be thrilled to read them.

The term is used specifically for the ignorant "ban assault weapons" crowd that has no clue what they are talking about.  Kinda like Joe and his AR14 comment.

You profess to be an aviation guy. Have you ever tried hog eradication from a rotary platform with a bolt action? I mean they use semi and full autos, and some offer belt fed weapons.  If one of those pilots went nut job it would be bad. Better ban them too. 

One of the military manufacturers was one of my customers. Strictly from an engineering perspective it was interesting to see how each piece was milled, the barrels hammer forged then a random weapon from a batch was subjected to repeated mag dumps at the indoor factory range in auto mode to seek a failure point.  Simply amazing engineering.

Some would say that the "need" is there. The 2nd uses the term "necessary."  I'm not in that crowd but understand the sentiment. 

Don't know what literature you consume but it makes you grumpy and unnecessarily accusatory.

Yes, I would happily deny ownership of those completely unnecessary AR-15's to everyone if that would stop another mass shooting using an AR-15. As for the shooters mindset, I have no special knowledge. Here is but one article by a group that studies the mindset of mass shooters: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data  You can find all you want with simple searches. No, I haven't tried Hog eradication from a rotary platform, assuming you mean a helicopter, (fewer words and letters and immediately understandable to everyone, FYI). And for damn certain if they do need machine guns to protect themselves from pigs then that should be a job for government agencies and professional government hunters: hence no need for citizen ownership of the weapons and if that service costs us all money better than that the weapons in private hands. And what I read that makes me grumpy is the nonsense justifications for continuing the insanity by so called conservatives. Thanks for asking.

Edited by JoeWeber
clicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

 As for the shooters mindset, I have no special knowledge.

(fewer words and letters and immediately understandable to everyone, FYI).

 

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

And for damn certain if they do need machine guns to protect themselves from pigs then that should be a job for government agencies and professional government hunters: hence no need for citizen ownership of the weapons and if that service costs us all money better than that the weapons in private hands.

And what I read that makes me grumpy is the nonsense justifications for continuing the insanity by so called conservatives. Thanks for asking.

Well then,,,it may be good to stop rambling on and on using 5x more words than are needed on theories that aren't substantiated.

If the federal government doesn't care enough to provide the essential service of border control then why should they be tasked with feral hog control? We're all aware of a 10-year old girl that was raped and impregnated by an illegal alien. That may have been preventable with proper border management.

Other than the fact that it would cost multiple times more if the government took on the task they would do a much less effective job, especially since it's mostly private land. 

I guess you'll just remain grumpy since many disagree with your viewpoint. Granted, some that disagree with you are bonafide nut cases. We should also agree that some that want firearms banned are also bonafide nut jobs. If you want we can agree that those numbers equal each other.

 

But let's explore your suggestion. What firearms are you concerned about and how do you propose we remove  them from society? If you say AR type rifles, be aware that:

- Based on the best info available, all rifles account for only 10% of firearm deaths. If you want we can assume that all rifle deaths are with an AR platform.

- Best estimates are that there are 20 million AR type rifles in private ownership.

- A quick search on the Palmetto State Armory website shows a price range of $500 - $1800. That's without many of the typical add-ons, mags or optics that increase the cost $200-$1,000 or more. Let's just assume that the average cost is $1,300. That makes the value of the publicly owned AR firearms $26 billion.

- Criminals don't obey the law

So, what do we do and how do we do it legally to make a material impact on firearm deaths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Well then,,,it may be good to stop rambling on and on using 5x more words than are needed on theories that aren't substantiated.

What beyond studies by experts qualify as substantiation for you?

 

49 minutes ago, billeisele said:

If the federal government doesn't care enough to provide the essential service of border control then why should they be tasked with feral hog control? We're all aware of a 10-year old girl that was raped and impregnated by an illegal alien. That may have been preventable with proper border management.

The government does provide border control but does not supply viagra to those admitted. No matter, just what the holy hell does border control control have to  do with your Jurassic Hog problem?

 

52 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Other than the fact that it would cost multiple times more if the government took on the task they would do a much less effective job, especially since it's mostly private land. 

 

 You'd have been remiss not to trot out this time honored conservative trope. You could argue, and it wouldn't surprise me one iota if you haven't or don't regularly, that if we only observed the constitution more closely and armed every American until they fell down from the weight that it would be cheaper than our expensive government run military. Same with our fire departments etc. etc. etc.

The problem is too many guns and too many of the wrong kind of guns and too many gun lovers whose identities are intertwined with those guns. I'm looking at you, Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The problem is too many guns and too many of the wrong kind of guns and too many gun lovers whose identities are intertwined with those guns.

I'm getting tired of hearing Americans endless debate over guns and the potential to solve the problem of too many people being killed and killing themselves with them. How many guns do you own Joe? And how many do you need? If those numbers are not equal you are part of the problem and should probably just STFU. If they are equal and not zero, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'm getting tired of hearing Americans endless debate over guns and the potential to solve the problem of too many people being killed and killing themselves with them. How many guns do you own Joe? And how many do you need? If those numbers are not equal you are part of the problem and should probably just STFU. If they are equal and not zero, why not?

Put it back in your pants, Ken. I have been open about the guns I own and I have been getting rid of the ones I don't use or need. I own, and have ever owned, zero semi-automatic rifles of any model or any caliber in my life. So maybe you should just back down a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Put it back in your pants, Ken. I have been open about the guns I own and I have been getting rid of the ones I don't use or need. I own, and have ever owned, zero semi-automatic rifles of any model or any caliber in my life. So maybe you should just back down a bit. 

But you do see the point don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3