For those who want to ban so called, "assault rifles"....
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
My recommendation at least explains why there has been rampant acceleration of the events over the past 20 years even though the weapons and capability to commit such acts have been available for 100, and removes that motivation. Your solution solves the problem for exactly 1 minute until the next method (maybe its cars on sidewalks like we saw repeated a handful of times in the last few years) comes along. I'd argue that my solution actually attempts to address the real problem, whereas yours just wants to change the optics of how the problem occurs.
So your mind reading of what the founders would think is sound but my mind reading is ridiculous. Right.
There is no evidence that media coverage has any affect on the frequency/scope of these events.
There is concrete evidence that guns have an affect on the scope of the events.
I agree that my recommendation would result in a change in methodology for the perpetrators. That is the whole point.
Do nothing/change nothing isn't a smart plan.
Figuring out which disaffected youths are likely to become mass murderers is not realistic.
Blaming the media accomplished nothing.
What are we left with?
Saying that my post was maybe the dumbest post ever on this forum was ridiculous. Especially since you just agreed that it was equivalent to your post on the same topic.
The issue here is that so far not one of your suggestions would result in any meaningful or actual reduction in mass killings. And why only the focus on mass killings?
Could it be that you aren’t concerned with inner city minorities killing each other because that doesn’t really effect your life? Whereas, the randomness of a spree killing could since you can’t predict its location?
It may seem trite to you but the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. So when I say that more good guys should carry guns - you say I’m crazy for my stance because I’m advocating for more guns.
Could it be that you aren’t concerned with inner city minorities killing each other because that doesn’t really effect your life? Whereas, the randomness of a spree killing could since you can’t predict its location?
It may seem trite to you but the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. So when I say that more good guys should carry guns - you say I’m crazy for my stance because I’m advocating for more guns.
Except that there's quite a historical record that shows exactly how concerned the Founders were about protecting people from more tyranny. It's quite surprising how dismissive or ignorant you left leaners are of history when it comes to the Second Amendment. There likely would have been no Constitution forming the United States if the Second Amendment hadn't been ratified.
Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
Noah Webster:
"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Richard Henry Lee:
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Alexander Hamilton:
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”
Alexander Hamilton:
“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
Alexander Hamilton:
“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
Tench Coxe:
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Samuel Adams:
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
I'm not opposed to more good guys carrying guns. I just said you were crazy for wanting to eliminate gun free zones. IMO, any business/property owner should have the right to require patrons to not enter the premesis with a gun.
A question: Since you brought up inner city minorities killing each other, isn't that an example of more individuals carrying guns where it results in more gun deaths instead of fewer?
Would you keep guns out of the hands of soldiers who are under 25 years of age until they passed a strenuous background check? Police officers? Security guards? I'm curious if there is a line you would draw.
I won't argue with you on your overall point. I have clearly not proposed anything that would prevent private citizens from owning guns. I have made 2 primary points.
1). The line that divides which weapons private citizens have easy access to and which require additional red tape is arbitrary and can be adjusted.
2). Adding red tape to the process for individuals under age 25 to purchase guns might reduce the frequency of mass shootings. Making this change would not violate the 2A rights of those individuals.
A business should only be allowed to ban guns if they can reasonably provide security. Sports games and concerts provide that.
Inner city gun deaths are proof that no law you pass in your campaign of DO SOMETHING will matter.
Sure. I'm fairly sure that soldiers and police go through extensive training before they are issued a personal weapon. I'm also fairly sure that police candidates have to pass a background check prior to being hired.
And I said that I’m okay with a private property owner telling the voluntary visitors to not carry. I don’t think that’s what you are proposing.
And the inner city thing proves my point. If more good guys carried guns in the inner city, then bad guys carrying guns might think twice before acting.
Why are you being so binary? I already told you guns aren't the issue. Several people explained guns are not the issue. You aren’t getting it, you won’t get it. Your emotions driven by the media are leading you around by the nose. You haven’t cried for DO SOMETHING for the top fifty most dangerous things in the world, but this mass shooter thing that gets ratings for the media has you in its tractor beam.
0 threads by you about domestic abuse.
0 threads by you about black communities being terrorized
0 threads by you about drug overdoses
0 threads by you crying to DO SOMETHING about Mexicans just to your south that live in the most violent country on earth.
Remember @Ponca Dan falling to pieces about kids in cages? Then it got dropped from the media and he shut up about it.
Now I'm confused. I clearly referenced sporting events and concerts as places where it was a bad idea to allow patrons to enter with guns. You seemed to disagree with that idea.
What "gun free zones" are you saying need to be eliminated?
You are correct. That's the whole point of the discussion we're having. The question is whether or not we support the government taking away a type of semi-automatic rifle from a law abiding citizen's choices of firearms to protect themselves with. I have no issues with firearm regulation within reason, but I'm also very dubious of the motivations and ultimate goals of those who want to ban AR15s. What's the next type of firearm they will want to ban? There's already some who have advocated mandatory gun buybacks and some who have called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
If the Democrats had not lurched so far leftward toward socialism over the past 10 years, including outright advocating for socialism, I might feel differently about restricting or even banning AR15s. There's a reason the Obama administration was the best AR15 salesforce on the planet. Venezuela says hi. You might think this line of thought is silly, but look no further than the restrictions colleges, once the beacons of free speech, have put on speech politically disagreeable to them to see where my concern comes from.
Where is this arbitrary age of 25 coming from?
Right? I would also add that Been has said NOTHING ABOUT THE INDIGENOUS AMAZON TRIBES. How can he object to mass shootings and not mention that?!?!?
And we haven't even started on the treatment of the chickasaws back in the 1800's. Guess Been doesn't care about them ,either.
And do I even need to bring up the plight of the Tibetans against China? Or Nepal. One of them has been wholly ignored by Been and we'll need to see a position statement on that one too before he can formulate any more opinions on mass shootings.
JFC. Look at the title of this thread. You know, the thread that was started by @MegaPoke . This thread is to designed to discuss guns. That is what we are discussing. No need to move the goalposts.
Public and/or Government locations. Schools are a good example. Parks, post offices, etc.
Well, if that is all we are discussing, then I clearly misunderstood your point. Overall, I don't think I am in favor of changing the current status of schools/government facilities. However, I have mixed feelings on the arming of teachers who volunteer to carry.
Welp that's that. Someone needs to go start a new thread, then.
And you will participate proportionately by crying for DO SOMETHING when I make a list of the things in this world that are exponentially more impactful than mass shootings? Can’t wait to hear your passion in the thread about the Chinese human rights violations thread. Without the media whipping you up, I doubt you will be crying for America to DO SOMETHING. Little black kids whose only choices in life are which gang to join will surely get your passion flowing.
AR-15’s get ratings. They manipulate people like you.
When the msm sends their resources and people to the 1800’s, been jams will be crying for us to DO SOMETHING
There is evidence that media coverage increases these events. Dylan Roof explicitly stated that he wanted to make the National news (and did). One of the guys arrested last week talked about wanting to set a killing record. How is that not directly attributable to wanting more coverage. Look, I'm not blaming the media for these killings any more than you are blaming every law-abiding gun owning American. But I'm detailing a solution that attempts to address one of the root issues which is the narcissism of society and in particular these deranged individuals that leads them to contemplate the committing of such an atrocious act in the first place. Ask yourself this: Why does a shooter choose to shoot-up a school? Why not go shoot up a mall? Or a Police station? Is your hypothesis that they all just hate kids? Or is it the understanding that it will make the national news because of the children?
Finally, its intellectually dishonest to argue that just because the recommendation isn't the exact action that you want, that its the same as doing nothing. If you want to debate the merits/challenges of a press restriction then go ahead, as I've clearly laid out arguments and evidence for why my solution provides value. But disregarding it because its not the plan YOU WANT is exactly why NOTHING ever gets done.
My experience in 1969 is other than you suggest. But that was 50 years ago. Maybe things are different today.
On the age of 25, I just grabbed it out of the air. I looked at the history of mass shootings (U.S. only) in the last 30 years and observed that over 75% of the shooters were age 16-25 (the actual number might be well north of 75% as I just skimmed). It seems logical that there is a reason for this, and if you think about it, I think you can come up with some reasons that make sense. But, 25 is just a round number. It could be adjusted up or down a bit and still make an impact, IMO.
On your other point, I will try to address it later. I have a surgery waiting.
Laughable. You are the poster who drew me into this thread by linking my name in the first place. You called. I came. Now you are disparaging me for participating.
One of the problems I have with people on your side of the argument is your seeming insistence that your way (gun "control"/confiscation) is the only way, and that any other recommendation for "solving the crisis" is considered as "doing nothing." I think you might have a more receptive audience to your argument if you were more receptive to the counter argument. I do appreciate, however, that you have been civil throughout the conversation, unlike some others who will remain unnamed.
Funny, I'm sitting here waiting for my youngest daughter to get out of surgery.
Hardware removal from surgical lisfranc fracture repair in June. In the grand scheme, fairly minor and relieved it's done. Immobilized foot/ankle since January has been difficult for her. Thanks for the kind thought, sir.
Ok I’ll be giving lots of opportunities to come be passionate about things that media has deemed less important
Edit: I looked back why I tagged you and it’s because you poo poo all of the things we told you would happen. You have people running for President in your party saying exactly what we told you they would say. Gun confiscation.
Last edited:
Meow body meow choice.
The problem is that there is no substantial counter argument.
@aix_xpert has suggested doing anything other than some type of gun legislation. He blames the media. I don't think curtailing media coverage would make any kind of impact nor do I think it is realistic to expect the media to not cover mass shootings. I'm all in favor of trying it...just dubious that it will make a difference.
@Ostatedchi has proposed allowing more armed individuals in government/school settings. I have gone on record as saying I have mixed feelings about the latter. I don't think mass shootings in government buildings is an issue. Probably because they utilize metal detectors and already have armed guards (i.e. not a soft target).
Unless I have missed it, there have been no other realistic ideas proposed. Do you have any suggestions?
Last edited:
I really don't think it is the latter, but don't read minds, and most shooters end up dead, so there is no way to know. I think that most school shootings occur because the shooter is familiar with the school and the level of security. I think that a lot of the shooters are treated poorly by their classmates because they are socially awkward, unpopular, etc. I think that results in a day at school being like torture and a perception of the school/students/teachers as being the root of his unhappiness.
This is where I stand on this topic.
I often see gun advocates claim that the average citizen should have easy access to assault rifles because U.S. soldiers carry them and the 2A means that citizens need to be able to defend themselves against the government if the government declares martial law and wants to oppress/rule the people. In other words, citizens need these high power weapons to prevent them from being forced to bring a knife to a gun fight.
It is a flawed argument. Even with high powered rifles, citizens are already bringing a knife to a gun fight. If a military force wants to take over, they are going to have far more firepower than a group of armed citizens. Grenades, tanks, gas, drones, etc.
This is why I think assault rifles is an arbitrary line that can be adjusted. The only logical argument that can be made is that allowing citizens to have them with minimal restrictions is that it makes it harder for the government forces to take over. I'll buy that. But, it is not the same as "we need these weapons to keep the government from going too far".
I'm opposed to repeal of the 2A. I'm opposed to mandatory gun buy backs. But, I don't think the status quo is working, and I think it is possible to make some changes to current gun laws without violating the 2A. Not everyone would be happy with the changes, but they will be much more upset when they lose a loved one to a mass shooter, simply because he/she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There might be some meat on the bone for stricter background checks up to 25 years old. Maybe.
The only real solution is to amend the constitution. The founders allowed for that in case they seriously missed the mark. Did they miss the mark?
