260 Mass Shootings 160 Days, When Will it be Too Much?

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,068
3,245
Tasmania, Australia
Actually no. That horse has left the barn. I want the folks who supply the weapons to be liable, yes, even you owners who don't secure your precious.
FWIW there are pretty heavy penalties here for not properly securing firearms and ammo. The cops do check, too.

As for Tom's whining, he's correct and boring at the same time. Correct insofar as no bling added to a 22LR is going to make it anything other than a 22LR but so what, it's just bling, unbolt it, problem solved, stop whining. He just uses it as a distraction anyway. What the lawmakers should do if they actually want to achieve anything of substance is concentrate on lethality & rate of fire/speed of reloading not bling bolted to rabbit guns. I don't know if it's just a desire for publicity without actually changing anything or utter ignorance that they even bother with the 'assault rifle' thing. A lot of that is cosmetic; what counts is bullet mass, velocity and rate of fire.

I don't think anything actually *can* be done in the USA now, you're too far down the road and there isn't any consensus that there is a problem let alone a solvable one. The anti-gun contingent lie & abuse statistics to try to demonise all firearms owners thereby inviting contempt and suspicion and the serious gun nuts won't give an inch anyway.

Bored now.

FKT

 

Ishmael

52,348
12,185
Fuctifino
FWIW there are pretty heavy penalties here for not properly securing firearms and ammo. The cops do check, too.

As for Tom's whining, he's correct and boring at the same time. Correct insofar as no bling added to a 22LR is going to make it anything other than a 22LR but so what, it's just bling, unbolt it, problem solved, stop whining. He just uses it as a distraction anyway. What the lawmakers should do if they actually want to achieve anything of substance is concentrate on lethality & rate of fire/speed of reloading not bling bolted to rabbit guns. I don't know if it's just a desire for publicity without actually changing anything or utter ignorance that they even bother with the 'assault rifle' thing. A lot of that is cosmetic; what counts is bullet mass, velocity and rate of fire.

I don't think anything actually *can* be done in the USA now, you're too far down the road and there isn't any consensus that there is a problem let alone a solvable one. The anti-gun contingent lie & abuse statistics to try to demonise all firearms owners thereby inviting contempt and suspicion and the serious gun nuts won't give an inch anyway.

Bored now.

FKT
And another gun thread crawls away to die in the corner.

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,068
3,245
Tasmania, Australia
And another gun thread crawls away to die in the corner.
Yeah. Boring. Predictable outcome - more verbiage, nothing else.

Meanwhile the price of CNC gear drops, the accuracy increases, ditto 3D printers. G-code files get uploaded to Web sites. In the USA it's not illegal to make a firearm for your own use. Getting easier to do all the time.

Ammo is a bit more difficult to do en masse. Concentrate on ammo restrictions.

Needs a *major* cultural shift in US thinking.

Absent that then the trajectory will continue.

Ending the useless drug war might help provided the gang-bangers don't just find some other illegal activity to kill each other & passers-by over. Still worth doing as I've said.

Restricting centrefire semiauto firearms with removable mags would help cut down on stranger mass murders. Maybe - there's so many in circulation it's probably too late.

Compulsory purchase would help remove them but the anti-gun people wouldn't have a bar of that. They want the guns but don't want to pay and attempt to use bogus arguments as to why they shouldn't. That's half smart & shows the priority of financially punishing owners is higher than actually removing guns from circulation. Since this is bleeding obvious it's also counterproductive and nothing happens.

And so it goes.

Not my country. Happy with that at least.

FKT

 

Greever

Super Anarchist
4,091
106
Rockford, MI
Yeah. Boring. Predictable outcome - more verbiage, nothing else.

Meanwhile the price of CNC gear drops, the accuracy increases, ditto 3D printers. G-code files get uploaded to Web sites. In the USA it's not illegal to make a firearm for your own use. Getting easier to do all the time.

Ammo is a bit more difficult to do en masse. Concentrate on ammo restrictions.

Needs a *major* cultural shift in US thinking.

Absent that then the trajectory will continue.

Ending the useless drug war might help provided the gang-bangers don't just find some other illegal activity to kill each other & passers-by over. Still worth doing as I've said.

Restricting centrefire semiauto firearms with removable mags would help cut down on stranger mass murders. Maybe - there's so many in circulation it's probably too late.

Compulsory purchase would help remove them but the anti-gun people wouldn't have a bar of that. They want the guns but don't want to pay and attempt to use bogus arguments as to why they shouldn't. That's half smart & shows the priority of financially punishing owners is higher than actually removing guns from circulation. Since this is bleeding obvious it's also counterproductive and nothing happens.

And so it goes.

Not my country. Happy with that at least.

FKT
So we become subjects like you, for a false sense of security?

None of what you propose is possible in the USA.

 

badlatitude

Super Anarchist
30,280
5,530
How is the USA inching closer to civil war..?

Whose leading the charge from each side?

Enquiring minds want to know.
It's an arguable point. Many people in the U.S. are unhappy with the economy, and the disappearance of good jobs, the lack of affordable housing. Especially after the hit economically in 2008, it makes sustaining any lifestyle out of reach for many people.

Donald Trump did not help the case with his bluster and bullying ways, people were ready to listen to an authoritarian challenge to the status quo.

This may help you understand the dynamics at play.https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/model-predicting-united-states-disorder-now-points-to-civil-war/12365280

If Biden is able to soothe peoples anger and build an economy for everyone, then things could change. If he cannot then problems could get worse.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,599
2,103
Back to the desert
I would like to address actual facts, not your fantasy of numbers.
Wash the sand out of your vagina, bra.  You're being a big fucking pussy and trying to run away from your own request when you didn't like the facts. 

The fact is The numbers of gun owners are done by polls and surveys just like many many others things that we collect stats on.  I'm sure you put a lot of stock in other gallup polling for other things as long as it agrees with your agenda.

Here is the historical average for gun owning households.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

image.png

Since 1980s, the numbers have remained relatively steady around the mid-40% range.  There is no reason to think that number has gone down significantly.  Even the cite I gave you said the current household number is still in the 40-ish % range with about 20 Million individuals owning a gun.  With the recent spike in new gun ownership since the obama era and especially during covid.... again those numbers are likely LOW.

Why are you being such a pussy on this???  Seriously, you asked for a cite and I gave it to you.  Reputable sources that are commonly accepted.  Do you think that your behavior here on this, when you're the one who demanded a cite, isn't making you look like a total douche???  You're acting like a child who just got shown up and now you're going to stomp away crying.  Grow a sack and man up to the fact that the numbers of gun owners relative to the numbers who are committing murder with them is FUCKING TINY!!!

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,599
2,103
Back to the desert
I would submit that firing at "an assailant" fifty yards away might not be considered self-defense.
Oh Fucking Fucks sake!  Are you a total retard or just playing one on TV?  The point just whizzed by you like a near miss from a bullet aimed at your head.  A miss is a miss.

That she could hit something at 50 yds (not a super easy task in any circumstances) with the AR having never touched one before probably means that someone down a hallway would pretty much be toast.  No so much with a pistol.

I know you're being deliberately obtuse, but for FFS, it gets so fucking tedious when people just deliberately miss the point when it's biting them in the balls.

image.png

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,599
2,103
Back to the desert
Yeah but you'd be really hard put to argue that they were out by one or even 2 orders of magnitude.

Which still leaves the discussion at essentially the same point - the overwhelming majority of gun owners DO NOT kill others with their firearms.

Give it up - there's absolutely no logical way you can argue against this proposition. To do so requires you to argue that a) firearms killings are *vastly* under-reported or b) ownership of firearms is vastly exaggerated. Or both.

Go for it. Should be entertaining.

You won't, of course, because on this topic you're incapable of shifting from your POV.

FKT
Expand  
Okay. You are correct and it would be folly for me to continue that argument. Still, we inch closer and closer to civil war, and I can't help but wonder how that changes normal people into killers.
I see.... so you stipulated MY point to FKT. But you can't be man enough to admit it to me when YOU asked ME for the cite.

And then you move the goal posts and talk about Civil War.  WTF has that got to do with now or the point that @Happy was trying to make.  Start a new thread on your fears of a civil war if its so important to you.  I would find that to be a fascinating discussion.

image.png

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Since 1980s, the numbers have remained relatively steady around the mid-40% range. 
Bullshit. More like mid-thirties, in a clear pattern of decline..

The gold standard for the quantification of gun ownership is, of course, the GSS, because they have asked the same question, in the same way, in their annual surveys, since the 70s. And I have told you the score, straight up, on Political Anarchy. You knew better not long ago, Fluffy Jeff.

image.gif

 
Last edited by a moderator:

badlatitude

Super Anarchist
30,280
5,530
I see.... so you stipulated MY point to FKT. But you can't be man enough to admit it to me when YOU asked ME for the cite.

And then you move the goal posts and talk about Civil War.  WTF has that got to do with now or the point that @Happy was trying to make.  Start a new thread on your fears of a civil war if its so important to you.  I would find that to be a fascinating discussion.

View attachment 446514
Bozo, you are the worst person on the planet when it comes to thread drift. The topic is solutions, and I would swear you are doing this on purpose.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
The anti-gun contingent lie & abuse statistics to try to demonise all firearms owners thereby inviting contempt and suspicion
How about a few examples? Is "260 mass shootings in 160 days" a stat worth considering?

Look, the stats are so bad, they need no manipulation. The stats are so bad the gun lobby didn't want the information gathered, for 25 years.

In short, the statistics indicate

  • the new right-to-carry states show significant increases in crime.
  • areas with weak gun laws have more gun-related problems. 
  • AW's have become quite a problem since the good old days of the AW ban.
  • Broad handgun issues need to be faced.


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Happy

Super Anarchist
2,890
1,508
Tropical Oz
Oh c'mon Jocal - 10,000+ gun homicides per year is a FUCKING TINY problem.

1,500,000 gun homicides since I was in high school is a FUCKING TINY problem.
For a certain type of insecure males, the idea of not having their beloved guns is a FUCKING HUGE problem. They don't give a flying fuck how many die, as long as they can have that inner image of themselves as macho fearless cowboys/soldiers/secret agents.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,048
1,880
Punta Gorda FL
As for Tom's whining, he's correct and boring at the same time. Correct insofar as no bling added to a 22LR is going to make it anything other than a 22LR but so what, it's just bling, unbolt it, problem solved, stop whining. He just uses it as a distraction anyway.
"Just comply" is one answer to another stupid prohibition program. Just don't enact the stupid prohibition program is another. I'm in the latter camp.

How is it that my mentioning examples of "assault" weapons is a distraction, but when others give different examples, that's just fine? I think any example is an example and, just like in Australia and Canada, battlefield .22's are assault weapons here. What's so wrong about coming out and saying so?

A big difference is that battlefield .22's are part of the ordinary military equipment and thus protected by the second amendment under US v Miller.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,048
1,880
Punta Gorda FL
I want the folks who supply the weapons to be liable, yes, even you owners who don't secure your precious.
I support safe storage laws as well. Where we might differ is the question of liability for those of us who lock up guns. Grabbers in my state have tried to remove that liability protection and grabbers here have said dumb stuff like this:

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.
I think we should treat liability for stolen property the same way for guns and cars, which is not how Olsonist thinks we treat cars, nor apparently how he thinks we should treat guns.

What do you think? If I lock up my guns and a criminal defeats the safe, should I be liable?

Also, I think an ammo tax to offset the societal costs is more than fair.
This is another way of saying what Olsonist was saying: peaceful people are liable for the actions of criminals. It's also kinda like a poll tax applied to voting rights, and will disproportionately affect poor people, disproportionately minorities. That's sometimes bad, but I understand that no gun control can be bad.

 

Latest posts




Top