March 28, 20232 yr I want to add, Omega, that I agree with you about mental illness. Even though that is a factor and a common thread, you are right... how do you identify the dangerous ones and hold them back? A pet peeve of mine in these debates is when people just blurt out, "we have to solve mental illness!" Okay, how? Give me some details.
March 28, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, 91defense said: It had nothing to do with your feelings on the subject. I am guessing everyone is torn up about the details of these school shootings. It doesn't take away from the fact that it was innocent kids. Yes... what about the children? That is important and you friggin' know it. Back to my question; you mentioned that "mass" shootings (lumping in gang shootings to help your argument, where people kinda know what they are in for) are usually handguns. If you take that out of the equation since it really is a different category, all I was asking was how often is an assault weapon used when little kids or crowds of people get slaughtered. You totally sidestepped that question, while trying to make yourself look smarter than me. That is the cute, little argument trick I speak of and it's pretty annoying, to be honest. I don't know the answer. Why don't you tell me? And also explain how banning one type of weapon is going to curtail these school shootings.
March 28, 20232 yr Too lazy to look it up, haha. That's why I asked. Banning those weapons won't stop mass shootings probably. But it can't hurt. It's the weapon of choice for a reason. Unless you think people really need them to protect themselves from the government stealing their land.
March 28, 20232 yr "It can't hurt". Now there's a basis for good policy. Yeah, I do think that the 2nd amendment is a necessary counter to tyranny. And for the record, I don't know you from Adam, and the only people I think/know I'm smarter than here are the stalkers that I'm all too familiar with.
March 28, 20232 yr With the exception of "Ernest Goes to Camp," I was not really a fan of those movies.
March 28, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, 91defense said: Too lazy to look it up, haha. That's why I asked. Banning those weapons won't stop mass shootings probably. But it can't hurt. It's the weapon of choice for a reason. Unless you think people really need them to protect themselves from the government stealing their land. There’s no point in trying to have a regular conversation with him. He doesn’t even have an opinion yet because Fox’s nightly lineup hasn’t started yet. Ask him again in the morning.
March 28, 20232 yr Second amendment question... when people argue that you can't take away our guns because it's in the constitution, do they literally not know what an amendment actually is? I never understood that stance. I'm not saying the 2nd amendment is wrong, outdated, correct, or current... just not a fan of the logic behind that argument.
March 28, 20232 yr 7 minutes ago, 91defense said: Second amendment question... when people argue that you can't take away our guns because it's in the constitution, do they literally not know what an amendment actually is? I never understood that stance. I'm not saying the 2nd amendment is wrong, outdated, correct, or current... just not a fan of the logic behind that argument. Depends on who you're talking to. If (IF) it's against the constitution to "take away guns", then you can't just pass a law to take away guns. Right? You either need a repeal, an amendment to the amendment, or a friendly group of judges.
March 28, 20232 yr Understood. I still don't buy the argument by many who say it shouldn't be changed because it's a right backed by our constitution when it literally was a change in our constitution to begin with. That just gets us back to square one. I need more than that.
March 28, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Mike030270 said: Same round, same semi auto. Just different stock But it's not scary looking. Look at the warm subtle hue of that stock.
March 28, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, 91defense said: Understood. I still don't buy the argument by many who say it shouldn't be changed because it's a right backed by our constitution when it literally was a change in our constitution to begin with. That just gets us back to square one. I need more than that. I understand you say can't when you mean shouldn't
March 28, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Alpha_TATEr said: and according to @lynched1's earlier claim, most of those shooters were trans. Which claims we're those ?
March 28, 20232 yr 38 minutes ago, 91defense said: I want to add, Omega, that I agree with you about mental illness. Even though that is a factor and a common thread, you are right... how do you identify the dangerous ones and hold them back? A pet peeve of mine in these debates is when people just blurt out, "we have to solve mental illness!" Okay, how? Give me some details. Increase funding for counselors in schools Lower dependence on anti depressants and things like Adderall Make parents accountable for the actions of their minors. Increase availability of birth control. Having a father in the picture changes the outlook of a kids life more than a mother. Not sure how available or can buy fruits and vegetables on food stamps, but quality of food matters. Increase YMCA hours after school to keep kids active and away from screens. Teach parents the importance of limiting screen time Really comes down to have parents that actually give a F and wanting an active roles in their kids lives.
March 28, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, mr_hunt said: you mean shmegma, lynched, & kkkz aren't going to change their mind? like, ever? I've been known to consider thoughtful counterpoints. However this is CVON.
March 29, 20232 yr This after the Trans Day of Vengeance group specifically called for the Daily Wire to be targeted. The left’s blood lust will not be satisfied.
March 29, 20232 yr 29 minutes ago, lynched1 said: But it's not scary looking. Look at the warm subtle hue of that stock. What is the max round capacity and ROF of the varmint rifle shown and the rifle actually used?
March 29, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Mike030270 said: The caliber makes the difference. The style is what the news and people like to associate with the military Just so you know. When you laugh at my posts. I laugh harder.😂😂😂😂😂😂
March 29, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, 91defense said: It had nothing to do with your feelings on the subject. I am guessing everyone is torn up about the details of these school shootings. It doesn't take away from the fact that it was innocent kids. Yes... what about the children? That is important and you friggin' know it. Back to my question; you mentioned that "mass" shootings (lumping in gang shootings to help your argument, where people kinda know what they are in for) are usually handguns. If you take that out of the equation since it really is a different category, all I was asking was how often is an assault weapon used when little kids or crowds of people get slaughtered. You totally sidestepped that question, while trying to make yourself look smarter than me. That is the cute, little argument trick I speak of and it's pretty annoying, to be honest. 1 hour ago, The_Omega said: I don't know the answer. Why don't you tell me? And also explain how banning one type of weapon is going to curtail these school shootings. 1 hour ago, 91defense said: Too lazy to look it up, haha. That's why I asked. Banning those weapons won't stop mass shootings probably. But it can't hurt. It's the weapon of choice for a reason. Unless you think people really need them to protect themselves from the government stealing their land. Rifles are used in 29% of mass shootings.
March 29, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, Bill said: Rifles are used in 29% of mass shootings. He’s specially talking about school shootings. At the risk of giving the impression that I care what some bald loser whose 1st instinct after a school shooting is to gleefully troll other posters here thinks (because I don’t), this shooting has made me reconsider a little bit. It bothers me that he/him was able to buy 7 guns in a short time span, by going to 5 different stores, without raising any suspicion. I’d be willing to consider storing purchases in a central database, for a limited period of time, so that maybe someone might notice and ask the authorities to look into it. Definitely not a permanent gun registry though.
March 29, 20232 yr 22 minutes ago, Bill said: Rifles are used in 29% of mass shootings. Yeah, you keep pushing that when you know the subject is school/children shootings.
March 29, 20232 yr 31 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: What is the max round capacity and ROF of the varmint rifle shown and the rifle actually used? Yep. Then there's also the recoil control of a foregrip and pistol grip. Basically the exact things that make them popular and appealing to law-abiding consumers is what also makes them effective in mass shootings. Not sure if magazine capacity was a factor here, but I've posted a few times in the past how limiting magazine capacity wouldn't affect the frequency of these tragedies, but could at least mitigate some of the severity. There have been several instances where people were able to flee or the shooter was neutralized while reloading or when the gun jammed. Not sure on how likely it is be upheld again if challenged, but it was probably the most effective aspect of the ban in '94.
March 29, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: Yep. Then there's also the recoil control of a foregrip and pistol grip. Basically the exact things that make them popular and appealing to law-abiding consumers is what also makes them effective in mass shootings. Not sure if magazine capacity was a factor here, but I've posted a few times in the past how limiting magazine capacity wouldn't affect the frequency of these tragedies, but could at least mitigate some of the severity. There have been several instances where people were able to flee or the shooter was neutralized while reloading or when the gun jammed. Not sure on how likely it is be upheld again if challenged, but it was probably the most effective aspect of the ban that expired in '92. The AR style rifle allows inexperienced shooters the ability to put way more rounds down range than the varmint rifle posted above. I’m not saying banning them is the answer or that it would even help if we did, but let’s stop pretending that they do it make it easier to kill.
March 29, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Paul852 said: Yeah, you keep pushing that when you know the subject is school/children shootings. Not my fault you can’t extrapolate the data. 4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Yep. Then there's also the recoil control of a foregrip and pistol grip. Basically the exact things that make them popular and appealing to law-abiding consumers is what also makes them effective in mass shootings. Not sure if magazine capacity was a factor here, but I've posted a few times in the past how limiting magazine capacity wouldn't affect the frequency of these tragedies, but could at least mitigate some of the severity. There have been several instances where people were able to flee or the shooter was neutralized while reloading or when the gun jammed. Not sure on how likely it is be upheld again if challenged, but it was probably the most effective aspect of the ban in '94. Limiting the magazine capacity won’t change it. At best you’re hoping for a statistical anomaly that occurs during a statistical anomaly. You can reload an AK in less than a second and that’s a PITA because the magazine has a lug and you have to rack it to load it. AR’s? Pistols? Yeah they can be done quick. Even with best case scenario with mag capacity bans you’re just going to see New York reloads. I admire the humanity of liberals. What I don’t admire is their inability to come up with a working solution to a problem.
Create an account or sign in to comment