You are almost always wrong. It’s a certainty there will be no ban... zero chance.

He -is- wrong a lot. Especially predictions. 180 out. Yep, and again, last month in Japan a man killed 30-something with 2 5-gallon jugs of petrol. Perhaps corgi can explain the physiological effects of burning to death. :rolleyes:

Yep. More came out today. One of the victims records unsealed. I can only imaging the deals being proposed by the heavy hitters. Lucky Bill, lots of cover fire right now.

Just keep telling yourself that. That’s exactly what we want.

He might have more than you think, Epstein has been Arkanicided.

The world will be shocked, shocked I say!.... :eek:

What's a democrat talking point? It's the bull**** you've been spewing here in this thread for the majority of your comments. You're nothing but a parrot. You hear someone say "Trump violated the constitution by diverting military funds" and you come here and type the same nonsense... You, like most of the left leaning people here are little more than a parrot.

No emotion in my comments... a TON of butthurt in yours though. Step up to the plate and show exactly how an individual constitutional right was stripped away by Trump using military funds, that are supposed to go towards protecting our borders, was unconstitutional.. I wish you all the luck in the world on this one because you're going to need it.

I do not object to background checks. I just have no reason to believe by requiring a person to sell a gun through a FFL holder that we'll see any reduction in mass shootings. What I mean is, it won't even reach the 50% threshold since nearly every mass shooting over the last decade has been carried out by a person who legally purchased the weapon and passed a background check. I think the only exception was Lanza in Newtown who killed his mom and stole the guns. How would a background check have stopped that?

Who is “we?”

--EDIT--

I'm not trying to create discourse and more divide, I am trying to promote some sort of useful conversation

My original post (and point) remains below
======= BEGING original post =====================
If people were really interested, they'd stop with the one-upmanship and gotchas and instead focus on the issue. Thats been my theme from the beginning. I don't care if its guns, knives of bubble gum murders.

Risk management on ay issue if made up of three areas that I'll apply to this discussion:

1) preventative (identifying root cause that causes an unbalanced person or a balanced person to go berserk )

2) Minimizing impact if someone does go berserk (limiting the damage)

3) Remedial (mopping up the societal mess, repairing relationships between stakeholders etc)

Each area will uncover different solutions.

Each time an event like this happens it pushes the two sides farther apart (and I always wonder why there are two sides instead a committed group that says that the way American society seems to be going is unacceptable)

...and back we go to the discussion about who know more about guns or laws, and the group never really discusses the issue.

Focus it around the three areas above.

Analyst risk around probability and impact = Risk
Decide if the risk is acceptable or not.
Figure out where the risk fits

Get on with it.

But nobody seems interested. Its not your loved one so why bother?
===end of my original post======

More are killed by short barrel handguns than long rifles.

Yet the politicians focus on long rifles; why?


Declaw the house cats; the Coyotes still attack.

• Kill the coyotes?
• don't keep house cats?
• put up a fence?
• try to convince the coyotes that its a guide dog?
• move to the city?
• buy a membership to pet of the month club and consider house cats expendable?

I'm sure someone else could come up with some better ideas

My take is; because it's the thing people are using to carry out these mass shootings over the last decade or so. The media has done such a good job portraying the AR as a military weapon and a killing machine that there are polls out right now showing a majority support banning the AR. I'd bet if you explained to those people that by far more people are killed by a handgun they'd have no idea and say you were lying.

I'd bet that most people have no idea that one city in this country has as many people murdered as all mass shootings combined this year.

Lots of people say that it is the mentally ill that are committing these heinous acts...My pov is that you need to look at what is causing these people to become agitated in ever greater numbers...

These people are responding to some stimulus..and no it isn't as simple as someone inciting them to do it..it is larger than that...they are responding to an instability in society itself..

As a matter of fact the person or persons who are inciting emotions with rhetoric are themsleves responding to the instability in society...

The question becomes what is the causation of the instability in society? Two possibilities emerge...Global Overpopulation, and or the decline of American economic fortunes and the American peoples unwillingness to accept the outcome of history.

Everything else is fkin noiz...


Now you have a choice to make, one you can accept the logic of what I have said or you can continue in denial and lay the blame at whatever flavor blows your dress up..

The "media" has done a good job of portraying the AR15 as a military weapon. Uh, that's because it basically is for all intents and purposes a military weapon, as demonstrated by he opinions of all of the docs in the article I posted. Against that expertise we have cabby, who still disputes that the the AR15 rounds do what they were designed to do--tumble to cause additional damage. Oh--and of course all those docs have an agenda, are emotional, etc. All the name calling he uses to hide his ignorance and emotion.

"We" manbridge, is the 90% of people in the US who want gun control measures. You know, all the folks who get unreasonably emotional when they see innocent people get murdered just to protect a bunch of hobbyists.

This is one of many parts of this. But, in a recent discussion with an old friend the topic came up of the maturity level of this younger generation. There is no doubt that issue needs to factor in. A 21 or 18 year old from 50 years ago was far more people linked than the kids I see now a days.

I am back in school and it is interesting to discuss issues with them. They are smart, but incredibly shy. In one art class (no more engineering for me), the discussion among the old guys and the kids was how do you get to know someone. I was very surprised how many admitted to feeling very awkward in new public settings. The world is different and the sharp young folks I have met are aware of how they relate to it, each other, and older folks.

This ^^^^ is fkin noiz...not an ounce of understanding anything in it...it is a superficial external to the human condition argument. The choice of weapon is irrelevant. One is as good as another...

Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows, as well as slings and bows, against Christians.

Now I am fully expecting you to step on your dick again...

Hitler used the same argument..that the kids today are not what they used to be...

Well then the 90% can vote that way in 2020, that being pure fantasy.

This is interesting and I'd like to know more. Thanks, Dan.

A neighborhood that is a murder hotspot has the same laws on the books as some other neighborhood that is within the same jurisdiction.

Take Baltimore, some neighborhoods are murder rife; others not. The same is true for the Greater Chicago Area, etc...

You can't fix this problem by laws making more things illegal - people getting gunned down is fundamentally illegal as well.

I pray it doesn't happen, but if you take away the guns from everyone; there will be those who turn to other far deadlier methods. The NZ shooter specifically used illegal weapons to illustrate that making them illegal wouldn't stop their use.

What if we knock some nuts loose into using other methods than guns to show that mass murder is mass murder whether gun or not?

The root is finding the nuts, and perhaps providing better families so we don't have the nuts in the first place.

There is no round "designed to tumble". You are still wrong as is anyone saying it is designed to tumble or that it tumbles at all without hitting bone. What it does is change its course upon entry due to the energy being absorbed by soft tissue which slows the rounds and changes its travel path... but it doesn't tumble. In the ballistics gel tests, the round isn't tumbling. The reason for the larger wound is the transfer of kinetic energy from the round to the object being struck.

The .223 is no more "designed to tumble" than any high speed round. The damage caused is due to the transfer of energy, not some mythical round tumbling.

Agree 100%