Another Shooting, Nashville

[tinkerdorabelle]

You said

I disagree based on reading your posts in this thread.

Yes the FACTS and yes the crazy going on on Fox and all those stations and people like LaPierre is extreme. Just stating the facts and how others are responding. What did LaPierre just say after the shooting in Fl, he went on and on about how people were coming to get you, fear mongering, he said that not only was the G (can't get political) going to take away your rights to own guns, all guns, he said they were going to take away ALL YOUR RIGHTS. So I'm extreme by reporting what is being said out there. Lmao, sad that you are living in denial or uneducated on it. All the stations reported it. Here's a small excerpt from it. I had to limit the political.


Wayne LaPierre
National Rifle Association of America (NRA)
Guns and Firearms
NRA’s Wayne LaPierre says, “the elites don’t care one wit about school children. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so they can eliminate all individual freedoms”. Is this true?



Perhaps it was a bit strongly worded, but I don't think that his statement can be labelled as untrue.

We see encroachments upon the 2nd Amendment all the time, from the "L"


The "G" is quietly, step-by-step, attacking our Rights, and our ability to defend those Rights. The media is complicit in shaping public opinion to make people WANT this erosion (elimination) of our Rights.

The only one benefiting here is the G; it's not a paranoid fantasy that the G is after your guns, when they've flat out said they are. It's not a paranoid fantasy that they are going to take away our Rights when they are doing that very thing.

So...do these gun-grabbing politicians care about children? Do they want to eliminate all of our Rights? "Is this true?"

They're doing it...right now...what do you think?

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Yes the FACTS and yes the crazy going on on Fox and all those stations and people like LaPierre is extreme. Just stating the facts and how others are responding. What did LaPierre just say after the shooting in Fl, he went on and on about how people were coming to get you, fear mongering, he said that not only was the G (can't get political) going to take away your rights to own guns, all guns, he said they were going to take away ALL YOUR RIGHTS. So I'm extreme by reporting what is being said out there. Lmao, sad that you are living in denial or uneducated on it. All the stations reported it. Here's a small excerpt from it. I had to limit the political.


Wayne LaPierre
National Rifle Association of America (NRA)
Guns and Firearms
NRA’s Wayne LaPierre says, “the elites don’t care one wit about school children. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so they can eliminate all individual freedoms”. Is this true?



Perhaps it was a bit strongly worded, but I don't think that his statement can be labelled as untrue.

We see encroachments upon the 2nd Amendment all the time, from the "L"


The "G" is quietly, step-by-step, attacking our Rights, and our ability to defend those Rights. The media is complicit in shaping public opinion to make people WANT this erosion (elimination) of our Rights.

The only one benefiting here is the G; it's not a paranoid fantasy that the G is after your guns, when they've flat out said they are. It's not a paranoid fantasy that they are going to take away our Rights when they are doing that very thing.

So...do these gun-grabbing politicians care about children? Do they want to eliminate all of our Rights? "Is this true?"

They're doing it...right now...what do you think?

Umm, theirs a lot to dissect right their. You say he’s “fear mongoring” claiming they’re coming for your firearms.
Can you honestly say no one’s saying that?
Oh wait, the poster just before you did, and so are some politicians.

It will keep them out of the hands of people like this murderer, the one at Parkland FL, the one in Sutherland TX, the one in Las Vegas NV, the one in Orlando FL, the ones in San Bernardino CA ... and the one in Newtown CT. That’s enough for me. As for the other firearms, I see it as a process.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

It will keep them out of the hands of people like this murderer, the one at Parkland FL, the one in Sutherland TX, the one in Las Vegas NV, the one in Orlando FL, the ones in San Bernardino CA ... and the one in Newtown CT. That’s enough for me. As for the other firearms, I see it as a process.

No, it won't. First, no matter what's banned, it will be flat out impossible to get all of the currently legal rifles out of the US. It just will not happen. Second, it's not that hard to obtain weapons illegally. People don't think, "Oh look, I have this gun. I guess I should just go shoot some people." No, they decide to kill, then find ways of obtaining those weapons. If they can't obtain them legally, they will get them illegally. Any one of those shooters could have easily modified their plans using a different weapon that could be obtained legally that none of these weapons bans addresses or found the same weapons illegally. Do you really think they would have said, "Well, I can no longer legally own an AR, so I guess I can't go shoot people today?"

Banning rifles will only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who aren't going to break the law by trying to keep/own/procure something illegal. Someone who wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to give a fig about laws, obviously, or they wouldn't be trying to kill people.

 

[robinb]

No, it won't. First, no matter what's banned, it will be flat out impossible to get all of the currently legal rifles out of the US. It just will not happen. Second, it's not that hard to obtain weapons illegally. People don't think, "Oh look, I have this gun. I guess I should just go shoot some people." No, they decide to kill, then find ways of obtaining those weapons. If they can't obtain them legally, they will get them illegally. Any one of those shooters could have easily modified their plans using a different weapon that could be obtained legally that none of these weapons bans addresses or found the same weapons illegally. Do you really think they would have said, "Well, I can no longer legally own an AR, so I guess I can't go shoot people today?"

Banning rifles will only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who aren't going to break the law by trying to keep/own/procure something illegal. Someone who wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to give a fig about laws, obviously, or they wouldn't be trying to kill people.

It’s a start. We, as a country, cannot remain frozen in place with national OCD when it comes to AR 15s. It doesn’t have to be perfect to make a difference.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

They may be but you can kill someone with a butcher knife. It doesn't have to be a switchblade or whatever.

You can also kill someone with a frozen pork shoulder.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

It will keep them out of the hands of people like this murderer, the one at Parkland FL, the one in Sutherland TX, the one in Las Vegas NV, the one in Orlando FL, the ones in San Bernardino CA ... and the one in Newtown CT. That’s enough for me. As for the other firearms, I see it as a process.

A process, as in step one of many to come.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

No, it won't. First, no matter what's banned, it will be flat out impossible to get all of the currently legal rifles out of the US. It just will not happen.

Why is this an argument? "We can't fix all of it so let's not even try"?

Why is murder illegal at all, then? It's like it stopped murders from happening.

If you want to argue that you should own any firearm you want of any destructive ability because the 2nd Amendment gives no qualification, fine, argue that . But to say let's not even try because it won't work is defeatist and pessimistic.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

LMAO Actually you saying that my wanting intelligent gun regulations is extreme or that those other things are not being said on Fox, or by LaPierre or the others is completely disingenuous. We all know people even our P.




Mackenzie do you even know who LaPierre is, you need educate yourself before you get in discussions with me.

A lot of things are labeled “intelligent” or “common sense” by the very people who dream them up. That doesn’t necessarily make it so.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Why is this an argument? "We can't fix all of it so let's not even try"?

Why is murder illegal at all, then? It's like it stopped murders from happening.

If you want to argue that you should own any firearm you want of any destructive ability because the 2nd Amendment gives no qualification, fine, argue that . But to say let's not even try because it won't work is defeatist and pessimistic.

Because it really does come down to 2 choices. You can either ban all firearms that are easily reloaded and confiscate all those that exist, or you can leave things as is. Any attempt to meet in the middle will achieve nothing (for either side). Anyone with a working knowledge of firearms knows this.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

It’s a start. We, as a country, cannot remain frozen in place with national OCD when it comes to AR 15s. It doesn’t have to be perfect to make a difference.

Look at some statistics. The vast majority of violent crimes involving a gun are not perpetrated by legal gun owners. The perpetrator obtained the gun illegally. Making ARs illegal will not stop thise crimes. Rifles account for 3% of overall gun homicides, so why is the focus on them rather than the weapons that actually account for the most gun deaths?

Roughly 9000 ish homicides by gun happen every year. On the other hand, the CDC has estimated that guns are used defensively for protection and to deter criminals between 500,000 and 3 million times per year. Criminals will find a way to get guns if they're banned, and law-abiding citizens will be left without an equalizer.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Why is this an argument? "We can't fix all of it so let's not even try"?

Why is murder illegal at all, then? It's like it stopped murders from happening.

If you want to argue that you should own any firearm you want of any destructive ability because the 2nd Amendment gives no qualification, fine, argue that . But to say let's not even try because it won't work is defeatist and pessimistic.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to fix things. I'm saying that banning guns will not solve anything. It does not get rid of the criminal mindset or deter those who are mentally ill and hell bent on murder.

 

[robinb]

Because it really does come down to 2 choices. You can either ban all firearms that are easily reloaded and confiscate all those that exist, or you can leave things as is. Any attempt to meet in the middle will achieve nothing (for either side). Anyone with a working knowledge of firearms knows this.

No, there are not just two extremes. There is plenty of in-between but some people refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

No, there are not just two extremes. There is plenty of in-between but some people refuse to acknowledge it.

No, there really isn’t if we’re talking about trying to solve mass shootings by eliminating certain kinds of guns. Outlawing one specific gun will have no impact as long as other guns that are equally lethal remain available.

That would be like outlawing black Corvettes in an effort to make highways safer. People would just buy red Corvettes, or Dodges, or Fords, or etc, etc. To actually effect change, you’d need to not just outlaw, but eliminate every other option that has the same capability.

Now, if you’re talking about things like background checks, mental health reporting, or the like, I will agree there can be some common ground. But, that’s a different angle altogether.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Keep in mind also, and I made this point some weeks back on another thread, a rifle is more awkward to use in a crowded room than a handgun. It’s more difficult to get on target and because of its size, a victim that fights back stands a better chance of getting “inside” on the shooter in such a way that they cannot point the gun at him/her. It’s bulk makes it easier for said victim to grab hold of it. Moreover, rifles require two hands to operate. To reload, one must take one hand off the rifle making the reloading process more challenging than it would be with a handgun, and the shooter more vulnerable to being disarmed. This is why police & even our elite military members often choose handguns for room to room operations.

What happened at the Waffle House? This exact scenario played out.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

No, there really isn’t if we’re talking about trying to solve mass shootings by eliminating certain kinds of guns. Outlawing one specific gun will have no impact as long as other guns that are equally lethal remain available.

That would be like outlawing black Corvettes in an effort to make highways safer. People would just buy red Corvettes, or Dodges, or Fords, or etc, etc. To actually effect change, you’d need to not just outlaw, but eliminate every other option that has the same capability.

Now, if you’re talking about things like background checks, mental health reporting, or the like, I will agree there can be some common ground. But, that’s a different angle altogether.

I agree 100%. There are absolutely some things that should be looked into more to see if it will help. Gun advocates are not opposed to reasonable regulation that will be effective. Banning ARs will not solve the problem and it would be impossible to completely eradicate every gun with similar capabilities from the US.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Anyone else seen this
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29790/breaking-anti-gun-control-parkland-survivor-kyle-daily-wire

 

[UncleMike101]

No, there are not just two extremes. There is plenty of in-between but some people refuse to acknowledge it.

Using phrases like "It's a start" and "I see it as a process" are exactly why people listen to Wayne LaPierre.
Those two phrases have been used in varying forms by unscrupulous politicians for many decades.
I was very aware of such phrases when they were used by the gun grabbers in 1967 when Congress was discussing GCA 1968 since I wrote several letters to my Representatives concerning the merits of the proposed law. (Yes, I became aware of the political ramifications of such things while I was in High School.)
They stated that this law would be the last law needed to control gun violence in the U.S.
Well........
Thousands of laws, and exactly fifty years, later the problem hasn't even been nipped in the bud.
In fact it's gotten exponentially worse.
As I've stated before, restricting, taxing to death, "controlling", or eliminating firearms altogether will not even slow down the human propensity toward murder.
Human behavior will not change just because the availability of a certain group of inanimate objects is diminished or even eliminated.
BTW
The use of oversized bold print when referencing Mr. LaPierre is tantamount to screaming.
Becoming emotional and screaming will certainly not fix the problem but will instead polarize the individuals being addressed against a point that is trying to be made.

 

[asta]

Anyone else seen this
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29790/breaking-anti-gun-control-parkland-survivor-kyle-daily-wire

This kid sounds like an agitator at worst or at least terribly insensitive. That school suffered great loss and trauma at the hands of a student with the same type weapon this kid is bragging about learning how to shoot. He has a right to learn to shoot but his posts could very easily be seen as upsetting to a student body still healing.

I know you gun people will object to my opinion but it is clear to me what is wrong in this situation.

 

[robinb]

Anyone else seen this
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29790/breaking-anti-gun-control-parkland-survivor-kyle-daily-wire

Oh gee. Parkland resource officers just *might* just be a little touchy about students posing with guns on Twitter and Instagram. I won't give the Daily Wire a click, but from what I read elsewhere it was an "asked and answered" situation. They asked, he answered. In any case, young Mr. Kashuv seems to be stepping up to be another activist from my brief google search on him.