Gun ownership per capita is the highest in the world, almost two times the next country and 11 times more than the world average, more guns than people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated ... by_country

EA CO AS wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Here are eleven, for starters. When you're done reading, I expect you'll retract your "not one good guy ever stopped a bad guy" BS, correct?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimed ... d-guy-gun/

None were mass shootings, they were almost all citizens defending themselves from home invasions, a legit use for a weapon, and none of them were using semi auto weapons.

You DO realize that a shooting spree that's stopped before it begins would therefore never BE a "mass shooting," right?

After reading all eleven incidences only one looked like it could have turned into a shooting spree, the rest weren't even close.

How would a citizen with a gun have stopped Orlando or Las Vegas?? I'd love to hear your answer.

Is there any hope of seeing at least from last night's deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas, that there will be some bi-partisan agreement in bringing tougher gun laws without infringing the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens?

aerosreenivas wrote:

Is there any hope of seeing at least from last night's deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas, that we will finally see some bi-partisan agreement in bringing tougher gun laws without infringing the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens?

26 dead preschoolers at Sandy Hook, nothing happened, 49 dead in Orlando, nothing happened, 59 dead in Las Vegas I doubt anything will happen.

the only thing i find surprising is why does it take days to count 59 bodies?

onward and upward, the bar has been raised

NIKV69 wrote:

[
You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

When you can go across to Indiana and pick up a gun pretty easily, the whole "Chicago crime" thing starts to fall apart.

330west wrote:

Why is it that you people need to have guns anyways? Are you that afraid of the world that you can't leave the house without a lethal weapon?

I own a firearm, I carry a firearm, but, and this is a huge but....why someone needs to own 10 firearms, let alone automatic rifles is beyond me, there is no legitimate reason to own that much fire power.

Kiwirob wrote:

aerosreenivas wrote:

Is there any hope of seeing at least from last night's deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas, that we will finally see some bi-partisan agreement in bringing tougher gun laws without infringing the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens?

26 dead preschoolers at Sandy Hook, nothing happened, 49 dead in Orlando, nothing happened, 59 dead in Las Vegas I doubt anything will happen.

If a group of dead school kids can't change the minds of people, the death of a group of adults partying in Vegas sure isn't going to.

Okay, we are now offering free rooms to relatives of those killed or injured, if you or you know someone that needs a room out here, drop me a message.

Once again this incident throws a light on why a man or a woman with frustration in their mind can ever think of taking other people's lives away before ending theirs? What these innocents have anything to do with his/her problem in life?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

Ignoring the whole "well regulated militia" part for the moment, the second amendment says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yet that right is infringed in numerous ways, which I've yet to hear much complaint about. The SC has also ruled that that right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms.

So why can't sensible controls be put in place that might prevent another Sandy Hook or Las Vegas? Nobody is saying take all the guns away, so please try to avoid the use of the words "liberal" and "gun grabbing" in your response.

330west wrote:

Why is it that you people need to have guns anyways? Are you that afraid of the world that you can't leave the house without a lethal weapon?

While a small minority have legitimate requirement to defend themselves from bears and wolves and kill their own food, I suspect many are inadequate in other ways.

EA CO AS wrote:

In general, I would still say a good guy with a gun is generally the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

Then why is he doing such a piss-poor job of it?

EA CO AS wrote:

I guess we Americans will just have to learn to live with being less enlightened than you in the UK....

You've managed for the last 241 years!

aerosreenivas wrote:

Once again this incident throws a light on why a man or a woman with frustration in their mind can ever think of taking other people's lives away before ending theirs? What these innocents have anything to do with his/her problem in life?

Because they can, and they want to go out on a bang.

It's the same extreme individualism that refuses to put sensible controls on gun ownership, the guys rolling coal on their trucks, the extreme rate of single mothers having to raise children because their fathers don't care.

It's part the me, me, me, my rights, my everything culture. Because I can and because I want to, and you can't stop me because f*ck you.

It happens everywhere, on the margins of society, but the American culture seems to breed more of them, and to enable them. Still a relatively rare phenomenon, though.

There are some historians who have suggested that the 2nd Amendment was a way to retain slavery, that local militias were needed to put down any possible slave revolts and keep slaves from freedom. The records of the debates over the Bill of Rights as to what became the 2nd Amendment suggest that as a major factor.
In the USA, 'mass' murder is defined as when 3 or more persons are killed in one event. There are 100's of mass, or really multiple murder events every year, all but a relative few by mass shooting events like that in Las Vegas.
There is the serial murders of 1-2 at a time by drug and other criminal gangs, especially in Chicago or by nuts that should be considered mass murders too. You have criminal gang mass murder events in battles over turf. Murders of multiple family and friends in one event (like 7 of a family in Houston a few weeks ago). You have multiple deaths from preventable industrial, gas and chemical explosions and fires. Drivers of vehicles while DWI, going excessive speeds or while texting who cause crashes that kill 3 or more. There is the use of bombs by those opposed to abortion clinics. GLTBQ's have been intended victims (like at Pulse nightclub in Orlando) due to a hate for them. There have been mass/multiple murders at workplaces by disgruntled employees and of businesses by angry customers, far too often using military class weapons. Even those that are not killed but only wounded will face massive physical and mental health illness that will affect them for the rest of their lives.
And yes there are the guns themselves. No one needs a weapon intended for original use to kill people by military forces for hunting or self protection. 90 years ago 4 were brutally murdered in the battle of major criminal gangs in Chicago with the use of ex-military automatic weapons. Known as the 'St. Valentine's Day Massacre', the publicity of it led to the ban on civilian ownership and use of automatic weapons and the creation of the modern FBI. The mass murder of 1000's on 9/'11 led to major changes in security to get on or while on a plane. We need a similar reaction from these mass murders.
There are many who say the mass gun murders are caused in part by cartoon like violence in video games, movies and music. Maybe we need more graphic depictions of what bullets do to bodies. Ask those who saw the carnage in Las Vegas at the site of the murders, the first responders, those at the hospitals who treated the victims or confirmed their deaths. In the end, our society must end the pro-death culture we have, the resolution of problems via murder, the mental health crises that lead to many deaths and our fetish for guns.

I've read that a law was introduced the other day (not yet voted on) in the House to allow more liberal rules on silencers, because you know, when you're shooting at intruders in your house, you don't want to wake up the children !

SMH

maortega15 wrote:

The best we can do is lecture the next generation of people on what is right and wrong, good and bad.

"Educate". Aha.Like all the other "educational activity".

What about living "what is good and right" as a shining example for once?

Those that go ballistic tend to do so from some unbearable tension.
Usually the disparity between (moral) talk and (immoral) activity in their peer group.
They disassociate from that group and start to envision a solution in the vein
of Mouth and Hoof disease remedy: No bovines no MHD. A "cleansing" is the outcome.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Just reported on TV, the gunman had 8 automatic weapons

So, if they were true automatic weapons, tell me how more laws on the books prevent this, when there are already laws on the books that are a defacto ban on them

As some of us suspected, two of the guns had bump stocks.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/03/la ... peed-fire/

I think it's time to sell your slide fire shares.

In the end it makes no sense to discuss the method used. Seems like the guy also had stocked up on explosives or at least the base materials to make them. If you take away the guns, he can still rent a van and explode the bomb in a crowd, if you take away the explosives, he still can rent the van and river over people....

EA CO AS wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

A majority of the nine wise souls in Washington D.C. have consistently disagreed with you.

So why does the Amendment make reference to 'a well-regulated militia'? It was quite literally the 2nd thing they thought to include, and I don't see anything resembling well-regulated, a militia, or a well-regulated militia.

Look it up.

You can spell it out for me, doesn't need to be in huge detail. Why is something quite clearly written in the constitution not carried over into the real world when the other part of that very same amendment is held so close.

seahawk wrote:

In the end it makes no sense to discuss the method used. Seems like the guy also had stocked up on explosives or at least the base materials to make them. If you take away the guns, he can still rent a van and explode the bomb in a crowd, if you take away the explosives, he still can rent the van and river over people....

So you would be against the protective barriers they have installed here in London so vehicles cannot be driven into people because hey... they can always try to find other ways to hurt people. What a strange argument.

MSPNWA wrote:

You're making fatal statistical errors, and your data is highly questionable. How many of those "thousands" of mass shootings had people with guns able to fight back before it became a mass shooting?

The fact that people with guns were not able to fight back should be taken into consideration when trying to measure how effective 'good guys' with guns are at stopping mass shootings. If people are not able to stop these shootings with any effectiveness then it suggests it's not really working at all.

You're counting untold numbers of shootings without civilian gun defense as a case where a gun didn't stop it. That's an error. You're also stopping at those <10 with the reckless assumption that one article covered all cases. That's not how you count percentages, to put it mildly.

I can only work with data that I've been given. If there's somewhere that shows how mass shootings were stopped by civilians with guns, then you can link me to it. I was just doing the '1 in 400 and '100 in 400' to show how unsuccessful it really is overall.

Do you notice when mass shootings tend to stop? When someone shows up that can fight back. Countless numbers of potential attacks don't go reported because - maybe you guessed it - they never became a statistic in the first place.

A lot of them end when the killer kills himself. I've got no problem with the police carrying guns, they can stop the attacks here as well, but there's no need for normal people to carry them if the police can do it anyway. You're right in that it may be hard to quantify as attacks don't start, but some indication of whether it's common would be better than anything provided so far.

And also, how are you coming up with 3,000 mass shootings? The FBI's count is a fraction of that.

The BBC gave a figure of 372 in 2015, so I assumed 300 per year as a generous estimate, then multiplied by 10 to cover 2006-2016, as the incidents in the article about stopping shootings go back to 2006. I'm saying 3000 over 10 years, not 1 year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604

It's not hard to find stories of attacks stopped by as gun. They happen too frequently with all the evil people out there. The NRA's The Armed Citizen page is a good place to start. It's clear that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Go ask Steve Scalise and the other congressmen present that day. The fact that police carry guns tells us that. The stories tell us too. And basic logic as well.

It's not hard to find them, no. I looked at the NRA's page and there were several burglaries and individuals stopped by someone with a gun. However, none of them even closely resembled a mass shooting. The stories don't tell much on their own, with over 300 mass shootings per year you'll need to find over 300 cases of mass shootings, not just burglaries, that have been stopped by someone with a gun, preferably not a police officer because they already have guns in other countries. That would give us a success ratio of 50%. Still not great...

It's clear that the best method is actually regulating guns and not letting people have them unrestricted. Just to remind you again, zero mass shootings in the UK for 21 years, none in Australia for 21 years, maybe a few in EU countries and Canada, Japan etc, but nowhere near as much as the USA. The question is whether the USA is willing to give up some of their 'freedom' in order to lower the 10,000 death toll from gun homicides.

ogre727 wrote:

So you would be against the protective barriers they have installed here in London so vehicles cannot be driven into people because hey... they can always try to find other ways to hurt people. What a strange argument.

I do wonder when we'll see the first fire engine / ambulance .. not being able to reach a fire/accident for those terrorist stops.

// as firefighters we already have issues with parked cars, drivers incapable of making room _and_ with some burglar proved housing.
It takes precious time to breach armored up doors, windows and louvres. Even if not already unconscious people in danger tend
to have problems opening those super burglar proved doors and windows from the inside.

Compare the number of rescue operations hindered to the number of terrorist attack frustrated and then retargeted to a less protected object.

ogre727 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

In the end it makes no sense to discuss the method used. Seems like the guy also had stocked up on explosives or at least the base materials to make them. If you take away the guns, he can still rent a van and explode the bomb in a crowd, if you take away the explosives, he still can rent the van and river over people....

So you would be against the protective barriers they have installed here in London so vehicles cannot be driven into people because hey... they can always try to find other ways to hurt people. What a strange argument.

Protective barriers are an illusion. They might protect certain places, but there will be always enough places where attacks will still be possible. Harder gun laws might help against the persons going postal due to a certain event which put them out of their mental balance, but for individuals with skills, resources and a long time plan to commit such a terror attack, it just means they have to find another way. The guy in Vegas was skilled and resourceful and maybe it was better he used guns than crashing a Cessna 172 into the area. That does not mean I support the current trend in US legislation that aims for even less strict gun laws, because I seriously can not see why private gun owners need a silencer or why you need to be able to stock up a large number of assault rifles or semi automatic rifles.

seahawk wrote:

Harder gun laws might help against the persons going postal due to a certain event which put them out of their mental balance

Exactly!

Some help is better than just shrugging our collective shoulders and saying "Well, what can you do? Second amendment."

seahawk wrote:

Protective barriers are an illusion. They might protect certain places, but there will be always enough places where attacks will still be possible.

What's the point in taking a bath? We're just gonna get sweaty and dirty.

What's the point in cleaning? Dust is still going to collect on the surface and everything will become dirty again.

What's the point of living? We're just gonna die one way or another.

dragon-wings wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Expect the NRA to put out an ad, using this event to support their cause for looser/no restrictions on weapons.

(aka. "If they only had a gun...")

Even with looser regulation how on earth would people mostly armed with handguns return accurate fire on a shooter in a building 32 floors up and 1700ft away. A handgun wouldn't even hit the building let alone take out the offender. It would have caused more panic and additional fatalities.

In every one of these mass shooting not one good guy with a gun EVER stopped a bad guy with a gun.

Super80Fan wrote:

Lovely: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... icans.html

Hope CBS fires this wretched woman.

The first part of her statement I do not agree with. But the second part is mostly true!

Yeah so the church shooter in TN an usher stopped a potential mass murderer with his concealed carry gun he had to go out to his car to get it because I am sure the church had a rule about not bringing a weapon into church.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/24/22-ye ... h-shooter/

Also I remember the daughter of a couple killed in the Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Texas testified before congress that her parents and a lot of others would still be alive if she had been allowed to bring her gun into the restaurant in her purse. She was even elected to the state house of representatives and a staunch advocate for conceal carry. Just because these particular mass shootings were not stopped with anyone who was conceal carrying does not mean he/she could not have stopped one that happened in the past or the future. I do not know what the answer is and I agree we need restrictions on assault rifles and I have no problems with extensive background checks. But the fear among gun owners is that once you start implementing laws that it will just be a start of more and more restrictions until the left gets what they ultimately want and that is complete gun confiscation. No matter what laws you pass and how many guns you take away you are NEVER going to stop a lone wolf attack. There are too many "soft targets" and part of the freedom living here will make you vulnerable to attacks. Criminals will ALWAYS get guns anyway no matter how many laws you pass. The left can't seem to figure this out.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/14 ... my-family/

I think your fears are groundless, removing certain types of weapons and making people get licenses for the weapons they own is in no way the start of banning weapons althogether. A good example is the right to vote and voter registration, I doubt the founding fathers thought about voter registration and never made allowances for it in the constitution, just like the second amendment, but you now have to register to vote so why shouldn't you register your weapons?

einsteinboricua wrote:

What's the point in taking a bath? We're just gonna get sweaty and dirty.
What's the point in cleaning? Dust is still going to collect on the surface and everything will become dirty again.
What's the point of living? We're just gonna die one way or another.

James Hilton's Top Monk in "New Horizon/Shangri La":

"We do everything in moderation."


The argument was against myopic fixing without an eye on the ( invariably unintended but dear) consequences.

I brought up a rather real example:
emergeny responders can not access their objectives.
people burn just because nobody can access their quarters fast enough.

jetwet1 wrote:

330west wrote:

Why is it that you people need to have guns anyways? Are you that afraid of the world that you can't leave the house without a lethal weapon?

I own a firearm, I carry a firearm, but, and this is a huge but....why someone needs to own 10 firearms, let alone automatic rifles is beyond me, there is no legitimate reason to own that much fire power.

Why do you even need to own and carry one?

330west wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

330west wrote:

Why is it that you people need to have guns anyways? Are you that afraid of the world that you can't leave the house without a lethal weapon?

I own a firearm, I carry a firearm, but, and this is a huge but....why someone needs to own 10 firearms, let alone automatic rifles is beyond me, there is no legitimate reason to own that much fire power.

Why do you even need to own and carry one?

Maybe to protect himself from other people criminals who do have a gun and want to do you harm. I never had a gun until I was robbed at gunpoint in front of my house years ago. Then I bought 2 and have my carry permit. Just the other day a guy here in town (Memphis area) was stopped at a light off the freeway off ramp nice area too was bumped from behind by another car he got out to check damage and they robbed him took his car and shot him. Maybe if he had been carrying that might have been prevented. Although bump and rob has been done before if it happened to me I would drive off to either a police station or public area then get out. This town and unfortunately a lot of others in the US are high crime areas so why let the criminals have the guns and leave yourself unprotected.

einsteinboricua wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Protective barriers are an illusion. They might protect certain places, but there will be always enough places where attacks will still be possible.

What's the point in taking a bath? We're just gonna get sweaty and dirty.

What's the point in cleaning? Dust is still going to collect on the surface and everything will become dirty again.

What's the point of living? We're just gonna die one way or another.

Nobody can protect everybody from all possible risks of life. Safety from determined terrorists is an illusion, it always has been. It is no different to safety from the guy looking at his mobile and hitting your car in a frontal crash or the guy driving the highway in the wrong direction, the part of a roof falling onto the street or being at the place of a natural disaster.

You can make rules to reduce the risk of such things happening, you can protect certain places or events but in the end you can not prepare for every possibility. I am sure the concert in Vegas had good security, they surely searched the visitors for explosives and weapons and will probably have blocked access points with barriers, but nobody prepared or even thought of a shooter on a high rise building shooting down.

Kiwirob wrote:

I think your fears are groundless, removing certain types of weapons and making people get licenses for the weapons they own is in no way the start of banning weapons althogether. A good example is the right to vote and voter registration, I doubt the founding fathers thought about voter registration and never made allowances for it in the constitution, just like the second amendment, but you now have to register to vote so why shouldn't you register your weapons?

Interesting - then you would be in favor of requiring voters to show a valid ID?

What about LV high rise hotels banning high powered rifles/automatics?

Movies like 2002 - Phone Booth and 1976 - Two-Minute Warning both dealing with hidden "lone wolfs" are now becoming monthly newsflash realities.

Also there is "T2: Judgement Day"- Cyberdyne - Arnold's Terminator firing a mini-gun from 5th or 6th floor at police/police cars...yes pure sci-fi fantasy but still....

Sweeping high-rise building security changes are going to be needed ASAP....

socalgeo wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why is it a right for this terrorist to mow down 500+ people but if you can't afford cancer treatment or a basic check-up, you are a leech on society?

You can't be serious. Who has said that there is anything "right" about this tradgedy?

Right wing Republicans. They are still crying that they need the Second Amendment to cover high power weapons, silencers, kits to convert weapons to fully automatic, etc.

This is an honest question for the NRA supporters:

You all also believe that "All Lives Matter" so why keep on supporting acts of terror like this? Why does a terrorist have more rights than concert goers trying to enjoy an evening? Why does a terrorist have more rights than school children? Than church goers? If "All Lives Matter" why do I have to arm myself to the teeth because someone might just flip out for no reason?

seb146 wrote:

This is an honest question for the NRA supporters:

You all also believe that "All Lives Matter" so why keep on supporting acts of terror like this? Why does a terrorist have more rights than concert goers trying to enjoy an evening? Why does a terrorist have more rights than school children? Than church goers? If "All Lives Matter" why do I have to arm myself to the teeth because someone might just flip out for no reason?

Because the anti-gunners like yourself, Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, Pelosi and the other ilk, don't really care about doing something to stop gun violence. You focus on the occasional murder with long guns, something that accounts for less than 5% of firearms deaths. You want to do something, go after handguns. But you don't, you want to grandstand, to take power away from the hard working, blue collar, middle Americans that you despise and despise our way of life.

You don't care about gun violence in Chicago, black on black gang crime. Gangbangers killing each other. You know why, because they're your voting block. You need them to be stuck in the rut they're in. You need them stuck on food stamps, welfare and unable to provide for themselves because of your policies. Because you need them to keep your puppets in office.


So come back with a real proposal and we can have an intelligent discussion. I'm willing to trade a full background check on every gun law, for a repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act, portions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1986 FOPA (specifically the Hughes Amendment).

DiamondFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

This is an honest question for the NRA supporters:

You all also believe that "All Lives Matter" so why keep on supporting acts of terror like this? Why does a terrorist have more rights than concert goers trying to enjoy an evening? Why does a terrorist have more rights than school children? Than church goers? If "All Lives Matter" why do I have to arm myself to the teeth because someone might just flip out for no reason?

Because the anti-gunners like yourself, Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, Pelosi and the other ilk, don't really care about doing something to stop gun violence. You focus on the occasional murder with long guns, something that accounts for less than 5% of firearms deaths. You want to do something, go after handguns. But you don't, you want to grandstand, to take power away from the hard working, blue collar, middle Americans that you despise and despise our way of life.

You don't care about gun violence in Chicago, black on black gang crime. Gangbangers killing each other. You know why, because they're your voting block. You need them to be stuck in the rut they're in. You need them stuck on food stamps, welfare and unable to provide for themselves because of your policies. Because you need them to keep your puppets in office.

But black on black crime! ...things a lazily, thinly veiled racist says for $500 Alex

EA CO AS wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

The second amendment applied to militias, and nothing more.

A majority of the nine wise souls in Washington D.C. have consistently disagreed with you.

Which demonstrates to me that they are not always wise. They do reverse themselves at times.

MrHMSH wrote:

The fact that people with guns were not able to fight back should be taken into consideration when trying to measure how effective 'good guys' with guns are at stopping mass shootings. If people are not able to stop these shootings with any effectiveness then it suggests it's not really working at all.

So in other words, you're admitting that your data and conclusion is completely flawed. You can stop there. You don't need to dig deeper.

MrHMSH wrote:

It's clear that the best method is actually regulating guns and not letting people have them unrestricted. Just to remind you again, zero mass shootings in the UK for 21 years, none in Australia for 21 years, maybe a few in EU countries and Canada, Japan etc, but nowhere near as much as the USA.

Good for you. That's not the country I want to live in. That's a reason why I live here and you live there. Mind your own business. I'm not going to tell you what to you do.

seb146 wrote:

This is an honest question for the NRA supporters:

You all also believe that "All Lives Matter" so why keep on supporting acts of terror like this? Why does a terrorist have more rights than concert goers trying to enjoy an evening? Why does a terrorist have more rights than school children? Than church goers? If "All Lives Matter" why do I have to arm myself to the teeth because someone might just flip out for no reason?

It can't be honest question when you persistently can't honestly portray opposing opinions.

I'll leave you with this. All freedoms matter too.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Because the anti-gunners like yourself, Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, Pelosi and the other ilk, don't really care about doing something to stop gun violence. You focus on the occasional murder with long guns, something that accounts for less than 5% of firearms deaths. You want to do something, go after handguns. But you don't, you want to grandstand, to take power away from the hard working, blue collar, middle Americans that you despise and despise our way of life.

You don't care about gun violence in Chicago, black on black gang crime. Gangbangers killing each other. You know why, because they're your voting block. You need them to be stuck in the rut they're in. You need them stuck on food stamps, welfare and unable to provide for themselves because of your policies. Because you need them to keep your puppets in office.

So come back with a real proposal and we can have an intelligent discussion. I'm willing to trade a full background check on every gun law, for a repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act, portions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1986 FOPA (specifically the Hughes Amendment).

As soon as we try to engage in discussion, you call us gun-grabbers, natter on about how we're coming for your guns, and remind us that the 2nd amendment means rights shall not be infringed, and if we want your guns we take them from your cold, dead hands. Debate with people in favour of owning guns can be hard.

So if it turns out that you don't actually mind the right to bearing arms being infringed if a person doesn't pass a background check, then the next question is why to bother with the 2nd amendment at all, why not change it so there's a clearer understanding as to who can own a gun and maybe some restrictions if they're shown to not be safe or trusted.

MSPNWA wrote:

So in other words, you're admitting that your data and conclusion is completely flawed. You can stop there. You don't need to dig deeper.

It's hardly accurate, but the point stands. There are hundreds of shootings every year in the USA. That is a fact. Therefore, there are hundreds of mass shootings that have not been stopped by a 'good guy' with a gun, because a mass shooting stopped by someone would of course not register. So I'll turn this over to you then: can you find evidence that more mass shootings are stopped by 'good guys' than are 'successfully' carried out. The best evidence that was presented (from the NRA's website) did not list any mass shootings in September, and yet over 20 mass shootings happened, and while that's only one month, I'm quite certain the pattern doesn't change much.

Good for you. That's not the country I want to live in. That's a reason why I live here and you live there. Mind your own business. I'm not going to tell you what to you do.

The country you want to live in is one where 10,000 people every year due to gun homicides, and 20,000+ more from suicides, accidents and such every year, that this doesn't bother you is worthy of criticism.

If you're not going to listen to me because I'm foreign, fine, your problem. But it's an argument many Americans will agree with so I'd take it into consideration.

Here is a person's walk through of room 32125.

http://www.wral.com/nc-couple-sickened- ... /16991706/

//Warning : Vertical video.

EA CO AS wrote:

I've never committed a crime in my life, but because I dare own a firearm, I - and others like me - are an "unsavory element" in our society?

No, I do not consider you to be among the unsavory element unless, unbeknown to me, you were one of those who took over the wildlife refuge in Oregon, or who "bore arms" while "protesting" for some neo-nazi cause or similar endeavor. I considered mentioning rednecks but thought better of it.

MrHMSH wrote:

It's hardly accurate, but the point stands. There are hundreds of shootings every year in the USA. That is a fact. Therefore, there are hundreds of mass shootings that have not been stopped by a 'good guy' with a gun, because a mass shooting stopped by someone would of course not register. So I'll turn this over to you then: can you find evidence that more mass shootings are stopped by 'good guys' than are 'successfully' carried out. The best evidence that was presented (from the NRA's website) did not list any mass shootings in September, and yet over 20 mass shootings happened, and while that's only one month, I'm quite certain the pattern doesn't change much.

You're just digging deeper. The premise is that a good guy with a gun is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun. Including incidents where no good guy with a gun was present cannot be used against that premise. There's no point debating that farther.

MrHMSH wrote:

The country you want to live in is one where 10,000 people every year due to gun homicides, and 20,000+ more from suicides, accidents and such every year, that this doesn't bother you is worthy of criticism.

If you're not going to listen to me because I'm foreign, fine, your problem. But it's an argument many Americans will agree with so I'd take it into consideration.

Yes, I do want to live in that country because my chances of actually being a victim of that statistic are minutely low if I'm a law-abiding citizen (few deaths occur to people not involved in criminal activity or in taking their own life). I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government. It far, far outweighs the minute chance of being a victim of a shooting that will still remain a possibility even with misguided losses of firearm freedom. It comes to a cost-benefit analysis. It's not close. The benefit side wins. You're mistaken by believing that somehow gun rights supporters aren't bothered by gun deaths. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's highly bothersome, but the difference is that the thought process behind what needs to change is different. Creating misguiding laws that take away freedom for no benefit is not a wise solution. Too many people have no problem giving away freedoms as long as it apparently doesn't personally adversely affect them. That's selfish. That's misguided. I want to protect the forearm rights of my fellow citizens no matter if I personally use it or not. What I find worth criticism is that people focus on one tool (guns) that are used in destruction, but don't put the same care into other tools that kill and harm more people, or more importantly why people want to harm themselves or other people in the first place. Cure the cause, not the symptom.

I'm listening. But don't tell me what to do as if you know better than the people of that country. You don't. I'm not telling you what to do. I wish your laws were different, but that's your country and your decision, not mine. You do as you please, and we'll do the same.

MSPNWA wrote:

You're just digging deeper. The premise is that a good guy with a gun is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun. Including incidents where no good guy with a gun was present cannot be used against that premise. There's no point debating that farther.

Why not? If a method of doing something relies on chance then it's probably not a great idea, especially compared with something that has such a high success rate, such as tight regulations.

And by the way, you still haven't provided statistics on how many mass shootings were prevented by someone with a gun.

[/quote]Yes, I do want to live in that country because my chances of actually being a victim of that statistic are minutely low if I'm a law-abiding citizen (few deaths occur to people not involved in criminal activity or in taking their own life). [/quote]

So it doesn't affect you, therefore it's OK? If you go out in public it doesn't really matter if you're law abiding or not, the victims of this shooting were probably mostly law abiding, but they still got shot. 'Few' deaths? There's quite a few murders where the victims are law-abiding.

I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government.

Your government has nuclear bombs, strategic bombers, guided munitions, tanks, sniper rifles, drones and cruise missiles and probably a lot of your data. Your gun will not save you from them. If your government wants you dead, you're dead.

It far, far outweighs the minute chance of being a victim of a shooting that will still remain a possibility even with misguided losses of firearm freedom. It comes to a cost-benefit analysis. It's not close. The benefit side wins.

To you, maybe, but not to others. Maybe people have a point when they talk about selfishness in American culture...

You're mistaken by believing that somehow gun rights supporters aren't bothered by gun deaths. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The fact that you consistently stand in the way of change doesn't suggest: 'I care about this issue and want to change it'.

It's highly bothersome, but the difference is that the thought process behind what needs to change is different. Creating misguiding laws that take away freedom for no benefit is not a wise solution.

It must be quite comforting to the victims that the daily mass shootings are 'bothersome'. The benefit of saving 10,000+ lives seems like a pretty big one to me...

Too many people have no problem giving away freedoms as long as it apparently doesn't personally adversely affect them. That's selfish. That's misguided. I want to protect the forearm rights of my fellow citizens no matter if I personally use it or not. What I find worth criticism is that people focus on one tool (guns) that are used in destruction, but don't put the same care into other tools that kill and harm more people, or more importantly why people want to harm themselves or other people in the first place. Cure the cause, not the symptom.

Because guns have quite limited uses: killing things, or threatening to kill things. You place too much value on your freedom, I think. You are not free, not as long as you have to follow laws. People do put care into other things that kill and harm people, I'd like to know what you're thinking of, but I'm almost certain that if it's not a constitutional right, measures are taken to reduce it. But some deaths are hard to prevent, you can take all the measures but will still fall short, but that's not the point, you should always strive for the best.

I'm listening. But don't tell me what to do as if you know better than the people of that country. You don't. I'm not telling you what to do. I wish your laws were different, but that's your country and your decision, not mine. You do as you please, and we'll do the same.

Friendly but optional advice then: think about whether your rights are worth all the deaths, injuries and losses of your fellow Americans, and maybe think about how you'd feel if your loved ones were killed by a mass shooter.

MSPNWA wrote:

I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government.

I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of the instances (since the 2nd Amendment was adopted) in which a group of citizens rose up as a check against tyrannical government.

I'm aware that on some occasions the Federal or State Governments have called out the militia to suppress illegal activities by groups of citizens.

MSPNWA wrote:

Yes, I do want to live in that country because my chances of actually being a victim of that statistic are minutely low if I'm a law-abiding citizen (few deaths occur to people not involved in criminal activity or in taking their own life). I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government. It far, far outweighs the minute chance of being a victim of a shooting that will still remain a possibility even with misguided losses of firearm freedom. It comes to a cost-benefit analysis. It's not close. The benefit side wins. You're mistaken by believing that somehow gun rights supporters aren't bothered by gun deaths. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's highly bothersome, but the difference is that the thought process behind what needs to change is different. Creating misguiding laws that take away freedom for no benefit is not a wise solution. Too many people have no problem giving away freedoms as long as it apparently doesn't personally adversely affect them. That's selfish. That's misguided. I want to protect the forearm rights of my fellow citizens no matter if I personally use it or not. What I find worth criticism is that people focus on one tool (guns) that are used in destruction, but don't put the same care into other tools that kill and harm more people, or more importantly why people want to harm themselves or other people in the first place. Cure the cause, not the symptom.

I'm listening. But don't tell me what to do as if you know better than the people of that country. You don't. I'm not telling you what to do. I wish your laws were different, but that's your country and your decision, not mine. You do as you please, and we'll do the same.

Would you be willing to give up some rights in order to be a bit more save? Americans to have a disproportional number of guns in the hands of its citizens, about 40% of all guns in the world, while there are only about 4% Americans. Gun death and all other kinds of negative things have a causal relationship with gun ownership. You gave one real reason: protection against tyrannical government. Don't you have any faith in American institutions to protect you? Do you need to have private gun ownership en mass? If might give you a safer feeling, but that feeling isn't supported by numbers, I would say the opposite even.

BobPatterson wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government.

I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of the instances (since the 2nd Amendment was adopted) in which a group of citizens rose up as a check against tyrannical government.

I'm aware that on some occasions the Federal or State Governments have called out the militia to suppress illegal activities by groups of citizens.

I love the idea that a group of citizens could stop a nuclear submarine turning them to ash with their guns. That would be an interesting experiment.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Just a quick summation:

We can't talk about gun control after Columbine.
We can't talk about gun control after Sandy Hook.
We can't talk about gun control after Aurora.
We can't talk about gun control after Orlando.
We can't talk about gun control after San Burnardino.
We can't talk about gun control after Charleston.
We can't talk about gun control after Virginia Tech.
We can't talk about gun control before elections.
We can't talk about gun control after elections.
We can't talk about gun control during elections.

When can we talk about it?

You can talk about it all you want. Fact is taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't help (Chicago) We are country with an Amendment that lets us have guns. This will never change. Banning automatic weapons won't stop mass shootings because then you will want to ban semi autos etc. The USA will always have firearms. Can we stop with the dog whistles?

So why licence and insure pilots and car drivers and truck drivers? Why do background checks on child care workers? I mean, people are just going to crash cars and trucks and jets and molest children, anyway, so why put laws and rules in place? That is what the right says and it is frustrating.

Actually the reason we can't get gun control is because the left won't just stop at automatic and high cap clips. The far left wants all guns gone and that will never happen. Write a common sense bill. Talk to your Pelosi and Warren. I have no issue with banning automatic weapons. Problem is the far left wants us to be Europe and that is just not reality

This thread has gone pretty much exactly the way I thought. Americans are OK with gun violence, and there's no point in trying to stop it in America for a couple more generations.

I am very interested to know what people who say, "what about gun violence in Chicago?" can offer as a solution to the problems Chicago faces without naming a political party or figure. Just, do X, Y, and then Z. Pie in the sky ideas welcome.

N867DA wrote:

This thread has gone pretty much exactly the way I thought. Americans are OK with gun violence, and there's no point in trying to stop it in America for a couple more generations.

I am very interested to know what people who say, "what about gun violence in Chicago?" can offer as a solution to the problems Chicago faces without naming a political party or figure. Just, do X, Y, and then Z. Pie in the sky ideas welcome.

They don't have a solution. They just need a scapegoat, and Chicago is one of their favorites.

MaverickM11 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

This thread has gone pretty much exactly the way I thought. Americans are OK with gun violence, and there's no point in trying to stop it in America for a couple more generations.

I am very interested to know what people who say, "what about gun violence in Chicago?" can offer as a solution to the problems Chicago faces without naming a political party or figure. Just, do X, Y, and then Z. Pie in the sky ideas welcome.

They don't have a solution. They just need a scapegoat, and Chicago is one of their favorites.

Because there is truth in it. Chicago has very strict gun laws but yet look at it.. When are you liberals gonna get the fact you cannot legislate your way out of this issue. Hard core drugs, prostitution and at one time Alcohol were and still are illegal where has that gotten us? Alcohol is now legal again and the other stuff you can get pretty readily whenever you want it. This shooter had no criminal background and therefore would not have been stopped by current or future gun laws. I don't know what the answer is I don't personally agree that anyone needs AR-15's or an arsenal of weapons I am not a big gun person anyway but again I agree with background checks etc..But this reactionary view the liberals take is just a feel good measure it will not do a damn thing as long as some evil people live among us you can take away all the guns they will use another method for their carnage think Timothy McVeigh. I think more people need to speak out when they see something out of the ordinary. Maybe this guys girlfriend knew something but said nothing.I know the neighbors of the San Bernardino shooters knew something but said nothing for fear of being called racists. I think people speaking up when they see something wrong will stop this more than any gun laws will. The only people who obey laws are law abiding citizens.

stratosphere wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

This thread has gone pretty much exactly the way I thought. Americans are OK with gun violence, and there's no point in trying to stop it in America for a couple more generations.

I am very interested to know what people who say, "what about gun violence in Chicago?" can offer as a solution to the problems Chicago faces without naming a political party or figure. Just, do X, Y, and then Z. Pie in the sky ideas welcome.

They don't have a solution. They just need a scapegoat, and Chicago is one of their favorites.

Because there is truth in it. Chicago has very strict gun laws but yet look at it.. When are you liberals gonna get the fact you cannot legislate your way out of this issue. Hard core drugs, prostitution and at one time Alcohol were and still are illegal where has that gotten us? Alcohol is now legal again and the other stuff you can get pretty readily whenever you want it. This shooter had no criminal background and therefore would not have been stopped by current or future gun laws. I don't know what the answer is I don't personally agree that anyone needs AR-15's or an arsenal of weapons I am not a big gun person anyway but again I agree with background checks etc..But this reactionary view the liberals take is just a feel good measure it will not do a damn thing as long as some evil people live among us you can take away all the guns they will use another method for their carnage think Timothy McVeigh. I think more people need to speak out when they see something out of the ordinary. Maybe this guys girlfriend knew something but said nothing.I know the neighbors of the San Bernardino shooters knew something but said nothing for fear of being called racists. I think people speaking up when they see something wrong will stop this more than any gun laws will. The only people who obey laws are law abiding citizens.

The restrictions in Chicago are undermined by the fact that there are no border checks for states, and neighbouring states having much more lax gun laws?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... story.html