Shooting at Greenwood Mall

[Stuffshot]

I’m not even sure you understand what my argument is. I’m not saying rifles aren’t easier to kill a lot of people with. I’m saying removing them won’t stop it because they aren’t the problem. The problem is much deeper than that. I think even you’d agree with that

Your position is “we should get rid of these rifles because nobody really needs them and it would PROBABLY help in lessening the body count”.

I have a real problem with that way of thinking. There are going to be mass shootings in this country no matter what we do. It’s a societal problem more than it’s a gun problem. Doing something for the sake of doing something and “hoping it helps” is not the answer. Especially considering we are talking about a fundamental American constitutional right.

As for your last paragraph, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think the infantry doesn’t need machine guns??? The AR has been around for more than 50 years.

Hoopsdoc, here is the problem with your post.

You announce you find fault with someone else's proposal, because you claim "There are going to be mass shootings in this country no matter what we do."

So, once again, a gun control opponent opposes all solutions because he claims no solutions will solve everything.

Thanks to the opposition of Hoopsdoc types, nothing is ever done to reduce mass shootings because pigheaded Hoopsdoc types stomp their little feet and demand we shouldn't do anything at all unless the Hoopsdocs of the world think it would stop shootings altogether.

Hoopsdoc, serious question. If someone had a solution that reliably would have reduced the number of murdered little kids in Uvalde from 19 to say 8-9, would you still claim nothing should have been done until we had a solution that would have stopped all the murders of those little kids?

 

[Stuffshot]

Why would anyone vote for a Democrat under any circumstances? Kudos for seeing how many times you could type Republican today though.

YAWN.

Have a good day.

 

[Crayfish57]

YAWN.

Have a good day.

I see you were busy running the count elsewhere too. Good job!

 

[larsIU]

Have you gained any weight?

If not, I'm doing this wrong.

Like I told Bulk, I gotta watch myself. I once ate 9 Long's yeast donuts. That was a Friday. I wasn't right til Sunday evening.

I'm a sweets guy through and through. And meat....and beer..well dammit

 

[hoot1]

Because I mostly blame Democrats for the sorry state of our culture to begin with. Which is the actual issue.

Comes as no surprise to me.

The future looks bright for Pub politicians. Hope they solve all our problems (gun violence, inflation, abortion, world economic competition, federal government debt). Didn't mention global warming which to them isn't and never will be a problem.

 

[mcmurtry66]

So, how does your analysis perform when you consider the proximity of an all-red gun-loving state like, say, Indiana which makes it easy to buy tons of guns in Indiana and take them 3-4 miles (or less) across the Illinois border to shoot people in blue Illinois instead of red Indiana?

Are you blaming the blue governments in Illinois for permitting this to happen?

I don't follow. I know how guns are bought/acquired in the hoods. There's something like 300 million plus guns already on the streets in circulation. I would bet, without looking it up, that less than 10% of the guns used in crimes that occur in the most dangerous cities in america involve retail gun dealers. i blame blue govs in 24 of the 25 most dangerous cities in america for the things i already wrote. i blame red politicians and their lobbyists for not enacting sensible gun laws. the latter is no panacea. it's a two party problem. criminals and guns. making new legislation does nothing to address the guns already on the streets and the propensity for urban crime

 

[larsIU]

I think the legal question of guns is far down the list

I tend to agree b/c, as McM noted, there's too many guns out there now. Any laws restricting handgun or shotgun purchases would take 50 years to have any real effect on the number of guns available for black market purchase.

But ARs (or whatever we want to call them) are involved in most of the mass shootings going on. Spree killings are almost impossible to stop through old fashioned police work (absent strong red flag laws, background checks, etc) and even then almost impossible to predict. So you have to get rid of one part of the equation, the ability to purchase that kind of weapon.

And hell, EVEN THEN, there's God knows how many of them already out there. So to make the ban effective you'd have to go get them from the current owners. That oughta be fun (but necessary).

 

[Stuffshot]

Comes as no surprise to me.

The future looks bright for Pub politicians. Hope they solve all our problems (gun violence, inflation, abortion, world economic competition, federal government debt). Didn't mention global warming which to them isn't and never will be a problem.

The Republicans could elect themselves to all the seats in Congress and the Supreme Court, and they would still blame Democrats for everything.

Republicans have had no independent platform for 2-3 decades -- now, they only run on attacking Democrats/Progressives/ left-wingers/Communists and whatever else they decide to call their opponents this year.

The Republicans now are just a party of the cult of personality -- they propose nothing that will survive their Trumps and Bannons. Sad, really.

 

[Stuffshot]

I tend to agree b/c, as McM noted, there's too many guns out there now. Any laws restricting handgun or shotgun purchases would take 50 years to have any real effect on the number of guns available for black market purchase.

But ARs (or whatever we want to call them) are involved in most of the mass shootings going on. Spree killings are almost impossible to stop through old fashioned police work (absent strong red flag laws, background checks, etc) and even then almost impossible to predict. So you have to get rid of one part of the equation, the ability to purchase that kind of weapon.

And hell, EVEN THEN, there's God knows how many of them already out there. So to make the ban effective you'd have to go get them from the current owners. That oughta be fun (but necessary).

You are much too short sighted.

It took like 50-60 years of serious effort to get an Amendment giving women the right to vote.

It won't get any better if no one tries to amend the Second Amendment.

 

[UncleMark]

We need to teach men and women to get married and stay married so there can be more kids who aren't growing up in broken homes.

How's that working out for you?

 

[Stuffshot]

I don't follow. I know how guns are bought/acquired in the hoods. There's something like 300 million plus guns already on the streets in circulation. I would bet, without looking it up, that less than 10% of the guns used in crimes that occur in the most dangerous cities in america involve retail gun dealers. i blame blue govs in 24 of the 25 most dangerous cities in america for the things i already wrote. i blame red politicians and their lobbyists for not enacting sensible gun laws. the latter is no panacea. it's a two party problem. criminals and guns. making new legislation does nothing to address the guns already on the streets and the propensity for urban crime

If you really "blame red politicians and their lobbyists for not enacting sensible gun laws" and admit "it's a two party problem," I don't see how you can assign so much blame exclusively to the blue state and local governments.

After all, the victims of the Congressional Baseball Shooting were Republicans, presumably not dark alley drug dealers. Still, Republicans don't seem very interested in controlling such guns.

Gun control is the only thing that has a chance of working, no matter how many millions of guns already exist. Those guns will not go away if we just clutch our Republican pearls and say "there are too many guns" and do nothing.

 

[hoosboot]

Which one is @mcmurtry66 ?

or

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

How's that working out for you?

Segue into sermon on the parable about the mote, the beam, and the eye.

 

[UncleMark]

Which one is @mcmurtry66 ?

or

The ghey one.

 

[Chibooms]

But, by emphasizing "weak bonds" and "previous gun crimes", your post ignores all of the mass shootings committed by young white shooters with no priors.

Until you address that, you're just fishing for reasons to blame Democrats for all the shootings, based on statistics that ignore the young white shooters.

Is there a solution that would reduce both kinds of gun violence? Yeah, reduce the availability of guns and then you won't have to worry as much whether bond is high enough or whether gun permit applicants need mental health examinations, liability insurance etc. and, also, from that, you won't have to worry about which underfunded branch of government has to pay to house the prisoners who can't make bail or to pay the mental health professionals.

I'm all for raising gun age requirements to 21 and punishing parents of kids who clearly show the behaviors we all see in these shooters and yet still sponsor their purchases.

 

[Stuffshot]

I'm all for raising gun age requirements to 21 and punishing parents of kids who clearly show the behaviors we all see in these shooters and yet still sponsor their purchases.

And, I've been reconsidering my opposition to the Stalinist drug forfeiture laws, which I understand will authorize the forfeiture of the parents' automobile or lake cottage if they allow Junior to use them for drug trafficking.

I've always hated those laws because they seem unfair to the parents. But we're seeing way too many of these cases where Mom and Dad let Junior live rentfree in their home while he stockpiles an arsenal of guns and ammo, before going into public and shooting people.

 

[Stuffshot]

Like I told Bulk, I gotta watch myself. I once ate 9 Long's yeast donuts. That was a Friday. I wasn't right til Sunday evening.

I'm a sweets guy through and through. And meat....and beer..well dammit

Joey Chestnut would not be impressed with just 9 doughnuts.

Keep training.

 

[Chibooms]

And, I've been reconsidering my opposition to the Stalinist drug forfeiture laws, which I understand will authorize the forfeiture of the parents' automobile or lake cottage if they allow Junior to use them for drug trafficking.

I've always hated those laws because they seem unfair to the parents. But we're seeing way too many of these cases where Mom and Dad let Junior live rentfree in their home while he stockpiles an arsenal of guns and ammo, before going into public and shooting people.

The Highland Park shooter with his mural painted on the back of his mom's house and his music videos pissed me right off.

 

[larsIU]

You are much too short sighted.

It took like 50-60 years of serious effort to get an Amendment giving women the right to vote.

It won't get any better if no one tries to amend the Second Amendment.

I suspect you’re right. Only need 34 states to agree on something. Odds of that are on par with my banging Ana de Armas.

 

[larsIU]

Which one is @mcmurtry66 ?

or

2,1

 

[Bill4411]

I tend to agree b/c, as McM noted, there's too many guns out there now. Any laws restricting handgun or shotgun purchases would take 50 years to have any real effect on the number of guns available for black market purchase.

But ARs (or whatever we want to call them) are involved in most of the mass shootings going on. Spree killings are almost impossible to stop through old fashioned police work (absent strong red flag laws, background checks, etc) and even then almost impossible to predict. So you have to get rid of one part of the equation, the ability to purchase that kind of weapon.

And hell, EVEN THEN, there's God knows how many of them already out there. So to make the ban effective you'd have to go get them from the current owners. That oughta be fun (but necessary).

We got rid of the Thompson machine gun in the 1930's; that wouldn't happen in today's America.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

Do you think people at the Greenwood mall agree with you?

Was I talking to you? Did I ask you?

 

[Stuffshot]

We got rid of the Thompson machine gun in the 1930's; that wouldn't happen in today's America.

I've never understood why the courts hold that the Second Amendment doesn't protect ownership of machine guns, missiles and several other modern weapons.

The text of the Second Amendment just refers to "arms" with no distinction about types of weapons. Even that new Bruen decision acknowledges that certain weapons can be banned despite the Second Amendment. Who knows how they decide where the line is drawn.

 

[larsIU]

We got rid of the Thompson machine gun in the 1930's; that wouldn't happen in today's America.

Which is nuts.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

Which is nuts.

Well the Thompson is a real select fire machine gun. Still legal to own and sell with permits. It falls under the same guidelines as an M16 or any other select fire “automatic weapons”. You can’t purchase a new one but they still exist if manufactured before 1986. It’s a federal process. I’m assuming that’s what will happen with semi auto rifles at some point.