Deadly shooting at Texas elementary school
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/texas-elementary-school-shooting-05-24-22/index.html
Poiticians like Obama never miss an opportunity over a shooting. Point fingers in which ever direction aids their "cause" the most, but do not look for serious solutions, like enforcing laws we already have, of having people stop ignoring the threatening and/or bizzare behavior of the shooter prior to the shooting.
In his "Buffalo Shooter" speech, Biden referenced 5 or 6 other mass shootings in his speech about the "poison" of white supremacy. Problem is, most of the shootings referenced did not involve a white shooter.
Now, why would he lie about that?
Poiticians like Obama never miss an opportunity over a shooting.
Imagine that. Using actual empirical data/observations in the real world to support a position.
Let me assist Obama in doing that here.........using facts/evidence.
Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican leaders signaled an openness to some gun restrictions after recent mass shootings. But in the last several years, lawmakers have eased gun laws, most notably by passing a permitless carry bill last year.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/24/texas-gun-laws-uvalde-mass-shootings/
This was BEFORE this last shooting:
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1099912475/states-courts-debate-18-year-olds-buy-long-guns
The rifle used in the Texas elementary school shooting is known as a “DDM4 Rifle.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/live-updates-superintendent-heart-broken-today-84951141
UVALDE, Texas -- The rifle used in the Texas elementary school shooting is known as a “DDM4 Rifle.” It's modeled after the M4 carbine, the U.S. military’s go-to rifle, according to a blog post by the gun’s maker, Daniel Defense.
The Daniel Defense rifle can be classified as an AR-15 type. A key difference between the Daniel Defense rifle and the M4 carbine is that the military’s version can switch to fully automatic or fire a three-round burst depending on the model.
FYI,
I'm aware that the vast, vast majority of homicides are committed by handguns and am not totally unsympathetic to those that want higher power weapons because of their love of guns and desire to have clean fun with killing devices.....we just can't sell them though.
I have 3 guns and a life long license to carry.
Value of fun for some = value of hundreds of lives of others? Nope!!!!
The Instagram tag #ar15 has over 1.7 million posts, with updates by the minute
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171
The military-style gun, the weapon of choice for mass shootings, can be bought in most states starting at the age of 18
America's gun culture in charts
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
The facts on guns in 6 charts: A 2018 midterm report
https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/sep/30/facts-guns-6-charts/
https://www.valuepenguin.com/most-americans-want-tougher-gun-legislation
Over half of all gun owners — including a majority of Republicans — favor new laws which would limit assault weapons through weapons bans and buybacks.
metmike: I am for mandatory background checks too, besides banning the high kill rate weapons. What say others here?
As this discussion from just over a year ago shows, this is a topic that many here very strongly disagree with me on.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68659/#68716
My position is:
1. We should ban all weapons similar to this that are way over and beyond needed for self defense and that can kill dozens of people in a short period(seconds) and even over power law enforcements fire power.
2. Background checks mandatory everywhere, no sales to those under 21.
Mike,
Your ideas on this seem reasonable to me.
Thanks Larry!
MM, Your lack knowledge of firearms and your acceptance of hyperbole and cherry picked data as fact makes a gun control debate entertaining at best. But usually it's not.
Carry On :-)
Thanks Tim!
People that resort to unprovoked demeaning/insulting others in a discussion for no other reason than …..they disagree with the other persons respectful, sincere views teach us 2 lessons.
1. They have already lost when have to resort to this sort of tactic, especially from the get go, instead of delivering solid unbiased points/evidence.
2. We can learn a great deal about a person by the manner in which they communicate and treat other people that they disagree with.
we as a society are losing just what misadjusted people need. No not more gun laws and then all the lib feel better and we all go home. This issue is about what was holding society together, church, school and family. Since covid you can multiply by a larger factor and the shut down has done more damage than the covid. Taking kids out of school was child abuse. People should be held accountable. If that kid who shot those in Texas was diagnosed he should of been put away until the time he could deal with his problems or not at all.
mc,
What would be wrong with banning the sale of the AR-15 and similar weapons? Same question for background checks and long enough waiting (cooling off) periods. Thanks.
what would be wrong with banning k nives? We should ban 15's from those who are not eligible. you know, felons, illegals, mental health etc....not from law abiding people. You start banning and where does it stop and who decides? My God, think if Biden who yesterday just overstepped because of this situation had that power , just like Obama thought that he did. They do not. Our system is not set up to side step the people and lay down for big gov. Did Jefferson say we may need a revolution every 20 years to keep gov in check?
Thanks mcfarm!
I see that you also watched FOX last night mcfarm. A couple of guests stated, like you did, that guns aren't the problem but that getting back to religion was one of the solutions.
I realize that plays well for religious people and networks that promote religious values...and practicing authentic religion is a GOOD thing but it's not a viable solution in a country with a growing number of atheists and with so many people expounding the virtues of religion..........THAT TREAT OTHERS LIKE CRAP, if they don't agree with them. And in fact, this has led to some of the worst extremism and hatred in our country.
The actual solution is this:
1. Loving our neighbor and even loving our enemies in the overall sense that they are human beings and loving that part of them enough to not HATE them because of their views. This specifically applies to the majority of Christians in our country.
2. Applying this with examples and behavior. Communicating respectfully with people that we disagree with. Helping our less fortunate neighbors. No religion needed to apply this. Humanity!
3. We are all in this together, instead of 2 sides viciously attacking each other 24 hours and children raised in this latest generation not knowing a time when it was not this way.
4. Stating that guns are fun and people have a Constitutional right and not budging....and in fact, fighting anything that lessens the fun for those people is exactly the biggest problem. It's not about either side getting everything they want on all issues because of the extreme views. Willingness to compromise with deals is needed, when it SAVES LIVES with 100% certainty.
5. More people die from crimes in Chicago and the big cities. So what??? That's very pathetic reasoning. Innocent children that died 2 days ago and many people at other times from THIS problem don't have to keep dying.
mc,
Keep in mind that during the time of our Founding Fathers, there were no weapons like the AR-15 firing multiple bullets so quickly. Don't laws sometimes need to change with the times?
yes if there was any support we could amend the constitution. Remember that thing that few if any libs support anymore? Make stuff up that ain't there and deny stuff that is, all you need is 2/3 dude, where are the votes? Very similar to abortion, all the libs run around with their hair on fire and scream the repubs will take away "rights" of all kind of silly...well guess what, all this abortion thing does is right a 40 year error the supremes made and send it back to where it belongs to the states. Why can't libs just admit that?
You're welcome MM. I realize you don't realize it, but this statement you used above is extremely insulting and minimizes the entire concept of freedom and what it means.
not totally unsympathetic to those that want higher power weapons because of their love of guns and desire to have clean fun with killing devices.....we just can't sell them though.
Clean fun with killing devices. Silly boys and their toys, right? Screw them. The government knows whats best!!!
But lets not dwell in the weeds. Let's look at three recent shootings.
The NY Subway shooter had a long history of violence. 19 arrests, two current cases before the court and at the time of the shooting and had been released on $1.00 (one dollar) Bond.
The Buffalo shooter had a long history of violence and bizarre behavior. A few months before the shooting he wrote an essay about how he fantasized about mass shootings. When he was a child, his mother helped him bury a cat that he had beaten to death and decapitated. Everyone who knew him knew he was a threat and he had been brought to the attention of assorted authorities many times.
The Texas shooter also had a long history of violence and bizarre behavior well known by many, including assorted authorities. More is coming out every day.
These examples are not aytipical stories, quite the contrary.
So, what to do? What to Do? How could these shootings have possibly been prevented? It's a mind boggling conundrum, isn't it?
How about this? We'll ban some weapons. But not all weapons. For example, altho the simple shotgun is the most "popular" weapon for mass shootings, we'll leave that one alone, at least for now.
No, what we'll ban will be the scary looking seimi-autos like the AR-15. I mean, AR stands for Automatic Rifle, or is it Assault Rifle. Who cares, it looks scary. It doesn't matter that there are far more deadly semi-auto rifles out there.. Dozens, Hundreds. They don't look scary, so they must be harmless, right? So what if they have much better range and accuracy and far more killing force. It's those AR-15 like rifles that need to go. Then we'll be safe!!!
BTW, know why the Buffalo shooter chose Buffalo? He liked the strict gun laws. Reduced the chances of returned fire. That's also in his manifesto. Like most, he may be crazy, but he's not stupid.
So, restricting the rights of millions because of the actions of a miniscule minority, is not only wrong, it's likely counter productive
How about we try some more "red flag" laws. They've had some success when tried. They seem ripe for bureaucratic abuse, but at least they won't affect every law abiding citizen in the country and their use would be watched closely by people who value freedom.
And how about we actually enforce laws already on the books and see how that works before we add some new ones. I think it's likely that someone who has decided to mow down random strangers will not be deterred by any gun regulations or bans. The weapons will still be accessable, just not to law abiding citizens.
Finally, how about we protect our schools as well as we protect every other government building and our banks, etc, etc. I would think the kids are worth it.
mc,
Keep in mind that during the time of our Founding Fathers, there were no weapons like the AR-15 firing multiple bullets so quickly. Don't laws sometimes need to change with the times?
WX, AT the time the 1st amendment was written, there was no internet. Shouldn't we alter the 1st. I mean, free speech is great and all, but we have too many people presenting too much information.
BTW, you realize that when the 2nd was written, the musket was a military grade weapon and everyone had one.
Just more stretching of a rationale to avoid the stone cold facts, Tim
Here's a source with some data.
It shows some disconnects between realities for gun owners/non gun owners for instance from cognitive bias:
Negative view of gun owners in your community
1. If you own a gun =21%
2. If you don't own a gun =44%
So gun owners are thinking the views of others about them owning a gun as being more than twice as positive than non gun owners....with the exact same communities. The negative view of gun owners would be a metric dominated by non gun owners, who would clearly know what they think better than gun owners, who think OTHERS view them more positively.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763
Examples include:
Much more important than perception are some actual facts:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
We see that gun ownership is more male dominated but what's extremely telling is this: Look at the whopping age difference between when men and women first become gun owners!
This is exactly why, one of the things I think should be the no brainer law is no sales to people under 21. Note the ages of the last 2 shooters = 18 years old.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/27/1101490738/uvalde-buffalo-mass-shooting-similarities
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/27/1101490738/uvalde-buffalo-mass-shooting-similarities
So clearly, there are 3 main reasons to own a gun.
1. Self defense
2. Hunting game
3. Fun
Just as clearly, these are the negative consequence of a deranged person(society is never going to accurately identify every deranged person) using a gun that can kill dozens of people in seconds.
4. Dozens of people die in seconds with incidents similar to the one earlier this week
5. Law enforcement is overpowered and limited on early options that save the most lives.
On #1 and #2 above, we can rule out,most rapid fire kind of guns used in #4 and #5 for those legit activities because the owner is not trying to kill a herd of buffalo or fight an army or mob trying to break into their house.
So the stone cold hard fact is that this is all about item #3!
Mostly men, who grew up with guns want to protect their rights to have fun using the most dangerous weapons, even if hundreds of extra innocent people need to die.
Again, I own 3 guns and have a life time permit to carry a gun, so I'm the OPPOSITE of somebody opposed to guns. I was on tv for 11 years and had a stalker vandalize my car, break into my apartment, then burn the building down in 1983/84, which is when I first purchased a gun. So I get this need, loud and clear.
If they outlawed guns completely, I would still own a gun to protect my family.
I've also gone to a shooting range and done target practice in my backyard and killed several deer to eat(gutted/prepared myself based on 0 previous experience).
So I totally get that mindset loud and clear.
However, many hundreds of innocent people should never need to die for any group of people's pure fun enhancement.
Go ahead with more of your Constitution rights rhetoric but remember, the Constitution was meant to protect ALL CITIZENS based on laws that made sense.
The RIGHT TO LIVE, sure as heck trumps the right to have fun with a deadly toy.
Just more stretching of a rationale to avoid the stone cold facts, Tim
All I posted were stone cold facts.
Fact 1,) These shooters should probably have not been in the general public.
Fact 2.) There are far more dangerous weapons than the AR15.
Fact 3.) Banning weapons will keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but they'll always be available to people who want to use them illegally and they have already demonstrated a disregard for laws.
Guns are simply not the problem. They are one of many tools that can be used for mass destruction. I could do far more damage with a few gallons of gas and some cherry bombs than anyone could ever do with an AR 15. And AR 15's are far from the most dangerous of firearms. The fixation on them has always been a major curiosity of mine.
The opinions/perceptions of gun owners vs non-gun owners is irrelevant. I really don't care what anyone thinks about me exercising my rights, and as long as I am not infringing on their rights, their opinion doesn't count. If I own an arsenal, it's none of their business until I try to use the arsenal on them. It's kinda the foundation of the Bill of Rights. And ya know what? If you don't break into my house, you have nothing to worry about. This statement is true for all the millions of legal gun owners in this nation.
I can entertain the idea of raising the age of legal purchase from 18-21, but basing that on the fact that 2 of the recent shooters were 18 is pretty anecdotal. Are you suggesting that all of these nutcases in all the mass shootings are all under 21? I doubt it. The New York Subway shooter was 62. Takes a while to amass a rap sheet like his. And a very permissive judicial system.
But insanity knows no age limit and cares nothing of laws.
Rationalize even more if you want to demonstrate my point about rationalizing to avoid the bottom line. Which remains the same.
Trading many hundreds of lives of real people that you choose to pretend aren’t really killed because of this specific reason ……..to preserve the fun of millions, like your self.
then argue until the cows come home that this isn’t what you are doing.
do not forget for females guns are the great equalizer. I would not advise my wife or daughters to even venture to a large urban area without the protection of a fire arm. Never in a million years. And guess what gives them the right? Not public opinion, not some politician, not some bend as the wind blows fake leader like Obama or biden. Only thing keeps them safe or atleast safer from attack, protecting ones self.
"do not forget for females guns are the great equalizer."
Thanks mcfarm, for demonstrating the quintessential example of exactly the rationalization I'm referring to!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalization
metmike: I could really go to town with this rationalization, including the fact that it's MEN that prefer to have guns, not women and women are much more likely to be victims of men with guns than to benefit and as already provided, it's MEN that are committing the specific types of mass killings in this discussion ..............but again, that has nothing at all to do with the indisputable fact that I stated on the previous page.
America’s Uniquely Lethal Intimate Partner Violence Problem
am I missing something? of course men are more likely to have guns and commit crime with them. I said women need them not prefer them. And in this day and age with big cities being ruled by mobs with no few prosecutions and fewer prosecutors with any gonads to enforce the law women need protection more than ever. What is this rationalization thing.
"am I missing something?"
Yes, mcfarm you are:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/83945/#83977
joj: "But my biggest beef of all this is what my mother, (RIP) used to say. Republicans care about life from conception all the way until they are born. Then they don't care anymore."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61579600
very cute quote, accuracy I would rate at about a 2 on a scale to 10. Repubs are accused constantly and with able help of the press these lies are told and retold and once established all the "good hearted" libs can safely say they are true. By the way why not add one of their favs, repubs push old people in wheel chairs off of cliffs, that would be just as false but spouted lots and lots.
Rationalize even more if you want to demonstrate my point about rationalizing to avoid the bottom line. Which remains the same.
Honestly MM, You really crack me up.
Your original points were..
1.) We need to ban weapons.
2.) We need more extensive bachground checks.
3.) We need to raise the age of legal purchase. (I should add here that the US Gov trusts 18 y/o's with far more deadly and sophisticated weapons than an AR 15. I was one way back when)
I apologize if I missed any.
Then I responded explaining why you are wrong.
And you come back with some opinions of perceptions. And accuse me of rationalizing.
It's hysterical.
But it also proves you can't support your opinion.
And it brings us back to my original post on this, which should have been my last.
MM, Your lack knowledge of firearms and your acceptance of hyperbole and cherry picked data as fact makes a gun control debate entertaining at best. But usually it's not.
Carry On :-)
Tim claims that I stated this: Your original points were..
1.) We need to ban weapons.
2.) We need more extensive bachground checks.
3.) We need to raise the age of legal purchase. (I should add here that the US Gov trusts 18 y/o's with far more deadly and sophisticated weapons than an AR 15. I was one way back when)
Tim, you're being a dishonest man thats intentionally mischaracterizes me/people you disagree with, even going so far as typing your own words above to mislead others to think my postion is more extreme(not only am I NOT for "we need to ban weapons" as you claim of me but as I have stated numerous times-I own 3 of them and have a life time carry permit)........ instead of cutting and pasting MY WORDS, like honest people do and I do 100 out of 100 posts here.
so that you can do your strawman attack on positions others don't actually have.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#84872
My position is:
1. We should ban all weapons similar to this that are way over and beyond needed for self defense and that can kill dozens of people in a short period(seconds) and even over power law enforcements fire power.
2. Background checks mandatory everywhere, no sales to those under 21.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then you go on a nonsense based, rationalizing diatribe that actually claims that its my lack of knowledge about firearms (compared to an authority like you) that has caused this flawed opinion, using more demeaning language claiming that my opinion is the result of that.
You should note, once again Tim that the discussion about guns, using authentic points has ended and I'm spending my time, now, identifying and analyzing your anti-civil method of communicating.
Seriously, one of the things the world needs now is better communicating and that starts with accurately characterizing and understanding the position of people that we disagree with. It's something I try to help others with.
You are extraordinarily generous with your time providing tons of wonderful information that causes you to be extremely valued!
My analysis above does not negate those terrific contributions.
You are absolutely right MM. Lots of dishonesty here. I apologize for my poor judgement :-)
lot of dishonesty indeed. Self defense, hunting and fun. What about our constitution and a well regulated militia? Just who are you to insert whatever definition that many apply. Our founders warned us over and over to be prepared, the day will come when big gov oversteps and a revolution is called for. Just what weapons will we need? I suppose Schumer and Pelosi would be quite satisfied to win the coming battle without having to fire a shot because we turned our back on our heritage. Marxists here we come, on our hands and knees begging for our country back.
Thanks! A discussion that can NEVER be resolved, amongst many based on religion and politics.
Thanks for participating without to much vitriolic interaction, which often happens with social media today and greatly contributes to the divisive, hate filled mentality of people like the ones doing these mass shootings.
Was their connection with social media PART of the problem/amplify their issues?
Or did they just use it to express their problems?
We simply can’t discuss politics or religion – here’s the reason
It’s hard to convince people with logic when they came to their conclusions illogically.
https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/we-simply-cant-discuss-politics-or-religion-heres-the-reason/
So, how can anyone know whether they are living examples of Swift’s assertion? I have a theory to consider. If you find yourself involved in a heated discussion about politics or religion, ask yourself whether you can take a stance of curiosity toward the other person’s view. If you find yourself, instead, attacking the person, or deflecting the argument by creating a “straw man” which distracts from the original argument, then Swift’s quotation applies to you.
On the other hand, if you can change your point of view when confronted with contradictory information, then Swift’s truism is not in play.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/peoples-under-threat-2019-role-social-media-exacerbating-violence
Captured brains
Despite what is obviously a huge negative in much of this thread.........we live in the best age to be a human in our long history on this greening planet....by an extremely wide margin.
How to make the world a better place/reasons to be grateful
Started by metmike - Jan. 9, 2020, 10:23 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/82252/
Use this to make yourself a better person-guaranteed
Started by metmike - Feb. 28, 2022, 7:24 p.m.
It's actually a very simple subject to discuss if you rely on basic law, logic and facts.
Too many prefer to rely on emotion and hyperbole.
Thanks Tim!
So clearly, there are 3 main reasons to own a gun.
1. Self defense
2. Hunting game
3. Fun
No, just no, the 2nd wasn't written with those reasons in mind, you omit and/or miss the main reason why we the people have the right to bear arms...
4. Dozens of people die in seconds with incidents similar to the one earlier this week
Again: just no: no mass shooter has used a full auto which is the only firearm that would kill "dozens of people" in seconds
1. We should ban all weapons similar to this that are way over and beyond needed for self defense
Ok, so in your opinion what type of gun and how many cartridges should be the legal standard allowed to defend a home invasion numbering let's say three perps? I'm all ears ...
Anyhow, let's just ban the scary looking black rifles and then we can progress to pistols since the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns to kill 32 students (most lives lost in a school shooting), is that the "logical" next step then?
Thanks kris,
I made my points crystal clear. Repeating them again serves no point and adds nothing to the discussion, when you can just scroll up and read them.
I'm not going to list every gun, specifically that should be banned. That's a very extreme and absurd request and you know it.
There are thousands of guns and many dozens of types....and even.hundreds of types if you want to count variations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearms
Again, I have 3 guns and a permit for life to carry a gun. I actually know a decent amount about guns but what you and Tim want to do, is turn it into a debate about who knows more about guns............which this is NOT.
Many gun authorities are blatantly biased towards guns anyway (for obvious reasons)and it doesn't take a meteorologist to know that a violent tornado can kill people and what to do/where to go to be safe.
How about we make this much easier, since I've made 15 posts clarifying my position and YOU tell us what guns should be banned and under what circumstances, since that should be a much shorter list. Maybe I missed it, but are we to assume that you guys want ALL guns to be legal?
"let's just ban the scary looking black rifles"
Your intentionally demeaning tone is duly noted and dialed into where you are coming from.
It's interesting that discussions like this, morph into me analyzing the mindset of the poster after already exhausting the attempts to provide the same information repeatedly that aren't good enough.
And also, lessons are always learned about how politics and religious discussions are rarely about resolving issues or seeing the other sides views as much as winning debates with blatantly biased to one sides points.
That's just more analysis............as I try to use this thread and others for us to learn more about people and the dynamics of discussions in realms like this.
But with a different take on it below!
According to USA Today, the AR-15 rifle, or variants of the AR-15 rifle, has been used in 11 mass shootings since 2012. Here's the list:
By MICHAEL R. SISAKMay 27, 2022
Again, I'm totally for ownership of many guns in the US and realize that mental illness and other issues of the shooter are responsible for the actual action of the person. The objective is to make it much tougher for them to acquire the most potent killing machines.
Your dang right that is makes it's unfair for the law abiding citizens that use the max power killing machines for fun.
But that is EXACTLY what advanced, civilized and compassionate nations do. It's also not fair that people making 1 million $/year have to pay more taxes than somebody making $100,000/year.
Or that people without jobs get welfare/unemployment.
Or that homeless people get free handouts and have rent free shelters.
It's not all about every person getting the same benefits and giving the same amount of everything in this world.
The phrase, “to whom much is given much is required” is an upfront reminder by God that even if He has given a lot for us, we have to be generous.
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/meaning-of-to-whom-much-is-given-much-is-required.html
The topic of “to whom much is given much is required” is one of the most popular topics for modern-day Christians. It is not only used by Christians but also as a philosophical language reflected in films such as Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” What does it mean from a biblical perspective?
metmike: The gun totin, Constitution and bible thumpin Christians who want to selectively interpret that biblical passage above..........are hypocrites on this issue.
It doesn't mean just material things given to help those with less material things. It means IN EVERY REALM.
It means making sacrifices of all kinds when you are in a position to do that. Not give up everything..........just things that make sense to help others and even save lives, like this one without giving much.
In this case, we are just suggesting gun advocates make a tiny sacrifice to give up a very tiny part of one freedom and accept gun laws that restrict gun sales of the highest killing power guns, more extensive back ground checks and sales to those under 21.
No, this absolutely will not lead to the notion of more freedoms being taken away.
That would be like stating that posting speed limits, to restrict the freedom to drive as fast as you want, will eventually lead to them confiscating motor vehicles.
There's nothing stated about speed limits in the Constitution (-:
I made my points crystal clear. Repeating them again serves no point and adds nothing to the discussion, when you can just scroll up and read them.
You did and I read them and I addressed them but for some reason you avoid/refuse responding in kind
I'm not going to list every gun, specifically that should be banned. That's a very extreme and absurd request and you know it.
So just banning the AR15 will solve all the problems then ? Please do specifically list every gun that should be banned, always a student
what you and Tim want to do, is turn it into a debate about who knows more about guns............which this is NOT.
Neither him or I have boasted about how many guns/licenses we own so what does that tell you about yourself ?
Many gun authorities are blatantly biased towards guns anyway (for obvious reasons)and it doesn't take a meteorologist to know that a violent tornado can kill people and what to do/where to go to be safe.
As a meteorologist you sure nailed it except for the fact that violent/scary guns don't kill, it's the violent people using guns to kill
Maybe I missed it, but are we to assume that you guys want ALL guns to be legal?
All legally obtained guns: yes !
"let's just ban the scary looking black rifles"
Your intentionally demeaning tone is duly noted and dialed into where you are coming from.
You're mistaken Mike, that's not my tone, it's a tone I borrowed from the gun grabbers !
And also, lessons are always learned about how politics and religious discussions are rarely about resolving issues or seeing the other sides views as much as winning debates with blatantly biased to one sides points.
This discussion is not about winning debates, it's about learning about what is acceptable and true and/or what is not remotely acceptable or true.
In all of this you failed to address any of the points I raised and I will raise them again and I will respectfully ask that you address those without avoiding answering them or going of on a tangent:
1) the 2nd wasn't written with those reasons in mind, you omit and/or miss the main reason why we the people have the right to bear arms
2) no mass shooter has used a full auto which is the only firearm that would kill "dozens of people" in seconds
3) in your opinion what type of gun and how many cartridges should be the legal standard allowed to defend a home invasion numbering let's say three perps?
4) let's just ban the scary looking black rifles and then we can progress to pistols since the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns to kill 32 students (most lives lost in a school shooting), is that the "logical" next step then?
Neither him or I have boasted about how many guns/licenses we own so what does that tell you about yourself ?
You must not have been part of previous discussions that featured Tim telling us about his vast knowledge/understanding of guns and statements like this one above by him being repeated in discussions like this:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#84882
"MM, Your lack knowledge of firearms and your acceptance of hyperbole and cherry picked data as fact makes a gun control debate entertaining at best. But usually it's not."
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#84970
MM, Your lack knowledge of firearms and your acceptance of hyperbole and cherry picked data as fact makes a gun control debate entertaining at best. But usually it's not.
So we know now that you believe that ALL guns should legal.
My position is, again that SOME guns should be made illegal. I never said only guns used in mass shootings.
I just gave you an example of some of the different guns in mass shootings and have NEVER stated that all those guns should be illegal. In fact, the objective was to show the complete opposite, that some mass killings can be done with guns that should be legal.
Again, I'm a gun rights advocate but there needs to be a discussion on what guns are over the top with kill power and give TOO MUCH power to one deranged individual.
Since you believe that ALL guns should be legal, you are clearly ignoring the incredibly higher kill power of some guns which will always cause more deaths in mass killings.
Clearly, a gun that can kill several people does not come anywhere close to meeting my standards for what should be made illegal.
There should be a reasonable discussion that features one side with compromise.
I'm not drawing a line in the sand and stating that guns, A, B and C should be out and X, Y and Z should be in.
So what did we learn from this exchange?
I got it confirmed that you want all guns to be legal but figured that to be the case already.
"violent/scary guns don't kill, it's the violent people using guns to kill"
This gets back to your implication that you know more than me about guns and that my position is to ban scary guns, so that you can attack that mischaracterization which I clearly have clarified many times in just this thread as not being the case. It's why I advocate stricter, mandatory background checks and being 21 because it's PEOPLE THAT KILL USING GUNS but, again, I must have stated that half a dozen times in this thread already.
Are you not reading these repeated statements or just ignoring them, kris.
Not only are you once again not addressing any of the 1,2,3,4 issues raised above but you twist what I said which is:
All legally obtained guns
All legally obtained guns
We clearly must have some sort of communication problem, kris. The discussion is ABOUT LEGAL GUNS and which ones that you want to continue to be legal.
Repeating that you want all legally obtained guns to be legal means that you want all guns that are currently legal to remain being legal.
Nobody, no matter how extreme, other than professional criminals and that sort of person would want guns illegally obtained to be legal. That's actually not what this discussion is even about.
The direction that this conversation has gone was very predictable numerous posts ago.
The direction that this conversation has gone was very predictable numerous posts ago.
You refuse/avoid to address 1 through 4 above so yes ... : "was very predictable"
Thank kris!
Thank (sic) kris
1) ...
2) ...
3) ...
4) ...
Genius response, classic cop out !
Still persisting, I see.
This is just an example of how people talk right past each other and pay no attention to answers, especially if they don't like them.
You can keep rewriting questions all you want and pretend they weren't answered already but I'm not playing that game.
Move forward please kris!
pay no attention to answers
You never answered, you just pontificate while avoiding the points I raised
You can keep rewriting questions
I never rewrote anything, here they are again:
1) the 2nd wasn't written with those reasons in mind, you omit and/or miss the main reason why we the people have the right to bear arms
2) no mass shooter has used a full auto which is the only firearm that would kill "dozens of people" in seconds
3) in your opinion what type of gun and how many cartridges should be the legal standard allowed to defend a home invasion numbering let's say three perps?
4) let's just ban the scary looking black rifles and then we can progress to pistols since the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns to kill 32 students (most lives lost in a school shooting), is that the "logical" next step then?
Just label the answers 1/2/3 and 4, one or two sentences will do the trick, it's not that hard ?!?
Repeating the same questions.
Have fun playing with yourself kris?
Repeating the same questions.
And never getting an answer ...
To keep things in their proper context, remember that the 2nd amendment was written by a group of guys who had just staged a revolution against a much more powerful, and ostensibly tyranical, government/country.
I say "ostensibly tyranical" because England at the time was no where near as intrusive as the government that about half of our electorate supports and encourages today.
I wonder how these guys would feel about what we have done with the constitutional republic they fought and died to give us. Many/most of the founders who survived the effort died in poverty.
Seems an appropraite question for memorial day.
kris,
You are always welcome to post here and you make some wonderful contritubutions.
However, let me help you out, since you have a long history of taking extreme positions that refuse to acknowledge the points of people you argue with and intentionally get into circular arguments......and even features you telling the moderator to stop posting things that YOU don't like........opens the door for a learning opportunity for you, kris. Could help with understanding the concept of listening to what others are actually saying and compassion too!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amazing story!
By kris - Nov. 4, 2021, 7:21 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77068/#77136
FDA advisory panel recommends Pfizer vaccine for kids ages 5 to 11
Started by metmike - Oct. 2
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76717/
Re: Re: Just got the flu-shot...... wanna know why?
By kris - Nov. 13, 2021, 11:37 p.m.
Can you give it a rest Mike, some day ?
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77727/#77736
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More censorship
By kris - Oct. 14, 2021, 5:07 p.m.
Could we just stop beating the dead horse already, darn this is getting old.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76060/#76212
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76060/#76445
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccines work.........doesn't matter
By kris - Oct. 17, 2021, 11:12 p.m.
Another dead horse? Really ... ?
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76325/#76334
On COVID deaths:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75944/#75994
Re: Re: Re: Fauci bashing thread
By kris - Oct. 5, 2021, 4:19 p.m.
Never happened, not sure why this is even worthy of posting ?
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75789/
metmike: kris, you are an extraordinarily sharp guy with many wonderful contributions. However, knowing your history in other discussions like this and you already ignoring my responses to those questions, I'm asking nicely AGAIN that you stop "beating the dead horse". If you want to make other points or continue the discussion, that's fine but the manner in which you are currently conducting yourself, is extremely counterproductive in any discussion and in fact is a tactic called BEING DELIBERATELY OBTUSE, which is not an acceptable method for people that desire productive conversations.
Okay, I'll bite:
you already ignoring my responses to those questions
Just show me where you responded to your assertion that there are only three reasons to own a gun i.e.; self defense/hunting game/fun
I said:
1) the 2nd wasn't written with those reasons in mind, you omit and/or miss the main reason why we the people have the right to bear arms
I am still interested in reading your defense of your statement above.
1) the 2nd wasn't written with those reasons in mind, you omit and/or miss the main reason why we the people have the right to bear arms
2) no mass shooter has used a full auto which is the only firearm that would kill "dozens of people" in seconds
3) in your opinion what type of gun and how many cartridges should be the legal standard allowed to defend a home invasion numbering let's say three perps?
4) let's just ban the scary looking black rifles and then we can progress to pistols since the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns to kill 32 students (most lives lost in a school shooting), is that the "logical" next step then?
1. You are making an opinion. I gave a half dozens reasons for my opinion that contradicts that and if you read me, you would know that:
This was just the latest:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#85004
2. As I stated clearly countless times and even showed with the examples of what guns were actually used, I am not for banning just guns used in mass murders. There are other more powerful guns. The most powerful should be taken off the market and not limited to guns that can mow down people in just seconds, which I was referring to more along the line of 30-40 seconds or so but again, there are 1,000 different guns and as I clearly stated naming each gun is absurd and limiting it to specifics is absurd because there needs to be an open discussion about EVERY gun based on realities and I'm not here to state this and that specific gun should be banned, the intelligent discussion between 2 sides should decide that........not...........ALL LEGAL GUNS SHOULD STAY LEGAL BECAUSE.........screw the fact that hundreds of people are dying, I want the right to own EVERY gun because......I have that right.
And you are wrong that only a fully automatic can kill dozens of people in 40 seconds.
3. I responded to this one more than once. This was the last time:.https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#85003
4. Again, responded several times to this. Here's the last time:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#85004
"No, this absolutely will not lead to the notion of more freedoms being taken away.
That would be like stating that posting speed limits, to restrict the freedom to drive as fast as you want, will eventually lead to them confiscating motor vehicles.
There's nothing stated about speed limits in the Constitution (-:"
kris,
It's extremely disingenuous of you to claim I'm not responding............JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESPONSES.
in fact it's a tactic called BEING DELIBERATELY OBTUSE, which is not an acceptable method for people that desire productive conversations. The continual refusal to accept MY RESPONSES and repeatedly state I didn't respond is EXTREMELY DISHONEST.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#85039
You have reduced yourself to acting exactly like a troll in this discussion. I can tell from many other great posts here that you are much better than this!!!
So please stop doing it!!
Finally, this is a very serious problem in the United States and claiming that guns have nothing to do with it and there should be no changes to what guns are legal now is taking a non negotiable, extreme position, which is very consistent with you refusing to accept MY responses because you don't like or recognize them.....them hounding me for numerous posts like a troll, which is very uncivil/counterproductive....or in the past, insisting we stop beating a dead horse if the point is one that YOU disagree with as shown above.
p.s.
I actually could have expanded on the responses above with numerous pages.........repeating what I previously stated in this thread. The above, was just a quick, copy/paste with some elaborating to provide what you have had at your fingertips to read all this time...............IF YOU WANTED TO.
I very rarely jump into 2nd amendment arguments these days, because so many try to justify why we shouldnt even have it. They are less than thoughtful, in both the understanding at the time the 2nd amendment was writtien. And it's importance, yet irrelevance, in todays society.
When the 2nd was first penned and approved, it was about the citizens having the right to own the same weapons as the government. So that if the time should ever occur, that the citizens needed to violently remove and install a new government, due to corruption,etc., then they would be equally armed as the government.
Laws since the 1930's have been enacted, that would prevent this equal control and access to weapons to the citizens, that the government has. And it has "legally" restricted what weapons that the citizens can possess. And also the level of the weapons that citizens can possess. For instance, you have to have a goveernment pemit to own and use any full auto weapon. A full violation of the 2nd amenment. But my finger is fast enough to fire 2 rounds a second from a semi-auto, no matter what weapon I am using.
But the bottom line is. These days, you can't own any weapon that is in any way equal to the government these days. That's because it gives the government the advantage over you. Kinda like Ukraine today. They are so outmatched in weapons. Which is why they can't defend themselves adequately from Russia.
Such is your path as well.
1) the 2nd wasn't written with those reasons in mind, you omit and/or miss the main reason why we the people have the right to bear arms
1. You are making an opinion. I gave a half dozens reasons for my opinion that contradicts that and if you read me, you would know that:
This was just the latest:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#85004
There is nothing in the above page that answers the point I made, luckily Mark B in his post answered it for you:
When the 2nd was first penned and approved, it was about the citizens having the right to own the same weapons as the government. So that if the time should ever occur, that the citizens needed to violently remove and install a new government, due to corruption,etc., then they would be equally armed as the government.
[as an aside:]
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~Thomas Jefferson
Thanks kris!
For somebody that has strongly objected to dead horses here in the past, your pathological obsession for needing things repeated in this thread to continue an argument that features a non negotiable, divisive position by your side is duly noted.
There's no rule against dead horses at MarketForum or repeating the same things a zillion times.
However, what I try to do is to use this as an opportunity to learn things from the posters who do it by objectively analyzing their behavior and sharing it. They have an opportunity to learn about themselves and others seeing a behavior and learning about it........like psychoanalysis.
You may think that I'm not qualified as a shrink but would be very surprized to find out what my experience is.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#85039
Thanks VERY MUCH Mark!
1) the 2nd wasn't written with those reasons in mind, you omit and/or miss the main reason why we the people have the right to bear arms
1. You are making an opinion.
I'm not making an opinion, I simply cite what is written in black on white, Mark gave you the answer and he gets an "atta boy" so there is your tacit admission that you were wrong on the subject.
2) no mass shooter has used a full auto which is the only firearm that would kill "dozens of people" in seconds
I was referring to more along the line of 30-40 seconds or so
Okay so now it's more like 30/40 seconds, you had to slip that in there to save face I gather.
That would be like stating that posting speed limits, to restrict the freedom to drive as fast as you want, will eventually lead to them confiscating motor vehicles.
There's nothing stated about speed limits in the Constitution (-:"
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution but alas: there is no "right to drive" so your comparison is nothing but a red herring. Btw: many vehicles are confiscated for disobeying traffic laws ...
I actually could have expanded on the responses above with numerous pages
Save yourself the trouble, avoiding direct responses by throwing out "word salads" at nauseam does not bring anything to the conversation.
your pathological obsession for needing things repeated in this thread to continue an argument that features a non negotiable, divisive position by your side is duly noted.
Your pathological obsession for refusing to provide a direct to the point answer to a few questions is duly noted just the same: in a conversation word salads just don't cut it.
You may think that I'm not qualified as a shrink
Oh you're a shrink alright ... ! Your demeaning lectures sure hit home ...
Your demeaning lectures sure hit home ...
kris,
I'm so very sorry that you take them that way because I try extremely hard to NOT be demeaning. Wish I could show the evidence/facts/data and truths some other way and not see things in others, always based on documented posting/evidence.... but they are what they are.
Considering that you do feel that way, I will try even harder to do better.
As I always say, I've learned more here than anybody during the last 4 years and as much as I learned in the previous 20 years and that applies to much more than just worldly knowledge.
Knowing oneself is a life long process and even an old man like me should never stop learning about themselves.
The biggest bonus being here for me.........is to generously share it, while learning from others.
