Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

[zeppelin128]

And I would but one because I could. Never use it, but it would be cool to have.

See how that works? Just because you own something doesn't mean that you are going to run around and kill 20 kids with it. The fallacy of the entire gun control mantra is that we want to ban things because a VERY VERY small segment of our ever more urbanized population is using them to kill and hurt others. I maintain that you should be after tobacco first and then alcohol 2nd because those products kill more people and harm more families in a year than all the mass shootings in schools and theaters in this country ever. You want to control something that I do safely and with absolutely NO harm to anyone (even myself) but are OK with teenagers beginning smoking habits that have a good chance of eventually killing them or causing health issues.

Get your ****ing priorities in order.

Apparently no one can read this morning. I never said one damn word about banning anything.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Oh GTFO with your conspiracy bs.

I’m hardly a conspiracy nut. Just putting stuff out here, I hadn’t seen that video.

 

[ajvol01]

[twitter]964002916708347904[/twitter]

Twitter

 

[GroverCleveland]

When the 2A was ratified back in the late 1700's you were lucky if you could get 3 shots off per minute with a musket. I wonder if the Amendment would have got ratified if they would have even slightly imagined what guns would be like today? I'm not saying guns should be illegal at all, but I've always wondered this.

I saw that the gunman obtained his guns legally. Apparently he lost his mother back in November and I think his father some time before that. Kids jokingly said that he'd be one to shoot up a school. Passed a background check though, so lets give him guns and all the ammo he wants. He posted his "arsenal" on social media bragging about it. Apparently he wasn't very bright because he wanted to put a scope on a shotgun smh.

In those same 1700s, those Founders also were aware the average citizen could freely own a Kentucky rifle with almost four times the effective range of the standard British Army weapon, the Brown Bess musket.

You could also obtain a cannon. Lexington and Concorde occurred when the LEGAL government of the Massachusettes colony sent troops to seize military supplies, including cannon, from the local farmers...

 

[hog88]

No I don't want to bet. What would you use? We all know the answer to that question don't we? Why won't you answer my question? Anyone can answer it so why won't anyone?

Well just for your information, handguns have been used more than any other firearm for mass shootings.

The question you pose now is stupid, I wouldn't commit mass murder so the answer is nothing.

 

[82_VOL_83]

When the 2A was ratified back in the late 1700's you were lucky if you could get 3 shots off per minute with a musket. I wonder if the Amendment would have got ratified if they would have even slightly imagined what guns would be like today? I'm not saying guns should be illegal at all, but I've always wondered this.

I saw that the gunman obtained his guns legally. Apparently he lost his mother back in November and I think his father some time before that. Kids jokingly said that he'd be one to shoot up a school. Passed a background check though, so lets give him guns and all the ammo he wants. He posted his "arsenal" on social media bragging about it. Apparently he wasn't very bright because he wanted to put a scope on a shotgun smh.

Many many people put scopes on shotguns for the purposes of hunting. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Was that your only point? I thought you were going to make some profound correlation between gun ownership and mass school shootings.

However, if it's stats and whatnot you'd like. According to that Wiki, we have roughly 1 gun per person in the US (101 per 100). That's a lot.

Now...

Next highest on my list is Cyprus at 36.4 per 100 people.

Uruguay at 31.8

Norway at 31.3

France at 31.2

Canada at 30.8

I would go on, but that's sufficient. Now, please point to the last school shooting in any of those countries.

I can't and that is part of the correlation I cited.

 

[Mick]

Your going to refute my argument that a major difference between the US and other first world countries that don't deal with these tragedies on a weekly basis is gun ownership per capita? By all means...

You are talking with people that don't have any ideas just blame and do nothing. These people are incapable of rational discussions.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Well just for your information, handguns have been used more than any other firearm for mass shootings.

The question you pose now is stupid, I wouldn't commit mass murder so the answer is nothing.

Beat you to it Hog.

 

[zeppelin128]

You are talking with people that don't have any ideas just blame and do nothing. These people are incapable of rational discussions.

I'm freaking agreeing with them not to ban AR-15s and they are still going after me. This is why nothing ever gets done on this issue. Everybody is too ******* entrenched in partisan b*******.

 

[82_VOL_83]

You are talking with people that don't have any ideas just blame and do nothing. These people are incapable of rational discussions.

You've not made a rational point to start a discussion around. I asked you to define an assault rifle and you failed that miserably.

 

[Madscientistvol]

For now we have enough guns in the country to eliminate the sale of most new ones. If you own them, you can transfer it to someone else with a thorough check. Nowhere in the constitution does it say guns cannot be registered. That is the fear that prevents this conversation. Fear of a tyrannical government that has nukes, war planes, grenades and many other weapons and someone thinking that their guns is going to stop them is completely laughable. The truth is the NRA has never lobbied for individual rights just the manufactures right to sell them.

So far you have been about the only one to start an actual dialogue about the issue. I admit I don't have the answers but am willing to discuss it.

There are also so many in the country that if we put a moratorium on any new firearms sales it would be pretty much moot. The only real solution that is obtainable without deconstructing our constitution to limit firearms usage would be to tax the ever living hell out of ammo.

I'm not stating I'm in favor of this necessarily, but it is the easiest way to reduce the armed level of Americans without having to deal with the 2nd Amendment.

Bringing back the sanitariums is another option and to give teeth to its ability to involuntarily commit people is another thought, but I doubt it would get much traction with liberals.

 

[Mick]

Well just for your information, handguns have been used more than any other firearm for mass shootings.

The question you pose now is stupid, I wouldn't commit mass murder so the answer is nothing.

Is that over the last 10 years or history of innocent people killed in mass shootings? Provide your source.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I'm freaking agreeing with them not to ban AR-15s and they are still going after me. This is why nothing ever gets done on this issue. Everybody is too ******* entrenched in partisan b*******.

Sorry Zepp, that wasn't pointed at you. I started replying to your post and then just went off. Not pointed at you at all.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Just gonna put this out here.

Twitter

Here's the issue with the conspiracy theories (much like Sandy Hook). Right after mass shootings, gun sales shoot up due to the fear of gun control. Why would the liberals fake a mass school shooting when the short term impact would be more guns being sold?

 

[82_VOL_83]

There are also so many in the country that if we put a moratorium on any new firearms sales it would be pretty much moot. The only real solution that is obtainable without deconstructing our constitution to limit firearms usage would be to tax the ever living hell out of ammo.

I'm not stating I'm in favor of this necessarily, but it is the easiest way to reduce the armed level of Americans without having to deal with the 2nd Amendment.

Bringing back the sanitariums is another option and to give teeth to its ability to involuntarily commit people is another thought, but I doubt it would get much traction with liberals.

So we penalize everyone because we can't placate the liberals....riiiiiiiiight.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Here's the issue with the conspiracy theories (much like Sandy Hook). Right after mass shootings, gun sales shoot up due to the fear of gun control. Why would the liberals fake a mass school shooting when the short term impact would be more guns being sold?

Well to go along with your line of reasoning, if no one ever committed an atrocity with a gun, then liberals loose one third of their political platform.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

There are also so many in the country that if we put a moratorium on any new firearms sales it would be pretty much moot. The only real solution that is obtainable without deconstructing our constitution to limit firearms usage would be to tax the ever living hell out of ammo.

I'm not stating I'm in favor of this necessarily, but it is the easiest way to reduce the armed level of Americans without having to deal with the 2nd Amendment.

Bringing back the sanitariums is another option and to give teeth to its ability to involuntarily commit people is another thought, but I doubt it would get much traction with liberals.

What about reloaders? Taxing the hell out of ammo guarantees a black market will emerge.

 

[McDad]

There we go, making a mass murderer famous. His name does not deserve to be known, especially if fame was a motivator.

I unequivocally agree. We must strip away ALL notoriety for the killers.

 

[Grand Vol]

I can't and that is part of the correlation I cited.

Okay, but your correlation is 1+1= purple. If gun ownership directly links to how often these happen, shouldn't we be seeing it happen in other nations? Albeit at a reduced rate, but it should be happening, no?

 

[ajvol01]

Here's the issue with the conspiracy theories (much like Sandy Hook). Right after mass shootings, gun sales shoot up due to the fear of gun control. Why would the liberals fake a mass school shooting when the short term impact would be more guns being sold?

Legislation is the goal.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Well to go along with your line of reasoning, if no one ever committed an atrocity with a gun, then liberals loose one third of their political platform.

And that is why we will never have reasonable gun control. Neither party wants it. It's an emotional issue with way too much $$$ tied up in it (for both sides).

 

[zeppelin128]

Sorry Zepp, that wasn't pointed at you. I started replying to your post and then just went off. Not pointed at you at all.

No worries, talking about guns is like talking about religion. It gets heated. Goes with the territory.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Legislation is the goal.

Legislation isn't the goal...$$$$ from special interests is the goal. If you couldn't get major gun control passed during Obama's tenure (with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate), then it's never going to happen....

 

[Mick]

There are also so many in the country that if we put a moratorium on any new firearms sales it would be pretty much moot. The only real solution that is obtainable without deconstructing our constitution to limit firearms usage would be to tax the ever living hell out of ammo.

I'm not stating I'm in favor of this necessarily, but it is the easiest way to reduce the armed level of Americans without having to deal with the 2nd Amendment.

Bringing back the sanitariums is another option and to give teeth to its ability to involuntarily commit people is another thought, but I doubt it would get much traction with liberals.

If you required registration the sales could be monitored. That doesn't encroach on the second.

Not really in favor of a hefty ammo tax either. Clip capacity is another thing that could be regulated and taxed.

Under the current laws the mentally ill have to have shown violent behavior and gun ownership rights would have to be revoked by the court.