Shooting in El Paso

[BigOrangeD]

 

[InVOLuntary]

lol, I can see all the gang members lined up to sell theirs. Maybe they can buy back those that Obama sold to Mexican Drug Cartels.

 

[hog88]

At least that's constitutional unlike Trumps bump stock ban.

 

[37L1]

At least that's constitutional unlike Trumps bump stock ban.

Is it?

 

[BigOrangeD]

At least that's constitutional unlike Trumps bump stock ban.

Agree as long as it's not forced.

 

[hog88]

Is it?

Sure, nothing unconstitutional about the .gov offering a buyback.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Sure, nothing unconstitutional about the .gov offering a buyback.

Unless it is an either/or situation where you either sell them or we're taking taking them type of deal.

 

[37L1]

Sure, nothing unconstitutional about the .gov offering a buyback.

He's not offering a buy back. His plans is to "imminent domain" them. Declare possession illegal and pay you what he says they are worth.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

How much will Bernie be willing to pay for this little jewel of a weapon?

 

[hog88]

My problem with the anti-gun crowd is they want to circumvent the constitution in order to achieve their goal. If you think certain guns should be outlawed, restricted or whatever do it right. Go to your favorite congressman/senator and start a movement to amend the constitution. I could respect that, disagree with it but respect it.

 

[hog88]

Unless it is an either/or situation where you either sell them or we're taking taking them type of deal.

I didn't read past the headline but still it's more in line with the constitution than the bump stock ban. That is 100% an unconstitutional infringement of property rights.

 

[BigOrangeD]

How much will Bernie be willing to pay for this little jewel of a weapon?

View attachment 216338

Probably $50.00. I'm sure he would only want to pay about $100.00 for my $1000.00 investments.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I didn't read past the headline but still it's more in line with the constitution than the bump stock ban. That is 100% an unconstitutional infringement of property rights.

I agree.

 

[FLVOL_79]

What are you trying to say? That his motive was based on a real issue?

It is a real issue, yes. But he lives in the wrong era to justify his actions.

 

[Septic]

How do we know that those yellow cabs aren't going too run those people down?

How do we know that those pressure cookers are not bomb rigged to explode?

I'm quite sure you're convinced that the points you're asserting are clever, impregnable brick walls of an argument, it's true cars have killed and a pressure cooker was onced used to murder. I regret to inform you however that the debate is not about pressure cookers or cars, it's about the preferred devices used to take lives on a massive scale, including the latest two. While I have little hope that you'll digress, you should know that attacking strawmen while probably satisfying for you, is only going to move the needle for people who are too simple to understand the hole in your logic.

 

[0nelilreb]

How much will Bernie be willing to pay for this little jewel of a weapon?

View attachment 216338

This touched the soul of my inner redneck and makes me want one , have no idea what I’d do with it but I want it .

 

[RockyTop85]

Speaking of Chicago. As of today...

- 1642 shooting victims.
- 278 dead.

Of course, that's not a single mass shooting like the ones of this past week. You know, the headline grabbers. That's spread over 7 months. Still...

...it works out to 234 shooting victims per month, and 40 dead per month. 33 and 6 per week. So far. Far beyond an average month in El Paso, or Dayton. And those numbers are going to get bigger, much bigger, over the remaining 5 months of this year.

Funny, outside of ABC7 in Chicago, there doesn't seem to be any outrage over this. Especially from the elected officials in the City of Chicago, the State of Illinois, and those who represent Chicago in both the U.S. House and Senate. Elijah included. Maybe they don't have the same numbers I have.

Or maybe gun deaths only matter if they come in single large numbers at a single event. If you can spread a big number out over 12 months, like your mortgage payment, then it doesn't seem so bad. Ignore the elephant, and just focus on one bite at a time, right?

Unless, of course, you happen to be one of those statistics that gets spread out over those 12 months. But then, dead folks don't vote, so...

And this is just Chicago. Only one of the top 5 murder capitals of the U.S. Anybody want the rest of the raw numbers?

Hint: it only gets worse. Especially for the Democrats that own those capitals.

Street violence doesn’t seem analogous to political violence or random acts of mass violence, in my opinion.

In my experience, street violence involves mostly stolen hand guns.

The difference ultimately being that weapons used in these mass shootings would be harder for the typical perp to get, illegally. People don’t tend to leave an AR15 in the glove box of their unlocked car. The typical mass shooter, recently, has been more of a loner, anti-social type that you wouldn’t necessarily expect to connections to purchase a fenced semi-auto rifle with a big magazine.

So, I think the belief is that there are less invasive restrictions to large guns, that could effectively keep some of these anti-social kids from having access to them. The anger stems from the fact that none of these things have been implemented.

However, while everybody is jumping on this idea of like carfax for humans at gunshows, idk what a background check is really going to solve. Most of these guys don’t have disqualifying convictions. So you’re either leaving it up to some dealer to nix his own sale or you’re leaving it to some government desk jockey. Even that would require information like whether he creeped out his teachers in school or whether he’s been prescribed psychotropics.

Tl;dr: the reason people are mad about one and not the other is because they have bought in to the idea that there’s a solution for one, but the solution seems like a pipe dream, IMO.

 

[hog88]

Street violence doesn’t seem analogous to political violence or random acts of mass violence, in my opinion.

In my experience, street violence involves mostly stolen hand guns.

The difference ultimately being that weapons used in these mass shootings would be harder for the typical perp to get, illegally. People don’t tend to leave an AR15 in the glove box of their unlocked car. The typical mass shooter, recently, has been more of a loner, anti-social type that you wouldn’t necessarily expect to connections to purchase a fenced semi-auto rifle with a big magazine.

So, I think the belief is that there are less invasive restrictions to large guns, that could effectively keep some of these anti-social kids from having access to them. The anger stems from the fact that none of these things have been implemented.

However, while everybody is jumping on this idea of like carfax for humans at gunshows, idk what a background check is really going to solve. Most of these guys don’t have disqualifying convictions. So you’re either leaving it up to some dealer to nix his own sale or you’re leaving it to some government desk jockey. Even that would require information like whether he creeped out his teachers in school or whether he’s been prescribed psychotropics.

Tl;dr: the reason people are mad about one and not the other is because they have bought in to the idea that there’s a solution for one, but the solution seems like a pipe dream, IMO.

What is a "large gun"?

 

[37L1]

Street violence doesn’t seem analogous to political violence or random acts of mass violence, in my opinion.

In my experience, street violence involves mostly stolen hand guns.

The difference ultimately being that weapons used in these mass shootings would be harder for the typical perp to get, illegally. People don’t tend to leave an AR15 in the glove box of their unlocked car. The typical mass shooter, recently, has been more of a loner, anti-social type that you wouldn’t necessarily expect to connections to purchase a fenced semi-auto rifle with a big magazine.

So, I think the belief is that there are less invasive restrictions to large guns, that could effectively keep some of these anti-social kids from having access to them. The anger stems from the fact that none of these things have been implemented.

However, while everybody is jumping on this idea of like carfax for humans at gunshows, idk what a background check is really going to solve. Most of these guys don’t have disqualifying convictions. So you’re either leaving it up to some dealer to nix his own sale or you’re leaving it to some government desk jockey. Even that would require information like whether he creeped out his teachers in school or whether he’s been prescribed psychotropics.

Tl;dr: the reason people are mad about one and not the other is because they have bought in to the idea that there’s a solution for one, but the solution seems like a pipe dream, IMO.

It is a pipe dream. It's an understandable, emotion filled "we have to do something even if it makes no difference" kind of thing. In the meantime people who have committed no crime pay a price just so that people can "feel good" because we at least did something. It's an adult binky. No new legislation passed by the House would have stopped these two shooters from obtaining their weapon, which BTW, were obtained with background checks completed and approved.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

For those that want to blame Trump for all the Violence.

Did Bush ever claim that Obama wasn't a citizen to rile up the racists?

This tweet was an effective way for Trump to point out that he is an even worse president than Bush II.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I'm quite sure you're convinced that the points you're asserting are clever, impregnable brick walls of an argument, it's true cars have killed and a pressure cooker was onced used to murder. I regret to inform you however that the debate is not about pressure cookers or cars, it's about the preferred devices used to take lives on a massive scale, including the latest two. While I have little hope that you'll digress, you should know that attacking strawmen while probably satisfying for you, is only going to move the needle for people who are too simple to understand the hole in your logic.

It's not a strawman because you chose to pick and chose what you determine is dangerous. It's completely relavent. There are things all around you that have the potential to kill you. I could have posted a picture of a bar with parking lot full of cars and the same would apply. How do we know one of those patrons isn't going to rive home drunk and kill a minivan full of a family? A ban on any firearm is stupid and extremely shallow minded. She/you chose to limit what you don't care about.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Did Bush ever claim that Obama wasn't a citizen to rile up the racists?

This tweet was an effective way for Trump to point out that he is an even worse president than Bush II.

I blame DIMs for all the hate. They lie continually and won't condemn Antifa.

 

[37L1]

I blame DIMs for all the hate. They lie continually and won't condemn Antifa.

Tit for tat, nice!

 

[Septic]

It's not a strawman because you chose to pick and chose what you determine is dangerous. It's completely relavent. There are things all around you that have the potential to kill you. I could have posted a picture of a bar with parking lot full of cars and the same would apply. How do we know one of those patrons isn't going to rive home drunk and kill a minivan full of a family? A ban on any firearm is stupid and extremely shallow minded. She/you chose to limit what you don't care about.

It is a strawman, no one is arguing that a pencil couldn't kill you. The current debate is about firearms, not hamilton beach instapots. One is designed and sold to send lead down range at high velocity, one is designed to cook delicious marinated chicken. You're attacking a strawman.

 

[Mick]

However, while everybody is jumping on this idea of like carfax for humans at gunshows, idk what a background check is really going to solve. Most of these guys don’t have disqualifying convictions. So you’re either leaving it up to some dealer to nix his own sale or you’re leaving it to some government desk jockey. Even that would require information like whether he creeped out his teachers in school or whether he’s been prescribed psychotropics.

Tl;dr: the reason people are mad about one and not the other is because they have bought in to the idea that there’s a solution for one, but the solution seems like a pipe dream, IMO.

HIPAA seems like the obvious sticking point to adequately address the mental health aspect of mass shooters and universal background checks.