Today’s Shooting (an ongoing topic)

[fooferdoggie]

I wonder how many children/adults need to be slaughtered or wounded per year before gun owners will come to believing that's not an acceptable consequence of no-limitations gun ownership?

never going to happen it will just make them hard guns worse.

 

[Citysnaps]

never going to happen it will just make them hard guns worse.

But at some point it would seem there must be a number where people would say enough.

Or is personal selfishness so ingrained to the point where no-limitations gun ownership will always trump the consequences of dead and wounded human beings, no matter what the number is?

Though I know better, I still find that astonishing.

 

[fooferdoggie]

But at some point it would seem there must be a number where people would say enough.

only if its their own that are dying.

 

[Yoused]

He was an illegal immigrant who had been deported 5 times.

This year, so far there have been 183 "mass shootings", which means incidents in which at least 4 people were exposed to"lead poisoning". In some of those incidents, there were injuries but no fatalities, in other incidents fatalites resulted. I counted more than 230 lives lost in that list (cursory count, might be off a little). 2023 is now 120 days along, which means there have been at least one and a half mass shootings per day this year and slightly less than 2 lives lost per day, in aggregate, in these incidents.

And you choose to focus on the fact that this guy was an illegal immigrant. I did not investigate each of those other incidents to determine the citizenship status of the shooter, but I am going to guess that very few of the shooters were illegal immigrants.

And, of course, this guy got his hands on a gun without too much difficulty, despite being an illegal immigrant. That seems to, uh, shoot a non-small hole in your point.

 

[Herdfan]

I won't argue that sovereign nations don't have the right to control immigration, but our southern border is far too long for a wall to be effective. And even with one in place, desperate people will find a way to cross. But calling attention to Francisco Oropeza's immigration status is just another "hey, look over here!" distraction from the real problem, which is widespread availability of guns, especially of the type he used.

They are BOTH problems.

And, of course, this guy got his hands on a gun without too much difficulty, despite being an illegal immigrant. That seems to, uh, shoot a non-small hole in your point.

It really doesn't. If someone can show me how he could have committed this crime if he were not in the country, I will listen.

He should not have been able to get a gun, but the simple fact is, he was able. And that will not change short of full confiscation and I don't think that is even possible. Any attempt would end up with way more bloodshed than what we are experiencing now.

 

[shadow puppet]

He was an illegal immigrant who had been deported 5 times. But our border is secure they say.

SMDH

This year, so far there have been 183 "mass shootings", which means incidents in which at least 4 people were exposed to"lead poisoning" [snip] I counted more than 230 lives lost in that list (cursory count, might be off a little). 2023 is now 120 days along, which means there have been at least one and a half mass shootings per day this year and slightly less than 2 lives lost per day, in aggregate, in these incidents.

And you choose to focus on the fact that this guy was an illegal immigrant. I did not investigate each of those other incidents to determine the citizenship status of the shooter, but I am going to guess that very few of the shooters were illegal immigrants.

And, of course, this guy got his hands on a gun without too much difficulty, despite being an illegal immigrant. That seems to, uh, shoot a non-small hole in your point.

Exactly and reinforces why the rest of the world think we are absolute loons for our lack of better gun policies. Thank you.

 

[Eric]

What's the worst that can happen?

Florida House backs measure to lower age to buy rifles and long guns from 21 to 18

The Florida House passed a measure on Friday that would lower the minimum age from 21 to 18 to buy rifles and other “long” guns. This vote would scrap a high-profile change passed after a 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

www.actionnewsjax.com

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida House passed a measure on Friday that would lower the minimum age from 21 to 18 to buy rifles and other “long” guns. This vote would scrap a high-profile change passed after a 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

Lawmakers included the gun restriction in a sweeping 2018 school-safety package after Nikolas Cruz, then 19, used a semi-automatic rifle to kill 17 students and faculty members and injure 17 others. Federal law already barred people under 21 from buying handguns.

 

[MEJHarrison]

He should not have been able to get a gun, but the simple fact is, he was able. And that will not change short of full confiscation and I don't think that is even possible.

So either everyone gets a gun or no one gets a gun? You see no other scenarios in-between those two extremes? Really? You can't envision a scenario where a person walks into a store to buy a gun and walks away disappointed because they weren't qualified to purchase a gun?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

And that will not change short of full confiscation and I don't think that is even possible. Any attempt would end up with way more bloodshed than what we are experiencing now.

I’m open to being corrected on this, but I am unaware of any western country in modern history where the government imposed a ban, full or limited, either out the gate or later in its history that resulted in marauding armed gangs or a tyrannical government taking over.

 

[Herdfan]

So either everyone gets a gun or no one gets a gun? You see no other scenarios in-between those two extremes? Really? You can't envision a scenario where a person walks into a store to buy a gun and walks away disappointed because they weren't qualified to purchase a gun?

I'm perfectly fine with that. But pretty sure he didn't buy his gun at a store. I have bought guns at places other than through a FFL, but those transactions were legal. There was no legal way for him to buy or possess a gun.

If you have a way to stop that, I am all ears. But you aren't going to take mine away and leave me and my family vulnerable when you can't take them away from criminals.

I’m open to being corrected on this, but I am unaware of any western country in modern history where the government imposed a ban, full or limited, either out the gate or later in its history that resulted in marauding armed gangs or a tyrannical government taking over.

You may be correct in this. But given what is happening in our cities with criminals forcing businesses to shut down or put everything behind locked cases, now give them guns knowing they will not encounter anyone else with a gun and tell me you would feel safe.

I may be wrong, and maybe the pics I see of Target stores with aisles of goods behind glass cases are fakes. Maybe the Whole Foods in downtown SF didn't really close and the story was a lie. Let's pretend that the Defund the Police movement has created safer cities and that stories about cites backtracking are also lies.

I do not want to be right here. Because it means that more and more people will flee the cities (or maybe that is a lie as well) for TX, AZ, FL, TN etc. and they will get there and vote for the same people who created the policies that caused them to leave in the first place. I read an article that talks about just how much in AGI some Blue states are losing. It is not an insignificant number. So as the tax base dwindles, either taxes will have to be increased or services cut. Glad I won't be there for that. Yes, it is a Fox Business article, but it was based on a WSJ story and you (collectively) can dismiss it all you want, but it doesn't make it not true.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I'm perfectly fine with that. But pretty sure he didn't buy his gun at a store. I have bought guns at places other than through a FFL, but those transactions were legal. There was no legal way for him to buy or possess a gun.

If you have a way to stop that, I am all ears. But you aren't going to take mine away and leave me and my family vulnerable when you can't take them away from criminals.



You may be correct in this. But given what is happening in our cities with criminals forcing businesses to shut down or put everything behind locked cases, now give them guns knowing they will not encounter anyone else with a gun and tell me you would feel safe.

I may be wrong, and maybe the pics I see of Target stores with aisles of goods behind glass cases are fakes. Maybe the Whole Foods in downtown SF didn't really close and the story was a lie. Let's pretend that the Defund the Police movement has created safer cities and that stories about cites backtracking are also lies.

I do not want to be right here. Because it means that more and more people will flee the cities (or maybe that is a lie as well) for TX, AZ, FL, TN etc. and they will get there and vote for the same people who created the policies that caused them to leave in the first place. I read an article that talks about just how much in AGI some Blue states are losing. It is not an insignificant number. So as the tax base dwindles, either taxes will have to be increased or services cut. Glad I won't be there for that. Yes, it is a Fox Business article, but it was based on a WSJ story and you (collectively) can dismiss it all you want, but it doesn't make it not true.

I believe both Australia and somewhere in Scandinavia (Finland?) imposed bans in recent history. Maybe just assault rifles. I don’t recall hearing about a large uptick in armed crime or shootouts with the authorities until all the guns were taken off the street. I’m not sure how they did it but we should probably look into it.

On SF specifically, I don’t think it’s a defund the police situation. I think it’s treating crime with a light hand and in general across the country it’s asking police to do too many things and expecting them to handle situations they are ill equipped to handle.

As far as people leaving blue states for red states, it will be a short lived gain as they are also taking their high cost of living with them and as it increasingly becomes just as unaffordable they’ll then have to confront things like climate and people they encounter on the regular and decide if it’s still worth it. I know a wealthy person who left CA for FL because he couldn’t stand the taxes and liberals but returned back to CA in less than a year because he could stand FL’s humidity and insects even less.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I think America is pretty much screwed about guns. way to many out there way to much of a religion in the us. maybe we could limit some but even thats doubtful with the gun lobbies owning the GOP. one day we will realize we fucked up but is going to be so bad then. all we have to do is see kids can now carry in I think Missouri? soon anyone will be able to buy a gun in a red state.

 

[Eric]

Shooting waiting to happen here, Musk will do nothing so there's no point in reporting. Hoping he gets a visit from authorities before someone gets killed.

 

[MEJHarrison]

But you aren't going to take mine away and leave me and my family vulnerable when you can't take them away from criminals.

This is why it's hard to talk about guns. I think there should be a LOT more oversight on who can and can't get a gun and what kinds of guns they can acquire. And you immediately jump to "you can't take mine". I never once said I wanted your guns to be taken. Just to be clear, I have no desire for your guns to be taken. While we don't always agree, my guts says you're probably a responsible gun owner. I have no issues with that. I might think you're crazy at times, but not that type of crazy.

You've been conditioned to hear "they want to take your guns" whenever a democrat says the word "gun". It's hard to carry on a conversation when you're hearing things I'm not saying.

What I'm saying is simply that it's far too easy to get guns in some places. I don't know how this person got their gun or that it was "easy" for them to get. But if I was betting on it, I'd wager it wasn't too difficult for him to get a gun regardless of his immigration status. I will concede however that I'm simply guessing and don't have evidence to support my suspicions.

 

[Herdfan]

This is why it's hard to talk about guns. I think there should be a LOT more oversight on who can and can't get a gun and what kinds of guns they can acquire. And you immediately jump to "you can't take mine". I never once said I wanted your guns to be taken. Just to be clear, I have no desire for your guns to be taken. While we don't always agree, my guts says you're probably a responsible gun owner. I have no issues with that. I might think you're crazy at times, but not that type of crazy.

You've been conditioned to hear "they want to take your guns" whenever a democrat says the word "gun". It's hard to carry on a conversation when you're hearing things I'm not saying.

What I'm saying is simply that it's far too easy to get guns in some places. I don't know how this person got their gun or that it was "easy" for them to get. But if I was betting on it, I'd wager it wasn't too difficult for him to get a gun regardless of his immigration status. I will concede however that I'm simply guessing and don't have evidence to support my suspicions.

Because there ARE some who want to take all guns.

Want reasonable restrictions, fine. I can go along with that. But the minute you start talking about banning grenade launchers for AR-15's you lose me because I know you aren't serious. (I mean politicians, not you specifically.)

Want Red Flag Laws, fine. Put in some protections for the gun owners. These laws shouldn't be one sided and should include harsh penalties for false reporting.

Want to ban AR's? No. But I would be OK with making them a Class 3 weapon. But I also want the 1986 date stricken.

But here is the main thing I want. Since guns are protected by the 2A and regulated by the ATF, any violent gun crime should be a Federal Crime. And no plea bargaining violent gun crimes down to misdemeanors. Take them all to trial. Sure you might lose some cases, how is a loss that much different than pleading a felony down to a misdemeanor where the criminal is back on the street in a few months/year.

And find who is selling the guns that end up on the streets and put their ass in jail. The ATF can certainly do this, not sure why the will to do so isn't there.

Responsible gun owners don't have a problem with reasonable regulations. But right now the argument, like with abortion, is being argued by the outer fringes of each side.

I don't like these shootings any more than you do. I really don't. But at the same time, I love my family more than I don't like these shootings. I just want the ability to protect them and myself.

 

[Citysnaps]

Want to ban AR's? No.

Why no?

AR-style weapons are what stir up many of those who should not own guns. Owning one has become a political statement - freedom, don't f with me, etc; especially in states where it's legal to strap one across you chest in public to try and appear bad-ass. What societal good comes as a result of that? It appears that many of the country's mass shootings involve AR-style assault weapons.

What if it were possible to get to a place where no one (except law enforcement and military) could have access to assault weapons. Would you be OK with that?

There needs to be some form of compromise (on both sides) in order to stop the mass shootings.

 

[Eric]

Want to ban AR's? No.

Why no?

To be fair you can kill far less kids without it, or does it have a different actual use in the hands of civilians?

 

[Citysnaps]

To be fair you can kill far less kids without it,

???

I'm not understating the "To be fair" to my "Why no?", questioning Herdfan's "No", not wanting to ban ARs.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Why no?

AR-style weapons are what stir up many of those who should not own guns. Owning one has become a political statement - freedom, don't f with me, etc; especially in states where it's legal to strap one across you chest in public to try and appear bad-ass. What societal good comes as a result of that? It appears that many of the country's mass shootings involve AR-style assault weapons.

What if it were possible to get to a place where no one (except law enforcement and military) could have access to assault weapons. Would you be OK with that?

There needs to be some form of compromise (on both sides) in order to stop the mass shootings.

I think the basic argument would be they are already out there and if even just one bad guy has one then I should be able to defend myself with equal force. Prove to me that every single one of them is out of circulation then fine. Or some shit.

I’ll add to that. Maybe I personally never thought they should be available to everybody but some force outside my control decided they should be. Refer to my first point. Or some shit.

What nobody seems to counter the "more guns is the solution" people with is guns have been flooding the market for decades. They’ll be the first to proudly let you know the stats on increased gun sales year over year. There’s your more guns. At no point has that made things better and increasingly things have gotten worse.

 

[Eric]

???

I'm not understating the "To be fair" to my "Why no?", questioning Herdfan's "No", not wanting to ban ARs.

Just calling out their insane justifications for defending this weapon whose seemingly only goal is to murder as many people in as short amount of time as possible. If they spent even a fraction of time defending those kids as they did the weapons used to kill them it would be one thing, but frankly they couldn't care less about a class full of dead kids and it's definitely my intent to call them out on it.