Lurker > DifferentialEquation

"If only the school had armed guards." sounds like an argument that has some merit whereas "If only the AR-15 had been banned." has none.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

She's probably lying. And even if she is telling the truth, so what? I have lots of articles of clothing with Trump's semen on it. It doesn't prove a thing.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

or a reason why Trump repealed legislation making it more difficult for the mentally ill to get

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

This is what Trump overturned that everyone is so angry about:

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients who, because of a mental impairment,use a representative payee to help manage their benefits be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.

---

There's no business to be taxed.

Lots of people are broken and unhappy; they don't go on killing sprees.. I hope he spends the rest of his days in complete misery and then dies a slow and painful death
---

There's no business to be taxed.

AlBundy33 posted...

eggcorn posted...

what why

Years of not taking care of them

define "not taking care of them" more precisely
---

There's no business to be taxed.

We would be better off in many ways. Let the kids take a few swings at each other to get everything out their systems, put them in detention for a few hours, and then the next day they're friends.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Letron_James posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Letron_James posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

pres_madagascar posted...

Youngster_Joey_ posted...

I know most of CE was born after like 1996, but like there was a period between 1994 and 2004 where AR15's pretty much were banned and it just lead to people using bombs and other guns instead.

Yep. I'm 30.

Bush lifted the ban on Assault style weapons. Here we are today.

Yes here we are today with no significant raise in violent crime or gun vioence when the ban lifted and no significant drop during the ban.

Guns aren't the problem. Hell why are the all these shoots on or just coming off anti depressants? Maybe we should teach kids to be men instead of pushing mind altering drugs.

Also a pistol is just as deadly. I'm certain I could get a count just as high as this guy with a pistol instead of an AR.

Imagine using the argument of you being able to kill more children with a pistol over a AR-15 as a reason to keep the gun allowed.

Figuratively and literally go fuck yourself

What kind of response is that? Will you explain why you think he's wrong based on things like that ballistic capabilities of each weapon, or do you intend to just let your emotions take over?

Hes wrong because the issue has always been the high capacity of ammunition weapons like aR15s can hold, or be modded into holding. In addition to it being more accurate at mid and far ranges, the better question is besides eye candy what practice use does an ar15 or similarly spec'd weapon hold to non military/police personele? And the only response any gun fanatic has to that is either "hurr durr we wanna protect ourselves against a tyrannical government" or them basing the right off of an amendment that was written when Muskets were the most advanced form of easily accessible firearms. Using his same stupid argument you can say i can make a makeshift bomb out of commonly sold store items and do more damage than an ar 15. Or i can ram a truck etc, its a stupid argument because cars and chemicals have actual uses as opposed to weapons like AR15s which have none besides coddling the rights constant fear of everything.

Its not an emotionally based rant. I just hold gun fanatics in the same boat as flat earthers. Grow up and welcome yourself to the 21st century, where countries that have stricter gun laws are inherently more safe than ones who don't. Pistols and shotguns etc at least have more difficulty to aim or conceal, move, reload, i don't care if you own a shotgun for protection at home, or go through the hoops to get a handgun and walk around town like you have a 12 inch dick. There's no logical reason to have an arsenal of weapons at home that do anything other than protect yourself. Start at banning all the unnecessary shit and then actually implement proper gun purchasing procedures like Japan does.

It's not, though. Do you really think a school shooting would turn out much differently if someone had a 9mm with handgun with some 15-round magazines vs an AR-15 with some 30-round magazines?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

At the very least it will be considered "problematic". Most likely it will be considered cultural appropriation and/or compared to blackface.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Link HT posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Imagine using a few deaths by an AR 15 as an argument that it's the preeminent killing machine on the planet specifically designed to kill kids and not expect to get told that a pistol would be just as effective.

can't shoot dozens of people from a window with a pistol. Well, not effectively anyway.

Was that a reference to the Vegas shooting?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Letron_James posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

pres_madagascar posted...

Youngster_Joey_ posted...

I know most of CE was born after like 1996, but like there was a period between 1994 and 2004 where AR15's pretty much were banned and it just lead to people using bombs and other guns instead.

Yep. I'm 30.

Bush lifted the ban on Assault style weapons. Here we are today.

Yes here we are today with no significant raise in violent crime or gun vioence when the ban lifted and no significant drop during the ban.

Guns aren't the problem. Hell why are the all these shoots on or just coming off anti depressants? Maybe we should teach kids to be men instead of pushing mind altering drugs.

Also a pistol is just as deadly. I'm certain I could get a count just as high as this guy with a pistol instead of an AR.

Imagine using the argument of you being able to kill more children with a pistol over a AR-15 as a reason to keep the gun allowed.

Figuratively and literally go fuck yourself

What kind of response is that? Will you explain why you think he's wrong based on things like that ballistic capabilities of each weapon, or do you intend to just let your emotions take over?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

People such as Low Tier God try to address the problem and they're ignored.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

At some point within the next few days, Trump will probably make a crass remark on Twitter or lie about how many Diet Cokes he drank. The left will forget about trying to ban guns for the time being and go to back focusing on what they really care about.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

lilORANG posted...

"We needs guns to defend us when the tyrannical government sicks the military on us!"

*votes for wannabe fascists and wants to infinitely fund the military*

"Trump is literally Hitler! Our government is corrupt and owned by the billionaires! Police officers are murdering black people with no consequences!"

"Only the government should have guns! LMAO at the idea that a government could ever possibly go tyrannical at some point in the future!"
---

There's no business to be taxed.

hockeybub89 posted...

Report what exactly? Aren't Trump supporters against things like #MeToo because of innocent until proven guilty and also vehemently against the government forcing treatment on you?

"911, I think this guy is disturbed"
"Ok, what is he doing?"
"Well, nothing right now but he's creepy and keeps to himself"
"And?"

I think the idea is that if there is reason believe that someone will commit a mass shooting that a law enforcement agency would investigate the matter further, and not that a law enforcement agency would start a social media campaign against them and that only officers or FBI agents would be allowed on stage at the Oscars.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Turtlemayor333 posted...

I agree with him for once

If your profile picture has you holding a gun and wearing a MAGA hat, you need to be reported

What are you going to report in that case? "Hello! Police! I have the identity of a guy who loves America and the Constitution. Please do something!"
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Asherlee10 posted...

It's kind of an odd scenario. Let's say the FBI does successfully ID potential mass shooters, what do we do with them then?

What about sending local police over to attempt some sort of communication on the matter to the person or the parents. Obviously, we shouldn't subvert due process or the 4th amendment in any way, but what about the police simply making an attempt at discussing the matter?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

DuranOfForcena posted...

CaptainCrunch posted...

That's... not what he's doing.

how is that not exactly what he is doing. what else do you think he would be suggesting with "Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities"?

Whenever ever I go to the airport or ride a commuter train, I always hear an announcement to effect of "Be on the look out for unattended luggage/items. If you see something notify security personnel immediately." That's not blaming the passengers for the bomb attacks that have occurred.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

If you propose a solution for the mental health problem that doesn't make it harder for me to buy a gun or raise my taxes then I'll support it.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Suppose that the supply of AR-15s and other comparable firearms dried up and that was all that changed.

Do you think this would impact the frequency of school shootings?

Do you think that it would be feasible for someone to walk into a school and murder 10-20 kids (using a revolver or some other handgun) before being stopped by the police?

If yes to the last question, how do think you would react to this in terms of wanting more gun control?

IDK man you're asking me hypothetical questions I have no way of answering. But your baseless assumption that this would lead to gun bans is irrational, and your logic that this justifies your refusal to even debate the issue is doing more harm than good. Fact is that even if someone were to then argue for complete gun ban in your hypothetical situation, their argument would not receive the level of support that banning AR 15s are receiving right now.

And you're still only referring to the banning of guns and not other completely rational and common sense gun regulations, and you're assuming that these regulations would have 0 impact. Fact is that if we look at the rest of the world, none of what you're assuming seems to be the case.

I am in favor of much, much harsher punishments for anyone that misuses a firearm. Even, for example, if you brandish a fake or unloaded firearm at someone as a threat; that should have very severe penalties. If you clumsily discharge your firearm and the round lands in someone else's property, then you can have your right suspended have go through extra steps to get it back.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Yes, in otherwise identical scenarios, someone with an AR-15 would do more damage than with a revolver. What I am saying is that, in a school shooting scenario where it is unfortunately like shooting fish in barrel, someone can kill a lot of people with a revolver before the cops show up. I don't see any reason why someone murdering 10-20 children with a revolver wouldn't prompt the same sorts of "no civilian needs a weapon that can cause that much death" arguments.

The arguments for banning/restricting the guns themselves has almost always hinged on the death count. Someone killing 10-20 kids with a revolver is no less a tragedy.

Also, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is one of the best choices for a home defense weapon which is one reason why I want it to to remain available to civilians.

Do you see the same push to ban revolvers as you do to ban AR 15s? Cuz I have no idea why anyone would ever think they would be the same. You've admitted that there's a massive difference between a revolver and an EAR 15, that difference is relevant in the conversation, so saying banning one would mean banning the other is ludicrous.

Lol and youre protecting your home with an AR 15? Jesus dude, you're gonna kill all your neighbors bro! No, the best choice for home protection is clearly a pistol, that should be common sense. Unless you're protecting your house from an army of charging mongols or something. I've got a .38 and a .22 for that reason, and a .45 for funsies.

Suppose that the supply of AR-15s and other comparable firearms dried up and that was all that changed.

Do you think this would impact the frequency of school shootings?

Do you think that it would be feasible for someone to walk into a school and murder 10-20 kids (using a revolver or some other handgun) before being stopped by the police?

If yes to the last question, how do think you would react to this in terms of wanting more gun control?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Zodd3224 posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

DyingPancake posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

DyingPancake posted...

So you don't even fully know what you want banned?

This is why no one takes these viewpoints seriously. You want something banned, but you don't even know what the hell it is you want banned

Sadly I've seen this more times than I can count from users on this board

Ok

So I'm right and you acknowledge it

I just told you. Pistols and hunting rifles are fine. Do you need a detailed diagram of each and every gun? You're just going for "gotcha" tactics now to justify your need to "feed your family" with weapons designed to kill lots of people very quickly.

Pistols kill more people than any other gun. Lol so youre just gonna ban the scary guns?

Its the mass shootings Im concerned about Lol. How many mass shootings are commited with pistols Lol. Lol.

The Virgina Tech Shooting was done with handguns. And, at its time, I believe it was the most deadly school shooting that had occurred.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Darkman124 posted...

oh, i recognize that dissemination of extremist views is even easier today via the internet

Ok. So given that technology has made this easier, would you support some additional restrictions to the first amendment on that basis?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Darkman124 posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

How can you say that? Just as one example, there are risks (in regards to the views people might express and how those expressed views may motivate others) that come along with the first amendment. How can you say that the internet has not altered that risk?

because no matter how dumb your posts are they haven't given me cancer yet

So you don't think think that people being able to reach others with extremist views like their own has become easier with the internet? Or do you not think that people with similar extremist views grouping together is a danger in the first place?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Darkman124 posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

What other rights are you comfortable with denying to certain people? Are you comfortable with denying 4th amendment rights and due process to certain people who are dangerous enough? What about severely limiting the first amendment rights of people who might want to spread subversive opinions?

i think right now just second amendment

most other rights have not seen technology alter their risk to our society

How can you say that? Just as one example, there are risks (in regards to the views people might express and how those expressed views may motivate others) that come along with the first amendment. How can you say that the internet has not altered that risk?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I'm not arguing that there's no difference between an ar-15 and a revolver. I'm just saying revolvers can still be used to kill large numbers of (unarmed) people. It would be completely feasible for someone to walk into a school and murder 10 or more people with a revolver before they were stopped.

But you can never argue that you'd be able to kill as many people with a revolver as you would an ar 15, so saying the same argument can be used for both is disingenuous. And this is the point really, to figure out the solution to this problem we need to be able to speak openly about it. Wanting a quick simple answer is how you get people who want to van everything, or just shut down the discussion entirely like you do. It's all great when you're getting your way, but this "no discussion whatsoever" tactic you're using won't be so great when it's the other side making the decisions.

Don't shut down the debate because of what might happen, take every discussion as it comes and go from there. I've never seen a legitimate argument for why we shouldn't have a rational gun registry, every single time it's "no! Then they'll come to take my guns!" Which is propaganda the NRA has been pushing for decades, propaganda you've been falling for.

Yes, in otherwise identical scenarios, someone with an AR-15 would do more damage than with a revolver. What I am saying is that, in a school shooting scenario where it is unfortunately like shooting fish in barrel, someone can kill a lot of people with a revolver before the cops show up. I don't see any reason why someone murdering 10-20 children with a revolver wouldn't prompt the same sorts of "no civilian needs a weapon that can cause that much death" arguments.

The arguments for banning/restricting the guns themselves has almost always hinged on the death count. Someone killing 10-20 kids with a revolver is no less a tragedy.

Also, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is one of the best choices for a home defense weapon which is one reason why I want it to to remain available to civilians.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Darkman124 posted...

it sucks to have to deny gun rights to certain people

but it's necessary, and on a much wider scale than i think we as a society are comfortable with

because really, we don't have the prediction capacity to identify when an angry person becomes ultraviolent

i don't even think i'd meet the qualifications to be a gun owner in this hypothetical scenario. i have not committed domestic violence but am prone to fits of extreme rage

it should come as no surprise that i do not keep weapons in my home. that is for the safety of the others that live in it.

What other rights are you comfortable with denying to certain people? Are you comfortable with denying 4th amendment rights and due process to certain people who are dangerous enough? What about severely limiting the first amendment rights of people who might want to spread subversive opinions?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Caution999 posted...

You're using the same logic I used and spinning it for your side of the argument. Murderers will find a way to murder. 9/11.

9/11. That's it. Did they have guns? Or little box cutters and used planes as vehicles as bombs? Or are you going to argue that terrorists aren't human?

You know what happened after 9/11? They increased security, locked the cockpit and put air Marshalls on planes among other things.

You know what they do after children are murders by guns in school? Absolutely fucking nothing

So are you acknowledging that a good guy with a gun is a reasonable measure?

They also increased surveillance (without warrants) after 9/11. What are your thoughts on that?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).

There always will be some people advocating for a full on gun ban, but to use them as an excuse to refuse to even discuss rational gun laws is being just as absurd as they are. You seem to have fully bought into the NRA propaganda that any gun legislation will lead to bans and confiscation. Falling for ideological nonsense like that is always a mistake, even if it's easier than actually having to think about how to solve a complicated problem.

If someone can actually give a reason as to why they want something regulated instead of just "there's no reason for anyone to own this", then I would listen to their reasoning.

Again let's go back to the magazine size. There are are lot of people who think 30 round magazines should be banned and give no reason other than "people shouldn't have them" or "you shouldn't be able to fire that many bullets so quickly". Their "logic" would be no less applicable to 20 round magazines, to 10 round magazines, or to semi-automatics in general.

We hear time and time again simply that "no one should have these types of rifles". If we react by banning semi-auto .223 rifles, what then will happen when someone walks into a school and kills people with handguns (possibly even a revolver)? If someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with an ar-15 warrants further restrictions of firearms, then why wouldn't someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with a revolver warrant further restrictions of firearms?

You're attacking others arguments while literally saying there's no relevant difference between an AR15 and a revolver. C'mon man. This slippery slope nonsense has to end, youre still arguing that there shouldn't even be a discussion about this. I mean registering guns like we do with vehicles would be a start, there are tons of common Sense gun laws we can enact that wont infringe on anyone's rights.

I'm not arguing that there's no difference between an ar-15 and a revolver. I'm just saying revolvers can still be used to kill large numbers of (unarmed) people. It would be completely feasible for someone to walk into a school and murder 10 or more people with a revolver before they were stopped.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

How about this? When someone commits a mass shooting, instead of trying to infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of the average citizen, let's instead infringe upon the 8th amendment rights of the shooter. Let's flay them alive.

DifferentialEquation post

What I said makes sense. People who would murder a bunch of innocent children deserve to be tortured. Come on now, there's no way the founding fathers had school shootings like this in mind when they wrote the 8th amendment. And I'm not talking about getting rid of it entirely. There just needs to be some sensible adjustments made to it to keep with the times. Only people who commit mass shootings would lose their 8th amendment rights. There's no reason for anyone to be paranoid and think I'd want to take it away beyond that from people who commit lesser crimes.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

How about this? When someone commits a mass shooting, instead of trying to infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of the average citizen, let's instead infringe upon the 8th amendment rights of the shooter. Let's flay them alive.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).

There always will be some people advocating for a full on gun ban, but to use them as an excuse to refuse to even discuss rational gun laws is being just as absurd as they are. You seem to have fully bought into the NRA propaganda that any gun legislation will lead to bans and confiscation. Falling for ideological nonsense like that is always a mistake, even if it's easier than actually having to think about how to solve a complicated problem.

If someone can actually give a reason as to why they want something regulated instead of just "there's no reason for anyone to own this", then I would listen to their reasoning.

Again let's go back to the magazine size. There are are lot of people who think 30 round magazines should be banned and give no reason other than "people shouldn't have them" or "you shouldn't be able to fire that many bullets so quickly". Their "logic" would be no less applicable to 20 round magazines, to 10 round magazines, or to semi-automatics in general.

We hear time and time again simply that "no one should have these types of rifles". If we react by banning semi-auto .223 rifles, what then will happen when someone walks into a school and kills people with handguns (possibly even a revolver)? If someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with an ar-15 warrants further restrictions of firearms, then why wouldn't someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with a revolver warrant further restrictions of firearms?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Bio1590 posted...

It's pretty disingenuous to relate mass shootings and homicides considering they're two completely different problems where one is fairly unique to being an issue in America.

@Bio1590

I agree with you that homicides and mass shootings are two completely different scenarios. I was only bringing up homicides for the sake of showing that it's ignorant to use the race or political party of the offenders to demonize said groups.

I think that if someone uses demographics data of people who commit homicides to demonize black people and Democrats, that these people are ignorant and bigoted. Do you agree or disagree with this?

I also think that if someone uses demographics data of mass shooter as way to demonize white people or conservatives, that these people are ignorant and bigoted. Do you agree or disagree with this?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

pres_madagascar posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

gunplagirl posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

gunplagirl posted...

How many of those shooters were white men with histories of violence or at least threatening others? How many were conservative?

Most shooters are men.If you bring race into this, white people are not over represented in mass shootings based on their proportion of the population.

And if you want to play this bullshit game and assume political affiliations, should we do the same for homicides in general? Roughly 50% of homicides are committed by black people. Should that be used to shame or spread fear of black people? Should we speculate on "How many were Democrats?" since black people mostly tend to vote Democrat?

Are you really being so pedantic as to ignore the difference between single, intentional targets and nonspecific targets?

Are your also going to ignore police shootings while you're at it, in the name of pedantry?

Killing others intentionally is wrong and terrible thing, whether it's mass shootings or individual, targeted killings. If you want to try bring race and political party into one category (mass shootings) then why not bring them into the other category (homicides)?

Wanna bring race into it?

http://bit.ly/29MK39p

More white people are killed by other white people than black people kill black people.

I think it's stupid to bring race and political party into this in general. I wasn't bringing it up for homicides because I think they're relevant to homicides, I was bringing it up as a comparison because I think it's just as stupid as bringing it up for mass shootings.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

Dash_Harber posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Automatic weapons are restricted, semi-automatic weapons are available but purchasable by people who clear criminal, background, and psychological testing. Firearms should not be made illegal, but certain classes of firearms should not be available to the public. You know, like how every other country does it, or how things like push daggers, switchblades, butterfly knives, and brass knuckles are handled in most countries.

There, I stated my endgame and what lines I don't think should be crossed. I guess that makes you wrong.

@Dash_Harber

I already have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm. What would this psychological testing consist of?

Why does this check apply to semi-automatics specifically? Why do you, for example, care more about someone buying a semi-auto .22 rifle than a pump action shotgun or a high caliber bolt action rifle?

What are the classes of guns that are available to civilians now that you would you want to ban?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

gunplagirl posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

gunplagirl posted...

How many of those shooters were white men with histories of violence or at least threatening others? How many were conservative?

Most shooters are men.If you bring race into this, white people are not over represented in mass shootings based on their proportion of the population.

And if you want to play this bullshit game and assume political affiliations, should we do the same for homicides in general? Roughly 50% of homicides are committed by black people. Should that be used to shame or spread fear of black people? Should we speculate on "How many were Democrats?" since black people mostly tend to vote Democrat?

Are you really being so pedantic as to ignore the difference between single, intentional targets and nonspecific targets?

Are your also going to ignore police shootings while you're at it, in the name of pedantry?

Killing others intentionally is wrong and terrible thing, whether it's mass shootings or individual, targeted killings. If you want to try bring race and political party into one category (mass shootings) then why not bring them into the other category (homicides)?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

pres_madagascar posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

pres_madagascar posted...

Conveniently, all of them since Bush lifted the Assault weapons ban...

Civilians shouldnt have access to Assault rifles. Period. And i support responsible gun rights.

We pretty much don't have access to assault rifles. Which shootings were done with assault rifles?

Sandy hook: ar15
Vegas: ar15
Orlando club: ar15
Florida school shooting: ar15
Texas church shooting: ar15
Colorado theater: ar15

That's not what I asked for. which shootings were done with an assault rifle?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

pres_madagascar posted...

Conveniently, all of them since Bush lifted the Assault weapons ban...

Civilians shouldnt have access to Assault rifles. Period. And i support responsible gun rights.

We pretty much don't have access to assault rifles. Which shootings were done with assault rifles?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

gunplagirl posted...

How many of those shooters were white men with histories of violence or at least threatening others? How many were conservative?

Most shooters are men.If you bring race into this, white people are not over represented in mass shootings based on their proportion of the population.

And if you want to play this bullshit game and assume political affiliations, should we do the same for homicides in general? Roughly 50% of homicides are committed by black people. Should that be used to shame or spread fear of black people? Should we speculate on "How many were Democrats?" since black people mostly tend to vote Democrat?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

bump.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

bump
---

There's no business to be taxed.

No one who ever says the just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).
---

There's no business to be taxed.

SiO4 posted...

America has just lost it's way. Not just in gun culture.
But in its extreme corporate culture, putting profit above people.
This housing boom bubble is an example. Houses are homes, not commodities.
People are family, not just workers.
Guns are an item, not a way of life.

Our Prison system is out of control.

We stick are elderly in senior living homes, and wait for them to die.

Americans who wave the flag thinking they are the greatest are basically pigs rolling in shit.

This county has everything it needs to be amazing, and we're throwing it way, largely for the profit of a few.

I think that legalizing drugs would go a long ways in fixing a lot of this country's issues. I would like to go a little farther than that and would like to see a constitutional amendment which, at a minimum, protects the individual's right to possess or consume whatever substances they choose.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

CapnMuffin posted...

AssultTank posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

The reason why some people get upset is because no one ever says "Hey, I don't understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic and I don't know what an assault rifle is. Will someone please explain what these terms mean?" Instead they try to tell people what guns they should or shouldn't be allowed to have and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

Yeah, this is a phenomenon I've noticed quite frequently, especially from the media and politicians...

Gun terms aside, I'd like to flip it back and say sure they might not know the lingo but that's missing the point. The point they're trying to make is there's a lot of easily obtainable legal guns that have killing power above and beyond what a typical person would find reasonable for hunting/defense.

If they don't even understand the most basic of firearms terminology, how can they even begin to make any kind of accurate assessment of what's "reasonable" for hunting or home defense?
---

There's no business to be taxed.

AssultTank posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

The reason why some people get upset is because no one ever says "Hey, I don't understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic and I don't know what an assault rifle is. Will someone please explain what these terms mean?" Instead they try to tell people what guns they should or shouldn't be allowed to have and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

Yeah, this is a phenomenon I've noticed quite frequently, especially from the media and politicians...

This is one of the all time classics (it's only a minute and a half):


---

There's no business to be taxed.

FrenchCrunch posted...

scorpion41 posted...

DavidWong posted...

What I meant by semi-automatic, I mean assault rifles

No one has assault rifles. A semi-automatic is not an assault weapon. Please go educate yourself and stop posting on things you know nothing about.

hes trying to educate himself why you gotta be so mean

The reason why some people get upset is because no one ever says "Hey, I don't understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic and I don't know what an assault rifle is. Will someone please explain what these terms mean?" Instead they try to tell people what guns they should or shouldn't be allowed to have and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

prince_leo posted...

r4X0r posted...

Why? Do you think that random people are going to shoot you for no reason? That's called "paranoia."

I mean I can kinda get it
i'm not gonna call for banning guns, but when I spent a summer in kentucky for an internship we would go out to eat and there would always be a guy with a gun on his hip somewhere in the restaurant. it never made me feel safer
and I know logically the chance of something happening is low, but it still made me feel uncomfortable

There's almost certainly been occasions where people around you had concealed firearms (maybe even illegally sometimes) and you were none the wiser. I wouln't be worried about the guy who's open carrying.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Every home has been owned by someone that's died of natural causes. Do your parents expect you to live under a bridge?

That's not true. Some people buy newly constructed homes and then have to sell them after a few years for whatever reason. There are plenty of homes that have not been owned by someone that's died.
---

There's no business to be taxed.

TheVipaGTS posted...

man how can anyone think THAT looks good...there comes a time when your arms go from "firm and sexy" to "scientific experiment gone wrong"...are they just addicted and unable to stop themselves?

Would you like some peanut butter to go with that jelly?
---

There's no business to be taxed.