Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;1317198]Sorry, I thought that was acceptable practice on here...jumping to conclusions, making assumptions, and lumping people into certain categories... Maybe only [I]one side[/I] can do that...

Is it the style we are concerned about or the function. Because there is a distinct difference.

It's the function that makes a weapon an assault rifle/weapon, not the "style".

AR doesn't equal Assault Rifle or military style weapon. It's merely a semi-automatic rifle. Can it be modified to be more dangerous - to fit the category of an assault rifle? Yes...but that is illegal.[/quote]

I wasn't trying to be snarky I was just defending my position.

I know AR does not mean assault rifle.

Let me just ask this, why is it such a popular gun with mass shooters? I'm guessing it has to do with the function of it, being able to mow down many people quickly.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317204]I wasn't trying to be snarky I was just defending my position.

I know AR does not mean assault rifle.

Let me just ask this, why is it such a popular gun with mass shooters? I'm guessing it has to do with the function of it, being able to mow down many people quickly.[/quote]

Well, unless they are illegally modified, the legal AR-15 style rifle can't shoot any faster than your run of the mill Winchester semi-automatic hunting rifle - basically as fast as your finger can pull the trigger - one round per pull. However, the magazine capacity is generally higher, so a shooter can shoot more rounds without reloading than with other rifles that don't have the same capacity. Some states have put restrictions on what they have deemed "large capacity" magazines. Others have not.

All that being said, and to answer your question, the AR-15 style rifle could be popular with mass shooters because of it's capacity potential, compared to other options. But that's just my speculation.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

To add.............

[url]https://news.yahoo.com/tulsa-police-gunman-bought-rifle-173926786.html[/url]


Yahoo News Video
Tulsa police: Gunman bought rifle hours before hospital shooting, targeted doctor
Thu, June 2, 2022, 1:39 PM
Officials in Tulsa, Okla., said the gunman who fatally shot four people at Saint Francis Hospital on Wednesday targeted his surgeon, blaming him for ongoing pain following a recent back surgery. Police also said the gunman bought an AR-15-style rifle hours before the killings.

- Now, we know, through the help of our ATF and their gun tracing, that at 2:00 PM on June 1, Mr Lewis purchased a semi-automatic rifle from a local gun store. That semi-automatic rifle was an AR-15-style rifle.

We know that Mr Lewis purchased a semi-automatic handgun, a 40 caliber Smith and Wesson pistol, on May 29, from a local pawn shop.

We have also found a letter on the suspect which made it clear that he came in with the intent to kill Dr. Phillips and anyone who got in his way. He blamed Dr. Phillips for the ongoing pain following the surgery.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

Article on Yahoo, from the NYT regarding recent mass shootings:

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/disturbing-pattern-mass-shootings-young-114506454.html[/url]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317217]Article on Yahoo, from the NYT regarding recent mass shootings:

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/disturbing-pattern-mass-shootings-young-114506454.html[/url][/quote]

Man...

"Only two of the 30 deadliest mass shootings recorded from 1949 to 2017 involved gunmen younger than 21"

while

"Six of the nine deadliest mass shootings in the United States since 2018 were by people who were 21 or younger"

There's a big problem brewing here, and it's not just a guns problem people.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;1317192]Regarding mredskins post:





Sorry Moob, but you're wrong.

The "dumb shit" is you calling me out - putting me in a bucket (you, y'all, you're people..), and then balking when I return the favor.

BTW, an AR-15 isn't an "assault rifle". Some want to label it as such, but that is not what it is.[/quote]

Which one of those clearly said AR-15's or assault rifles need complete bans? I agree - nobody needs them unless you're planning on defending large territories by force. Are they useful for home defense? Perhaps you like to carry yours slung over your shoulder when you go shopping or when you pick up your kids from school - just in case fate aligns you with a mass shooter? Or maybe you don't like being inconvenienced by an extra day when your background check is being processed. Not sure - don't really care. All I care about is this faux "we care about people's mental health" bs you and other conservatives fall back on after the latest mass shooting - only to turn around and shit on Dems who actually want to do something about it next time the budget rolls around. And if it's not you specifically, it's your preferred elected leader.

The point is any one of us would settle for a compromise that doesn't involve banning a specific type of gun. But we can't even have that because the goddamn NRA and gun manufacturers have so much extra cash to spend from their beaucoup sales to scared rednecks that they can go around buying political votes.

Armalite Rifle 15 - for those who don't follow the snarky gun club terminology nerds.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=nonniey;1317229]If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.[/quote]

My real answer is: E. None of the above

If I absolutely had to remove 1 of the 4, I'd pick shotguns. Not because I think they're bad, but that you can replace them with other great options for self-defense/protection. I'd say they are the most easily "replaceable" for a majority of Americans.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=nonniey;1317229]If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.[/quote]

A , no justifiable need for them, none.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=mooby;1317221]Which one of those clearly said AR-15's or assault rifles need complete bans? I agree - nobody needs them unless you're planning on defending large territories by force. Are they useful for home defense? Perhaps you like to carry yours slung over your shoulder when you go shopping or when you pick up your kids from school - just in case fate aligns you with a mass shooter? Or maybe you don't like being inconvenienced by an extra day when your background check is being processed. Not sure - don't really care. All I care about is this faux "we care about people's mental health" bs you and other conservatives fall back on after the latest mass shooting - only to turn around and shit on Dems who actually want to do something about it next time the budget rolls around. And if it's not you specifically, it's your preferred elected leader.

The point is any one of us would settle for a compromise that doesn't involve banning a specific type of gun. But we can't even have that because the goddamn NRA and gun manufacturers have so much extra cash to spend from their beaucoup sales to scared rednecks that they can go around buying political votes.

Armalite Rifle 15 - for those who don't follow the snarky gun club terminology nerds.[/quote]

A few of those posts clearly said AR-15's or assault rifles should be complete banned, the others were suggestive of the same. Unlike G1 though, I am pretty sure you can read, so I won't go through them one-by-one.

LOL. No, I don't carry one around, and I don't think they are any more useful for home defense than a good hand gun.

I'm not against background checks - the more extensive the better. We shouldn't just be handing guns out to anyone.

I do care about mental health, especially of our youth. It's not BS to me.

I'm not sure I have a "preferred" elected leader these days. None of them seem to be working for us anymore. But, the Dems do have control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency - and have for over a year, so I'll be looking for them to get big things done in these two years...

I wasn't actually referring to the history of the AR-15, I was referring to the fact that the AR-15 and other AR style rifles aren't considered assault rifles, because they aren't fully automatic (i.e. they aren't a machine gun). While they look like military style weapons, they function like other semi-automatic sporting firearms, because you can only fire one round each time you pull the trigger.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=nonniey;1317229]If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.[/quote]

E. None of the above.

How about making the large capacity magazine illegal rather than lumping the rifle into that option. 9 states have done that.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=nonniey;1317229]If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.[/quote]

E. Bite Deetz

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Chico23231;1317240]E. Bite Deetz[/quote]

It was a trap question to see which of the gun control advocates on this board knew what they were talking about - for them the correct answer would have been handguns but none of them responded.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

According to you.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

Mass shooting occurred 5 miles away from me at a Graduation party Friday night. 50+ rounds shot by 4 different weapons. 1 killed, 5 others injured

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[url]https://youtube.com/shorts/Iny2eFwwP9w?feature=share[/url]

This Interesting point, I wonder how he got the $$$

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

There was like 3-4 mass shootings at graduation parties over the weekend.

What kind of culture raises kids like this?

Anyone see the Philly video of the guys walking in daylight shooting a guy in the middle of the street with hundreds of witnesses? Philly is such a shithole…the Democrat District Attorney there doesn’t prosecute illegal gun crimes or violent offenders which encourages behaviors like this.

Go to the mass shooting archive link I’ve post here a couple time…they have had 4 mass shootings in Philly in the last month. 4 folks

Parkland Shooting
 

[QUOTE=nonniey;1317241]It was a trap question to see which of the gun control advocates on this board knew what they were talking about - for them the correct answer would have been handguns but none of them responded.[/QUOTE]


Shouldn’t we all be “gun control” advocates at this point? Clearly there isn’t enough control. I know that is a dirty oppressive word, but idc. I mean we control driving, alcohol, weed, etc etc for the most part. Why not guns?

Can I be pro gun control and pro second amendment, or has the NRA done their job? Anyone who would like guns to stay out of bad peoples hands (or at the very least harder to get ur hands on than a beer), is now someone who wants to take everyone’s guns away…..
It is a fuckin joke how easy it is for any jerk off to get their hands on a gun, and it is a fuckin joke that thinking that makes me anti guns, anti American, etc etc etc.

There is a lot of highway between me having a gun at home for safety and self defense purposes and the crazy 18 year old kid down the street buying an ar 15 and 100 rounds of ammo. No doubt changes are needed asap.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[QUOTE=Chief X_Phackter;1317198]Sorry, I thought that was acceptable practice on here...jumping to conclusions, making assumptions, and lumping people into certain categories... Maybe only [I]one side[/I] can do that...

Is it the style we are concerned about or the function. Because there is a distinct difference.

It's the function that makes a weapon an assault rifle/weapon, not the "style".

AR doesn't equal Assault Rifle or military style weapon. It's merely a semi-automatic rifle. Can it be modified to be more dangerous - to fit the category of an assault rifle? Yes...but that is illegal.[/QUOTE]


Technically no it is not an assault rifle in its unmodified state, BUT, it is clearly capable of killing more people faster with no need to be even remotely accurate- it is no doubt over kill for john q public who just wants protection at home. 45 rounds a minute is perfect for a mass shooter, and clearly over kill for a home invasion unless there is a small army invading.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=punch it in;1317343]Shouldn’t we all be “gun control” advocates at this point? Clearly there isn’t enough control. I know that is a dirty oppressive word, but idc. I mean we control driving, alcohol, weed, etc etc for the most part. Why not guns?

Can I be pro gun control and pro second amendment, or has the NRA done their job? Anyone who would like guns to stay out of bad peoples hands (or at the very least harder to get ur hands on than a beer), is now someone who wants to take everyone’s guns away…..
It is a fuckin joke how easy it is for any jerk off to get their hands on a gun, and it is a fuckin joke that thinking that makes me anti guns, anti American, etc etc etc.

There is a lot of highway between me having a gun at home for safety and self defense purposes and the crazy 18 year old kid down the street buying an ar 15 and 100 rounds of ammo. No doubt changes are needed asap.[/quote]

I was a bit irritated when I posted this. I was just coming off a discussion with one of my coworkers who was convinced an outsized proportion of homicides were committed with "assault rifles" and wouldn't accept that approximately 90% were actually committed using handguns (close to 95% of firearm deaths overall). I think too much attention and energy is focused on trying to ban AR15s (I'd be all for raising the age to purchase and own them to 21/use requiring someone over 21 being present) but focus should be on how to reduce number deaths where handguns are used.

Still think my ideas of incentivizing the sale and development of smart weapons(which is essentially banned in this country), gun safes, better locks and training are good ones.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=nonniey;1317348]

Still think my ideas of incentivizing the sale and development of smart weapons(which is essentially banned in this country), gun safes, better locks and training are good ones.[/quote]

This only prevents accidental shootings.

Dear prolifers, children are dying from gun violence, what are you going to do about it? Nothing!

Unless black people arm themselves because you’re totally not scared of black people.
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act[/url]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=jamf;1317352]This only prevents accidental shootings.

Dear prolifers, children are dying from gun violence, what are you going to do about it? Nothing!

Unless black people arm themselves because you’re totally not scared of black people.
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act[/url][/quote]

It also mitigates someone else using a different person's weapon. Sandy Hook could have been prevented this way and criminal use of stolen weapons. That said it is only a mitigation as I said it is an incentive to buy these systems not ban other weapons. My idea would be no sales taxes on this type of equipment.

As for your second comment - I do admit I'm scared of my wife.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[QUOTE=nonniey;1317348]I was a bit irritated when I posted this. I was just coming off a discussion with one of my coworkers who was convinced an outsized proportion of homicides were committed with "assault rifles" and wouldn't accept that approximately 90% were actually committed using handguns (close to 95% of firearm deaths overall). I think too much attention and energy is focused on trying to ban AR15s (I'd be all for raising the age to purchase and own them to 21/use requiring someone over 21 being present) but focus should be on how to reduce number deaths where handguns are used.

Still think my ideas of incentivizing the sale and development of smart weapons(which is essentially banned in this country), gun safes, better locks and training are good ones.[/QUOTE]


We should distinguish between homicides and mass shootings.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[url]https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104570419/ohio-dewine-guns-teachers[/url]
Found this to be a typical American politician approach to a problem. Let's go with the cheapest and least safe methodology to enhance school safety. Lower the required 700 hours of training to "not to exceed" 24 hours for teachers to carry guns in school. Aside from the decrease in actual quality, arming teachers is idiotic. The cost of getting an actual trained police officer in the building should not be a cost we should be willing to ignore as a society yet here Ohio is. Average public school size in Ohio? 488. Average salary of a police officer in Ohio $69,000. Even if the taxes only go up on parents that is less than $150 per year per a child. Isn't that better than arming someone with less than 24 hours of training?

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=punch it in;1317359]We should distinguish between homicides and mass shootings.[/quote]

True but then that changes the agenda of the anti gun control.


Just a point of interest here. We passed a Bill protecting the the SC Justice's faster then we pass one to protection our children in school ,think about that.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1317562][url]https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104570419/ohio-dewine-guns-teachers[/url]
Found this to be a typical American politician approach to a problem. Let's go with the cheapest and least safe methodology to enhance school safety. Lower the required 700 hours of training to "not to exceed" 24 hours for teachers to carry guns in school. Aside from the decrease in actual quality, arming teachers is idiotic. The cost of getting an actual trained police officer in the building should not be a cost we should be willing to ignore as a society yet here Ohio is. Average public school size in Ohio? 488. Average salary of a police officer in Ohio $69,000. Even if the taxes only go up on parents that is less than $150 per year per a child. Isn't that better than arming someone with less than 24 hours of training?[/quote]

The fact we're ok with arming teachers is just a fucking shit show... 24 hours of training? Why don't we just start letting people fly planes based on taking a 5 hour online safety course.

And who is supposed to pay for these guns and training? Teachers often buy their own supplies as it is and now they have to buy a gun and pay for training? We're such a dumb fucking country.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317620]The fact we're ok with arming teachers is just a fucking shit show... 24 hours of training? Why don't we just start letting people fly planes based on taking a 5 hour online safety course.

And who is supposed to pay for these guns and training? Teachers often buy their own supplies as it is and now they have to buy a gun and pay for training? We're such a dumb fucking country.[/quote]
There was an article about how over 50% of all Teachers were thinking of quitting during the pandemic because parents and the Public in general has such low opinion of Teaching and now you want to arm them? That's fucking nuts. So who wants to take bets on the first student shot and killed by a Teacher and where it's gonna be?

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1317562][url]https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104570419/ohio-dewine-guns-teachers[/url]
Found this to be a typical American politician approach to a problem. Let's go with the cheapest and least safe methodology to enhance school safety. Lower the required 700 hours of training to "not to exceed" 24 hours for teachers to carry guns in school. Aside from the decrease in actual quality, arming teachers is idiotic. The cost of getting an actual trained police officer in the building should not be a cost we should be willing to ignore as a society yet here Ohio is. Average public school size in Ohio? 488. Average salary of a police officer in Ohio $69,000. Even if the taxes only go up on parents that is less than $150 per year per a child. Isn't that better than arming someone with less than 24 hours of training?[/quote]

So their answer is,........................[B]more guns[/B]That's a real surprise there.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

Who would want to be a teacher these days? Parents are nut cases that question everything being taught, and they have to deal with the very real threat of mass shootings all while being underpaid and totally under appreciated? Yeah no thanks.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317627]Who would want to be a teacher these days? Parents are nut cases that question everything being taught, and they have to deal with the very real threat of mass shootings all while being underpaid and totally under appreciated? Yeah no thanks.[/quote]

I have three in the family. the shit they see and that parents put the kids and Teachers through is amazing. I pay for the snacks for all three because some parents don't even send a lunch to school for their kids. It's a private school and there are no (hot government supplied lunches). We have paid for uniforms , supplies in general and two of them have been dragged into court to testify in custody battles over the kids. My Daughter had to Teach virtually from her classroom instead of home like everyone else because one Mother was afraid to leave the child with her "boyfriend" at home.. Add in they must maintain certification so they constantly are taking course's that they pay for out of their own pockets and thanks to trump can no longer claim that as an expense because he raised the standard deduction. That's just the cliffnotes!

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317627]Who would want to be a teacher these days? Parents are nut cases that question everything being taught, and they have to deal with the very real threat of mass shootings all while being underpaid and totally under appreciated? Yeah no thanks.[/quote]

you get summers off.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=mredskins;1317690]you get summers off.[/quote]

Good point, plenty of time to learn how to shoot

Or find another job

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317691]Good point, plenty of time to learn how to shoot

Or find another job[/quote]

i was trying to find a silver lining =)

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317627]Who would want to be a teacher these days? Parents are nut cases that question everything being taught, and they have to deal with the very real threat of mass shootings all while being underpaid and totally under appreciated? Yeah no thanks.[/quote]

Don’t forget being attacked by the students, that’s more prevalent than the other things.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/el-monte-police-officers-shot-killed-los-angeles-county-ambush/[/url]

2 police officers "essentially ambushed," shot and killed in Los Angeles County

[url]https://nypost.com/2022/06/16/woke-la-da-george-gascon-blamed-for-shooting-deaths-of-two-cops/[/url]

Bill Melugin
@BillFOXLA
NEW: Per sources, the gang member who fatally shot two El Monte PD officers last night was on probation for felon w/ a firearm after he received a bare minimum sentence in plea deal under LA DA
@GeorgeGascon last year, despite having a previous strike on his record.


Law enforcement sources tell me Justin William Flores had a previous strike conviction in 2011 for PC 459, but that he still received the [B]absolute bare minimum sentence for his felon in possession of a gun charges last year in accordance w/ Gascon policies. 2 years probation.[/B]

Fuck your control laws until you start locking up the criminals who get arrested breaking the law with an illegal gun. Seriously what the fuck?

What’s the input here? Probation for a convicted felon? Really, is this justice?

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

I know this is wild but they can put in new gun control measures while also tightening up enforcement on existing laws at the same time. Doesn't have to be one or the other.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=mredskins;1317690]you get summers off.[/quote]

No you don't.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Chico23231;1317709][url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/el-monte-police-officers-shot-killed-los-angeles-county-ambush/[/url]

2 police officers "essentially ambushed," shot and killed in Los Angeles County

[url]https://nypost.com/2022/06/16/woke-la-da-george-gascon-blamed-for-shooting-deaths-of-two-cops/[/url]

Bill Melugin
@BillFOXLA
NEW: Per sources, the gang member who fatally shot two El Monte PD officers last night was on probation for felon w/ a firearm after he received a bare minimum sentence in plea deal under LA DA
@GeorgeGascon last year, despite having a previous strike on his record.


Law enforcement sources tell me Justin William Flores had a previous strike conviction in 2011 for PC 459, but that he still received the [B]absolute bare minimum sentence for his felon in possession of a gun charges last year in accordance w/ Gascon policies. 2 years probation.[/B]

Fuck your control laws until you start locking up the criminals who get arrested breaking the law with an illegal gun. Seriously what the fuck?

What’s the input here? Probation for a convicted felon? Really, is this justice?[/quote]
[B]"Fuck your control laws"[/B],STFU.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317710]I know this is wild but they can put in new gun control measures while also tightening up enforcement on existing laws at the same time. Doesn't have to be one or the other.[/quote]

I totally agree. But I think the point is, why keep implementing measures/laws if they aren't going to be enforced? You gotta get a handle on crime, and make it so people don't want to commit it. Just passing laws that criminals are going to ignore because they know there will be no consequences is a waste of time and money.

Show that you know how to enforce current laws, so we can actually see the impact they have, before you shove more laws on the people.