Another Mass Shooting - Philly Fireworks

[NorthDallas40]

I figure that she might be calculating the thousandth digit as we speak.

Ooooooh let’s get really clever and talk .38 and .357 Magnum!

 

[OHvol40]

I would strongly add that a focus on the effects of social media and habitual drug use should be a priority.

Add to that a focus on reducing divisive indoctrination and the scapegoating that runs rampant in this country.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Add to that a focus on reducing divisive indoctrination and the scapegoating that runs rampant in this country.

Absolutely. I believe that solutions to problems are most often reached by considering and evaluating all possible variables.

It's ignorant to focus on a single variable, especially when there is ample evidence that the variable in question does not suggest causality.

 

[Electric Orange]

6 Things To Know About Highland Park Shooter Robert Crimo: Politician Dad, Thirsty Mom, Violent Rap Videos

 

[82_VOL_83]

Hypothetical or not, it’s rather simple. Events like this will still happen after we ban assault weapons. So what’s plan B going to be?

I have yet to hear of one of these incidents/tragedies being perpetrated by an assault weapon.

 

[82_VOL_83]

What even is an "assault rifle"?

Leftist=anything long black and scary.........that goes bang

 

[82_VOL_83]

Highlighted is demonstrably untrue unless you want to change the definition of mass shooting. The vast majority are with handguns. The term mass shooting refers to either 3 or 4 (definitions vary) people being shot in one incident.

Or 2 if you are EL Troll.

 

[Vol737]

Letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry arm themselves out the wazoo. Does this path seem to be working? Does this seem to be making the public safer or less safe?

You do realize that many of these wacko mass shooters were “known to law enforcement”? Let’s start there before you wan to start a complete dismantling of the 2A for the rest of us. Give LE the reasonable tools to head off these events/people, including armed guards at schools. You don’t make anything safer by disarming the rest of us that have never done and never will do anything.

 

[landscapingvol]

I would strongly add that a focus on the effects of social media and habitual drug use should be a priority.

Agreed but social media is here to stay and it’s a plight society, I loathe it

 

[0nelilreb]

Ooooooh let’s get really clever and talk .38 and .357 Magnum!

Nah let’s blow their minds and talk about the little Judge I picked up years ago that shoots a 45 long colt or a 410 shot gun round . Lol

 

[Orangeslice13]

Well nothing has been banned and obviously these events keep happening and don’t move the needle enough for any type of serious action (or even contemplation/self-reflection for that matter) sooooo your hypothetical scenario seems more like a sci-fi/drama script than an eventuality as you make it seem.

Did you sit out the assault weapons ban that had absolutely no affect on gun violence?
That’s why it went away. That and it was about to be ruled unconstitutional

 

[Orangeslice13]

You're gonna play this semantic game? It's not hard. It'll be defined by certain functionality in a statute. Nearly every act begins with a definition section. An assault rifle ban would be no exception.

I love how you guys think this is some deep, intractable metaphysical problem. It's not.

So you don’t know.
Thanks for owning it

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Just curious what the breaking point is for people before they get behind legislative/constitutional changes. 5 mass shootings a day? 10? 15? 100?

The people don't matter because the money-monger, tax supported leeches in Congress, beholden to the gun lobby, will continue to summarily discard the will of the people. Therefore, no meaningful enforceable change will occur.

Whether the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth--
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;

 

[Vol8188]

The people don't matter because the money-monger, tax supported leeches in Congress, beholden to the gun lobby, will continue to summarily discard the will of the people. Therefore, no meaningful enforceable change will occur.

Whether the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth--
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;

The numbers don’t support this . Somewhere between 100-200 people a year are killed by all rifles (including your scary assault rifles).

When you add in the facts that their is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates, and that the white population in the US has the roughly the same homicide rate as the EU and Canada, it becomes glaringly obvious to anyone who cares to look. We do not have a gun problem

 

[hndog609]

You're gonna play this semantic game? It's not hard. It'll be defined by certain functionality in a statute. Nearly every act begins with a definition section. An assault rifle ban would be no exception.

I love how you guys think this is some deep, intractable metaphysical problem. It's not.

No, it isn't deep. You and your ilk (or at the very least those you follow that have manipulated your thinking) have used the raw power of media reach an repetition to create a bit of Newspeak regarding almost all things firearms.

What a REAL assault rifle is or isn't (we're all quite sure another explanation would be lost on you as you truly don't care) could be made clear to you by this simple experiment:

We give you two rifles that, in your ignorance, you assume are the same thing. We then watch and giggle as we send you over to an ATF agent. On one rifle they might say something like "Nice Wilson Combat Recon!". On the other his eyes would narrow a bit and you'd be asked to produce documentation for your NFA regulated weapon.

See, definitions matter when there are, you know, actual and meaningful differences.

Also, as pointed out you do know the vast (no really, overwhelming) number of the most commonly used statistical definitions for "mass shootings" are done by handguns. In fact all rifle types make up a tiny fraction of homicides.

Besides, the San Jose VTA, CO Springs and Atlanta spa shooters all killed at least as many as the the Highland Park shooter and none used rifles. If the point is killing you seem oddly convinced the would be killers would make the act platform dependent.

 

[Vol8188]

I can see how that relates to gun violence

Why do you believe we have a gun problem despite the data suggesting the complete opposite?

 

[InVOLuntary]

How about a .223?

.22<.223<556

 

[KB5252]

The bolded is a false dilemma, and it’s used here all the time. Anyone with sense, and even most liberals believe it or not, don’t want law abiding citizens to give up anything. What most people with some sense do want is being proactive in identifying who shouldn’t be armed with weapons that can kill dozens of people at once and taking steps to keep them out of those hands. I believe the law abiding citizens you speak of should want the same thing, to keep weapons out of the hands of the irresponsible and/or unstable.

And that is the conundrum. A government being able to decide who does not get to own firearms is a problem when taking into account the spirit and reasoning stated in the constitution for the right to bear arms.

 

[Vol8188]

And that is the conundrum. A government being able to decide who does not get to own firearms is a problem when taking into account the spirit and reasoning stated in the constitution for the right to bear arms.

He believes government is very trustworthy, and also our last president was a wannabe dictator who almost overthrew the government.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Possibly the numbers post yet. Somewhere between 100-200 people a year are killed by all rifles (including your scary assault rifles).
When you add in the facts that their is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates, and that the white population in the US has the roughly the same homicide rate as the EU and Canada, it becomes glaringly obvious to anyone who cares to look. We do not have a gun problem

First and foremost, my original post was addressing the following question: evillawyer said: Just curious what the breaking point is for people before they get behind legislative/constitutional changes. 5 mass shootings a day? 10? 15? 100? It had nothing to do with the detour topic of the statistics of gun ownership and homicide and how holy the white race is when it comes to guns. The original issue was when would effective legislation be enacted to address the increasing gun violence. That being said, I will now address your detour topic.

The secret of manipulating public opinion is founded on three kinds of lies. They are lies, damned lies, and statistics. However, there is another component for such manipulation. No matter how outrageous, if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes perceived as the truth. BTW, this what the Trumpian stolen election lie is doing. In any case, this is nothing new. Corporate and Congressional money-mongers still foist the lie that violent video games doesn't foster violent behavior. The same also foisted the lie on the public that smoking wasn't detrimental to our health, but promoted our health. Just type into your search engine: vintage cigarette and doctor ads to see for yourself. The soda pop industry also foisted lies on the public in the worst way, suggesting it was good for infants. Again, just type in: vintage soda and babies ads to see for yourself. Now, it's big oil and their advocates pushing another lie denying fossil fuel's impact on the environment and climate change. The gun lobby is doing the same thing with the explicit help of financial kickbacks to mostly Republiars, though many Democreeps are just as guilty. So, again, The secret of manipulating public opinion is founded on three kinds of lies. They are lies, damned lies, and statistics. However, there is another component for such manipulation. No matter how outrageous, if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes perceived as the truth. Having said this, I am engaging in no further exchanges regarding this detour topic, designed to drag me onto the cul-de-sac of Irrelevant Distraction.

 

[OHvol40]

And that is the conundrum. A government being able to decide who does not get to own firearms is a problem when taking into account the spirit and reasoning stated in the constitution for the right to bear arms.

I agree, it is a conundrum. It requires serious conversation and debate about legalities, practicalities, compromises, hard lines, and creative solutions. In this country, we can’t seem to pull ourselves together to have those serious conversations, everyone is so dug in, divided, and angry.

 

[Vol8188]

First and foremost, my original post was addressing the following question: evillawyer said: Just curious what the breaking point is for people before they get behind legislative/constitutional changes. 5 mass shootings a day? 10? 15? 100? It had nothing to do with the detour topic of the statistics of gun ownership and homicide and how holy the white race is when it comes to guns. The original issue was when would effective legislation be enacted to address the increasing gun violence. That being said, I will now address your detour topic.

The secret of manipulating public opinion is founded on three kinds of lies. They are lies, damned lies, and statistics. However, there is another component for such manipulation. No matter how outrageous, if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes perceived as the truth. BTW, this what the Trumpian stolen election lie is doing. In any case, this is nothing new. Corporate and Congressional money-mongers still foist the lie that violent video games doesn't foster violent behavior. The same also foisted the lie on the public that smoking wasn't detrimental to our health, but promoted our health. Just type into your search engine: vintage cigarette and doctor ads to see for yourself. The soda pop industry also foisted lies on the public in the worst way, suggesting it was good for infants. Again, just type in: vintage soda and babies ads to see for yourself. Now, it's big oil and their advocates pushing another lie denying fossil fuel's impact on the environment and climate change. The gun lobby is doing the same thing with the explicit help of financial kickbacks to mostly Republiars, though many Democreeps are just as guilty. So, again, The secret of manipulating public opinion is founded on three kinds of lies. They are lies, damned lies, and statistics. However, there is another component for such manipulation. No matter how outrageous, if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes perceived as the truth. Having said this, I am engaging in no further exchanges regarding this detour topic, designed to drag me onto the cul-de-sac of Irrelevant Distraction.

His question was based on the assumption that we have a massive problem with guns. That's why he asked. If we did, it would show up in the data.

I agree. Repeated lies become considered the truth. Like the idea that we have a massive gun problem. Or that these issues are worsening.

You're engaging in no further exchanges regarding this because you realize the truth is not in your favor. The truth is that there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide. The truth is that rifles of all types (including the scary black ones) are responsible for less deaths than Tylenol.

 

[Vol8188]

You're gonna play this semantic game? It's not hard. It'll be defined by certain functionality in a statute. Nearly every act begins with a definition section. An assault rifle ban would be no exception.

I love how you guys think this is some deep, intractable metaphysical problem. It's not.

Pop quiz what kills more Americans. "Assault Rifles" or Tylenol?

 

[hog88]

I agree, it is a conundrum. It requires serious conversation and debate about legalities, practicalities, compromises, hard lines, and creative solutions. In this country, we can’t seem to pull ourselves together to have those serious conversations, everyone is so dug in, divided, and angry.

First step in having serious conversations is to stop with the "ban" talk. Doors close in your face when the first thing proposed is always a ban or more restrictions.

 

[allvol123]

First step in having serious conversations is to stop with the "ban" talk. Doors close in your face when the first thing proposed is always a ban or more restrictions.

Yea. This would be like examining a workplace death where heavy machinery was involved and coming to the conclusion that we need to do away with heavy machinery.

Root cause people.