(08-28-2015 08:55 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:25 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate
As people carry guns outside their house more...more mass shootings
As gun controls are reduced to zero...more mass shootings

By the way, all this talk from the gun folks about removing or reducing access to guns by the insane or criminals has gone out the window, because there's no way to do it without getting rid of the 'no questions asked private sales at the gun show'..

There are so many errors and issues with this guy's article. I'm not gonna argue that his definition of "mass shooting" is very different than anyone else's and is an attempt to make the issue be more "catastrophic" sounding than it is. I'll instead take issue with some assumptions he makes without using any data to support his assumptions.

He states "we are now averaging more than 1 mass shooting per day". He doesn't show data from pervious years to show that that average is higher or lower now than in the past. He attempts to "imply" it is higher now than in the past. Since gun deaths have decreased by 49% in this country since it's peak in 1993, one would assume that the average per day was significantly higher in the past. If so, and there are more guns now than in 1993, how can this be? Of course, using historical data doesn't support his agenda.

Back to the issue at hand....

In the metro I live in that has about 120,000 people, we've only had 4 murders in the last 5 years but yet, we have an extremely high gun ownership rate. How can this be? We have a high poverty rate. What gives? Could it be that more guns don't necessarily mean more gun deaths? Well, shut my mouth. Maybe there are other factors....no...no...no....let's not look at root causes....let's only focus on our political agendas and yank everyone's chains.

I don't think you read the article itself, because he doesn't make much of an argument except to defend the usage of their definition of 'mass shooting' which is different than the FBI's. This is the text, in it's entirety.

Quote:Aug. 26 is the 238th day of the year. And with the fatal shooting in Virginia today — in which a gunman shot himself after killing two reporters and wounding one more person — plus the shooting of four during a Minneapolis home invasion, the number of mass shooting incidents has risen to 247 for the year.

These numbers are compiled by the moderators of the GunsAreCool subreddit, a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in America. They define "mass shooting" as any single incident in which at least four people are shot, including the gunman. The tracker comes in for some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI's definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire. But the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence — like the recent Lafayette theater shootings — that don't meet the FBI's criteria.

Some gun rights advocates — like John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center — object that the broader definition includes a lot of gang killings and domestic disputes that the average person wouldn't necessarily consider a "mass shooting." But there's an uncomfortable assumption here that some crime victims' lives should be valued differently — or are less worthy of attention — than others.

A more expansive definition of "mass shooting" underscores the extent to which firearms make it relatively easy to hurt large numbers of people in a very short time. With a gun, you're able to inflict bodily harm on a person once they're in your line of sight. With something like a knife or your hands, you need to get right up close to a person.

There's no easy fix to gun violence in this country. As gun rights proponents are quick to point out, municipalities with strict gun laws, like Chicago and D.C., see more than their fair share of gun crime. But it's nevertheless a fact that the level of gun violence we see in the U.S. is like nothing seen in other wealthy Western nations.

He doesn't mention anywhere that it's higher now, or that gun ownership is up, or anything at all, and in fact points out that there are areas with strict fun ownership laws that have very high gun violence.

Meed a dictionary again...

were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015

Seems to imply that we may not have been in past years. He never said it the implication is there.

Where did I ever say it couldn't be implied from the article?

I wonder if Tom gets scared if he sees a gun rack in a pickup when he pulls into a parking lot?

I'll open carry on occasion, but it's usually because I've just come out of the woods from hunting and have a .45 on my waist and haven't bothered to take it off yet. Nobody has ever seemed threatened or scared but thats probably because I live in an area where people haven't been taught to fear guns.

(08-28-2015 09:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I wonder if Tom gets scared if he sees a gun rack in a pickup when he pulls into a parking lot?

I'll open carry on occasion, but it's usually because I've just come out of the woods from hunting and have a .45 on my waist and haven't bothered to take it off yet. Nobody has ever seemed threatened or scared but thats probably because I live in an area where people haven't been taught to fear guns.

Having a .45 on your waste in a rural area isn't the same as those openly carrying to prove an asinine point.

Like these people at Chipotle





Or Jack in the Box



Or at a small coffee shop



That movement is utterly idiotic.

The open carry of military style firearms is idiotic optics wise but fully protected by the 2nd Amendment and any number of state laws.

You, as the person who doesn't agree with it, have to live with it. Thankfully not the other way around.

Somewhat idiotic yes, but no less that lots of over-the-top protests from liberal groups.

You two really can't just say "Yes, as a gunowner, that is idiotic" without trying to get in some dig? Really?

I own guns, I support the 2nd amendment. Stop acting like I'm the enemy and talk like reasonable people.

So the two of us expressly say "idiotic" and agree with you, yet we are still the bad guys.

You seem too vested in your hatred of people who don't agree with you 100%.

(08-28-2015 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  You two really can't just say "Yes, as a gunowner, that is idiotic" without trying to get in some dig? Really?

I own guns, I support the 2nd amendment. Stop acting like I'm the enemy and talk like reasonable people.

Never said you were the enemy, and I'm a very reasonable person. Quit being so defensive.

(08-28-2015 09:14 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  The open carry of military style firearms is idiotic optics wise but fully protected by the 2nd Amendment and any number of state laws.

You, as the person who doesn't agree with it, have to live with it. Thankfully not the other way around.

The thing is that people/cities are deciding NOT to live with open carry. You can't pull that stuff off in places like NYC, SF and Chicago and not be thrown in jail. While it arrest is in violation of the 2nd Amendment, the question is will you live long enough to legally challenge your detention while resisting.

(08-28-2015 09:25 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  You two really can't just say "Yes, as a gunowner, that is idiotic" without trying to get in some dig? Really?

I own guns, I support the 2nd amendment. Stop acting like I'm the enemy and talk like reasonable people.

Never said you were the enemy, and I'm a very reasonable person. Quit being so defensive.

A reasonable person wouldn't mention liberal protesters in response to my post, because they have absolutely nothing to do with it. That is unreasonable, and silly, and indicative of a knee-jerk 'us-vs-them' mentality that I find inexcusable in politics. Just a pet peeve.

It would be like me mentioning the WBC in this post, they have nothing to do with anything,

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:03 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 02:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is there not a way to use a medical database to determine if someone with a mental issue should not be allowed to purchase a gun?

Even if there was, where there is a will, there is a way. No law is going to change that.

I won't speak for anyone in particular, but most leftists don't care about saving lives, they just want more "feel good legislation" to score political points against us "right wing gun nuts". They just want something to say they "won".

There is always a way to beat the system. It's upsetting however when someone like this goes on a rampage after purchasing a gun and everybody and their uncle say, " Oh yeah the guy was nuts".

If a person has had a history of anger issues, bi polar or mental problems, he should not be allowed to purchase a gun. But hey I'm crazy like that.

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are about to go on a shooting spree. Whenever you figure out a way to do that, let us know.

Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

Under the authority of the police. Should they wear brownshirts

(08-28-2015 09:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:25 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  You two really can't just say "Yes, as a gunowner, that is idiotic" without trying to get in some dig? Really?

I own guns, I support the 2nd amendment. Stop acting like I'm the enemy and talk like reasonable people.

Never said you were the enemy, and I'm a very reasonable person. Quit being so defensive.

A reasonable person wouldn't mention liberal protesters in response to my post, because they have absolutely nothing to do with it. That is unreasonable, and silly, and indicative of a knee-jerk 'us-vs-them' mentality that I find inexcusable in politics. Just a pet peeve.

It would be like me mentioning the WBC in this post, they have nothing to do with anything,

Were you being reasonable when you called the point they were trying to make "asinine" instead of calmly saying you disagreed with it?

I mentioned liberal protests because I don't ever recall you calling their actions asinine, despite the fact that they are often protesting or demonstrating for causes much less important than the defense of a Constitutional right.

(08-28-2015 09:35 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:25 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  You two really can't just say "Yes, as a gunowner, that is idiotic" without trying to get in some dig? Really?

I own guns, I support the 2nd amendment. Stop acting like I'm the enemy and talk like reasonable people.

Never said you were the enemy, and I'm a very reasonable person. Quit being so defensive.

A reasonable person wouldn't mention liberal protesters in response to my post, because they have absolutely nothing to do with it. That is unreasonable, and silly, and indicative of a knee-jerk 'us-vs-them' mentality that I find inexcusable in politics. Just a pet peeve.

It would be like me mentioning the WBC in this post, they have nothing to do with anything,

Were you being reasonable when you called the point they were trying to make "asinine" instead of calmly saying you disagreed with it?

I mentioned liberal protests because I don't ever recall you calling their actions asinine, despite the fact that they are often protesting or demonstrating for causes much less important than the defense of a Constitutional right.

I've called all sorts of liberal protests asinine, or worse. The Black Lives Matter people interrupting Sanders were asinine and idiotic. Many of the people who protested against the 1% did so in an asinine and idiotic manner.

But I mentioned it in the threads about those issues, where they were pertinent, unlike your vague comment about 'liberal protesters'. You're just doing more of it, this isn't a team sport, it's our society, let's stop acting like the former and more like the latter. How about it?

(08-28-2015 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:35 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:25 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  You two really can't just say "Yes, as a gunowner, that is idiotic" without trying to get in some dig? Really?

I own guns, I support the 2nd amendment. Stop acting like I'm the enemy and talk like reasonable people.

Never said you were the enemy, and I'm a very reasonable person. Quit being so defensive.

A reasonable person wouldn't mention liberal protesters in response to my post, because they have absolutely nothing to do with it. That is unreasonable, and silly, and indicative of a knee-jerk 'us-vs-them' mentality that I find inexcusable in politics. Just a pet peeve.

It would be like me mentioning the WBC in this post, they have nothing to do with anything,

Were you being reasonable when you called the point they were trying to make "asinine" instead of calmly saying you disagreed with it?

I mentioned liberal protests because I don't ever recall you calling their actions asinine, despite the fact that they are often protesting or demonstrating for causes much less important than the defense of a Constitutional right.

I've called all sorts of liberal protests asinine, or worse. The Black Lives Matter people interrupting Sanders were asinine and idiotic. Many of the people who protested against the 1% did so in an asinine and idiotic manner.

But I mentioned it in the threads about those issues, where they were pertinent, unlike your vague comment about 'liberal protesters'. You're just doing more of it, this isn't a team sport, it's our society, let's stop acting like the former and more like the latter. How about it?

Then you should have taken your own advice and just agreed with me.

So, saying she, the victim, 'worked in the field' is the comment that was made which the gunman called 'racist.'

That sounds about right. As we know, and strictly from a historical standpoint, only black people have ever worked in fields.

(08-28-2015 08:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Lot of inner city, illegally obtained, gang drive-bys going on.

True, and they used to be called drive by shootings, now people want to lump them in with mass shootings, which is fine. When most people hear mass shooting they think of lone gunman shooting up a school or McDonalds.

(08-28-2015 09:14 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  The open carry of military style firearms is idiotic optics wise but fully protected by the 2nd Amendment and any number of state laws.

You, as the person who doesn't agree with it, have to live with it. Thankfully not the other way around.

It has 'shock value' but after repetition 'shock value' goes away
Also, how often do you think those stores will get robbed ?

(08-28-2015 09:31 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:03 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Even if there was, where there is a will, there is a way. No law is going to change that.

I won't speak for anyone in particular, but most leftists don't care about saving lives, they just want more "feel good legislation" to score political points against us "right wing gun nuts". They just want something to say they "won".

There is always a way to beat the system. It's upsetting however when someone like this goes on a rampage after purchasing a gun and everybody and their uncle say, " Oh yeah the guy was nuts".

If a person has had a history of anger issues, bi polar or mental problems, he should not be allowed to purchase a gun. But hey I'm crazy like that.

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are about to go on a shooting spree. Whenever you figure out a way to do that, let us know.

Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

Under the authority of the police. Should they wear brownshirts

Why would they do that? Everything above I suggested is 100% constitutional.

(08-28-2015 10:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:31 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is always a way to beat the system. It's upsetting however when someone like this goes on a rampage after purchasing a gun and everybody and their uncle say, " Oh yeah the guy was nuts".

If a person has had a history of anger issues, bi polar or mental problems, he should not be allowed to purchase a gun. But hey I'm crazy like that.

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are about to go on a shooting spree. Whenever you figure out a way to do that, let us know.

Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

Under the authority of the police. Should they wear brownshirts

Why would they do that? Everything above I suggested is 100% constitutional.

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

(08-28-2015 09:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:35 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:25 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Never said you were the enemy, and I'm a very reasonable person. Quit being so defensive.

A reasonable person wouldn't mention liberal protesters in response to my post, because they have absolutely nothing to do with it. That is unreasonable, and silly, and indicative of a knee-jerk 'us-vs-them' mentality that I find inexcusable in politics. Just a pet peeve.

It would be like me mentioning the WBC in this post, they have nothing to do with anything,

Were you being reasonable when you called the point they were trying to make "asinine" instead of calmly saying you disagreed with it?

I mentioned liberal protests because I don't ever recall you calling their actions asinine, despite the fact that they are often protesting or demonstrating for causes much less important than the defense of a Constitutional right.

I've called all sorts of liberal protests asinine, or worse. The Black Lives Matter people interrupting Sanders were asinine and idiotic. Many of the people who protested against the 1% did so in an asinine and idiotic manner.

But I mentioned it in the threads about those issues, where they were pertinent, unlike your vague comment about 'liberal protesters'. You're just doing more of it, this isn't a team sport, it's our society, let's stop acting like the former and more like the latter. How about it?

Then you should have taken your own advice and just agreed with me.

This sort of 'team sport' mentality only goes away when people are aware at how ubiquitous it is. I'm not exactly sure how you think this response is warranted given my posts, I'm responding directly to the comments you posted?

Just be better than the lowest common denominator, we need that on both sides.