(04-19-2021 08:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 01:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 11:37 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Then try this article. I think the last regulation would have stopped the Indianapolis shooting?

https://www.latimes.com/projects/if-gun-...e-enacted/

You must not have read the link in Post #2. Indiana has a red flag law.

This video explains why the Indiana red flag law didn't work. Apparently the red flag laws greatly vary from state to state and Indiana's law has some shortcomings which really don't make it very effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGG_VJ5Z4Y

Clearly, it must have some shortcomings since it did not work.

Neither did the background checks or the waiting period.

Yet what we hear demanded are "comprehensive" background checks and longer waiting periods. The guns were bought legally, not through gun shows or out of somebody's trunk.

I am all for any procedures that will stop mass shootings - just have not heard of one yet. Well, any procedure short of repealing the Second Amendment or making gun possession illegal.

BTW, when I turned off my computer and left the house last night, it was showing 302 "views". This morning it is at 377. So, no "refreshes" by me. My understanding is that it adds a "view" every time somebody clicks on the thread. Do I have this wrong?

The point has been made that no law will work 100% if the time. Countries with strong gun control laws, like Sweden for example, still have incidents. So I guess a side question would be,, when will enough be enough? If we reduce the number of mass killings, however defined, by 75%, it seems to me that when one of the 25% happens, the push will be for more draconian measures in a futile effort to get to zero.

black guns matter

Apparently, this guy and his friends think "all gun control is racist". Another POV.

(04-19-2021 01:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I haven't spent much time on this forum of late, but I check from time to time. I haven't responded to this previously because I don't really see the point in OO's question.

Quick reply here only to say... has there been ANYBODY here that has suggested that there are common-sense gun control laws which would prevent EVERY mass shooting were they to be enacted? Certainly there are outliers/exceptions for every piece of legislation.

I'm certain that OO isn't suggesting that any new law is pointless if it doesn't prevent every future mass shooting. It seems worthwhile to achieve even a 10% reduction if possible.

I don't know the particulars of this shooting. Whether or not currently proposed laws would have prevented this specific shooting doesn't make those proposed laws worthless, IMO.

I think this completely misses the point, 93.

'Banning assault rifles' is an example of what some consider a 'common sense law'... Yet ALL rifles are responsible for 400 or fewer deaths per year. SO the TOP END of the impact of an assault weapons ban is around 400... and the reality is that it will be more like 100 people. SO we're going to turn 100mm people into criminals and place a fundamental founding right of our democracy at what is somewhere between a meaningless and a crucial component depending on ones opinion.... in the hopes of saving 100 people... but the reality is that we will more likely simply change the method of murder for 75 of those, and prevent 25 more likely 'collateral damage'. We could also go the other way and people using bombs now create MORE collateral damage.

The bottom line is that unless you simply say 'its worth anything to save a single life', there is going to be a vast disagreement on both 'how many lives' and 'what you'd sacrifice for it'. Given that many have died specifically to CREATE that right, this is a huge and UNNECESSARY part of the discussion, and such talk actually prevents rather than enabling resolution.

There isn't ONE person who supports mass shooters. Not one. Preventing THAT is where we will agree and where the focus should be. SOLELY there. Too many want to try and address all sorts of other things (mostly opinions) using this as an excuse... and they often 'tie in' those who share their opinions, even if not their actual goals.

I,e, people who don't 'get' guns and 'the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government' are not going to care that they're impacting 100mm owners (and 300+mm law abiding citizens) in order to MAYBE save 25 people (and maybe KILL 50 more).

(04-20-2021 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 01:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I haven't spent much time on this forum of late, but I check from time to time. I haven't responded to this previously because I don't really see the point in OO's question.

Quick reply here only to say... has there been ANYBODY here that has suggested that there are common-sense gun control laws which would prevent EVERY mass shooting were they to be enacted? Certainly there are outliers/exceptions for every piece of legislation.

I'm certain that OO isn't suggesting that any new law is pointless if it doesn't prevent every future mass shooting. It seems worthwhile to achieve even a 10% reduction if possible.

I don't know the particulars of this shooting. Whether or not currently proposed laws would have prevented this specific shooting doesn't make those proposed laws worthless, IMO.

I think this completely misses the point, 93.

'Banning assault rifles' is an example of what some consider a 'common sense law'... Yet ALL rifles are responsible for 400 or fewer deaths per year. SO the TOP END of the impact of an assault weapons ban is around 400... and the reality is that it will be more like 100 people. SO we're going to turn 100mm people into criminals and place a fundamental founding right of our democracy at what is somewhere between a meaningless and a crucial component depending on ones opinion.... in the hopes of saving 100 people... but the reality is that we will more likely simply change the method of murder for 75 of those, and prevent 25 more likely 'collateral damage'. We could also go the other way and people using bombs now create MORE collateral damage.

The bottom line is that unless you simply say 'its worth anything to save a single life', there is going to be a vast disagreement on both 'how many lives' and 'what you'd sacrifice for it'. Given that many have died specifically to CREATE that right, this is a huge and UNNECESSARY part of the discussion, and such talk actually prevents rather than enabling resolution.

There isn't ONE person who supports mass shooters. Not one. Preventing THAT is where we will agree and where the focus should be. SOLELY there. Too many want to try and address all sorts of other things (mostly opinions) using this as an excuse... and they often 'tie in' those who share their opinions, even if not their actual goals.

I,e, people who don't 'get' guns and 'the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government' are not going to care that they're impacting 100mm owners (and 300+mm law abiding citizens) in order to MAYBE save 25 people (and maybe KILL 50 more).

I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 01:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I haven't spent much time on this forum of late, but I check from time to time. I haven't responded to this previously because I don't really see the point in OO's question.

Quick reply here only to say... has there been ANYBODY here that has suggested that there are common-sense gun control laws which would prevent EVERY mass shooting were they to be enacted? Certainly there are outliers/exceptions for every piece of legislation.

I'm certain that OO isn't suggesting that any new law is pointless if it doesn't prevent every future mass shooting. It seems worthwhile to achieve even a 10% reduction if possible.

I don't know the particulars of this shooting. Whether or not currently proposed laws would have prevented this specific shooting doesn't make those proposed laws worthless, IMO.

I think this completely misses the point, 93.

'Banning assault rifles' is an example of what some consider a 'common sense law'... Yet ALL rifles are responsible for 400 or fewer deaths per year. SO the TOP END of the impact of an assault weapons ban is around 400... and the reality is that it will be more like 100 people. SO we're going to turn 100mm people into criminals and place a fundamental founding right of our democracy at what is somewhere between a meaningless and a crucial component depending on ones opinion.... in the hopes of saving 100 people... but the reality is that we will more likely simply change the method of murder for 75 of those, and prevent 25 more likely 'collateral damage'. We could also go the other way and people using bombs now create MORE collateral damage.

The bottom line is that unless you simply say 'its worth anything to save a single life', there is going to be a vast disagreement on both 'how many lives' and 'what you'd sacrifice for it'. Given that many have died specifically to CREATE that right, this is a huge and UNNECESSARY part of the discussion, and such talk actually prevents rather than enabling resolution.

There isn't ONE person who supports mass shooters. Not one. Preventing THAT is where we will agree and where the focus should be. SOLELY there. Too many want to try and address all sorts of other things (mostly opinions) using this as an excuse... and they often 'tie in' those who share their opinions, even if not their actual goals.

I,e, people who don't 'get' guns and 'the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government' are not going to care that they're impacting 100mm owners (and 300+mm law abiding citizens) in order to MAYBE save 25 people (and maybe KILL 50 more).

I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

Anwering my own question:

From https://wildlife-damage-management.exten...on-humans/

Quote:In the United States, four people have died from feral hog attacks since the late 1800s—three victims were attacked by a wounded boar while hunting.

(04-20-2021 03:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 01:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I haven't spent much time on this forum of late, but I check from time to time. I haven't responded to this previously because I don't really see the point in OO's question.

Quick reply here only to say... has there been ANYBODY here that has suggested that there are common-sense gun control laws which would prevent EVERY mass shooting were they to be enacted? Certainly there are outliers/exceptions for every piece of legislation.

I'm certain that OO isn't suggesting that any new law is pointless if it doesn't prevent every future mass shooting. It seems worthwhile to achieve even a 10% reduction if possible.

I don't know the particulars of this shooting. Whether or not currently proposed laws would have prevented this specific shooting doesn't make those proposed laws worthless, IMO.

I think this completely misses the point, 93.

'Banning assault rifles' is an example of what some consider a 'common sense law'... Yet ALL rifles are responsible for 400 or fewer deaths per year. SO the TOP END of the impact of an assault weapons ban is around 400... and the reality is that it will be more like 100 people. SO we're going to turn 100mm people into criminals and place a fundamental founding right of our democracy at what is somewhere between a meaningless and a crucial component depending on ones opinion.... in the hopes of saving 100 people... but the reality is that we will more likely simply change the method of murder for 75 of those, and prevent 25 more likely 'collateral damage'. We could also go the other way and people using bombs now create MORE collateral damage.

The bottom line is that unless you simply say 'its worth anything to save a single life', there is going to be a vast disagreement on both 'how many lives' and 'what you'd sacrifice for it'. Given that many have died specifically to CREATE that right, this is a huge and UNNECESSARY part of the discussion, and such talk actually prevents rather than enabling resolution.

There isn't ONE person who supports mass shooters. Not one. Preventing THAT is where we will agree and where the focus should be. SOLELY there. Too many want to try and address all sorts of other things (mostly opinions) using this as an excuse... and they often 'tie in' those who share their opinions, even if not their actual goals.

I,e, people who don't 'get' guns and 'the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government' are not going to care that they're impacting 100mm owners (and 300+mm law abiding citizens) in order to MAYBE save 25 people (and maybe KILL 50 more).

I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

Anwering my own question:

From https://wildlife-damage-management.exten...on-humans/

Quote:In the United States, four people have died from feral hog attacks since the late 1800s—three victims were attacked by a wounded boar while hunting.

First that I have heard that people need protection from feral hogs - but I do know that many ranchers and farmers suffer financial damages from predation of both livestock and crops by the feral hogs. I personally have seen a hog run off with a newborn goat. Killed it - a purebred milk goat kid. And hogs multiply fast and often. I guess there are other ways to keep down feral hog populations, other than guns - but I don't know what they are.


IAC, you have not addressed his point.

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 01:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I haven't spent much time on this forum of late, but I check from time to time. I haven't responded to this previously because I don't really see the point in OO's question.

Quick reply here only to say... has there been ANYBODY here that has suggested that there are common-sense gun control laws which would prevent EVERY mass shooting were they to be enacted? Certainly there are outliers/exceptions for every piece of legislation.

I'm certain that OO isn't suggesting that any new law is pointless if it doesn't prevent every future mass shooting. It seems worthwhile to achieve even a 10% reduction if possible.

I don't know the particulars of this shooting. Whether or not currently proposed laws would have prevented this specific shooting doesn't make those proposed laws worthless, IMO.

I think this completely misses the point, 93.

'Banning assault rifles' is an example of what some consider a 'common sense law'... Yet ALL rifles are responsible for 400 or fewer deaths per year. SO the TOP END of the impact of an assault weapons ban is around 400... and the reality is that it will be more like 100 people. SO we're going to turn 100mm people into criminals and place a fundamental founding right of our democracy at what is somewhere between a meaningless and a crucial component depending on ones opinion.... in the hopes of saving 100 people... but the reality is that we will more likely simply change the method of murder for 75 of those, and prevent 25 more likely 'collateral damage'. We could also go the other way and people using bombs now create MORE collateral damage.

The bottom line is that unless you simply say 'its worth anything to save a single life', there is going to be a vast disagreement on both 'how many lives' and 'what you'd sacrifice for it'. Given that many have died specifically to CREATE that right, this is a huge and UNNECESSARY part of the discussion, and such talk actually prevents rather than enabling resolution.

There isn't ONE person who supports mass shooters. Not one. Preventing THAT is where we will agree and where the focus should be. SOLELY there. Too many want to try and address all sorts of other things (mostly opinions) using this as an excuse... and they often 'tie in' those who share their opinions, even if not their actual goals.

I,e, people who don't 'get' guns and 'the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government' are not going to care that they're impacting 100mm owners (and 300+mm law abiding citizens) in order to MAYBE save 25 people (and maybe KILL 50 more).

I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

The 'definitions' dont make one 'furious' --- it is the fact that gobbleygook words are substituted in lieu of a definition. And morons on the left simply repeat the gobbledygook words as mantra. Both the proffer and repeating occur incessantly.

Thank you for attempting a real world distinction --- something that the left as a whole seemingly cannot do.

Using your logic, a small number of people a year are killed by cars having above some number X horsepower, who needs that horsepower and get rid of that tiny facet of the problem. Sounds like a smashing example of progressivism.

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

That's not the relevant metric. It's not that ranchers want to defend themselves. It's that wild boars do potential harm to livestock and are generally pests on several levels.

The point is that if the intent were truly to reduce gun deaths, then the focus would be on either the shooters, or the guns that do the most damage--pistols, by far. It's just absurd to say that we kill 30,000 plus people with guns per year, and that's too many, and our solution is to outlaw the particular guns that account for maybe 100 (0.3%) of those 30,000 annual deaths.

(04-20-2021 07:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 01:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I haven't spent much time on this forum of late, but I check from time to time. I haven't responded to this previously because I don't really see the point in OO's question.

Quick reply here only to say... has there been ANYBODY here that has suggested that there are common-sense gun control laws which would prevent EVERY mass shooting were they to be enacted? Certainly there are outliers/exceptions for every piece of legislation.

I'm certain that OO isn't suggesting that any new law is pointless if it doesn't prevent every future mass shooting. It seems worthwhile to achieve even a 10% reduction if possible.

I don't know the particulars of this shooting. Whether or not currently proposed laws would have prevented this specific shooting doesn't make those proposed laws worthless, IMO.

I think this completely misses the point, 93.

'Banning assault rifles' is an example of what some consider a 'common sense law'... Yet ALL rifles are responsible for 400 or fewer deaths per year. SO the TOP END of the impact of an assault weapons ban is around 400... and the reality is that it will be more like 100 people. SO we're going to turn 100mm people into criminals and place a fundamental founding right of our democracy at what is somewhere between a meaningless and a crucial component depending on ones opinion.... in the hopes of saving 100 people... but the reality is that we will more likely simply change the method of murder for 75 of those, and prevent 25 more likely 'collateral damage'. We could also go the other way and people using bombs now create MORE collateral damage.

The bottom line is that unless you simply say 'its worth anything to save a single life', there is going to be a vast disagreement on both 'how many lives' and 'what you'd sacrifice for it'. Given that many have died specifically to CREATE that right, this is a huge and UNNECESSARY part of the discussion, and such talk actually prevents rather than enabling resolution.

There isn't ONE person who supports mass shooters. Not one. Preventing THAT is where we will agree and where the focus should be. SOLELY there. Too many want to try and address all sorts of other things (mostly opinions) using this as an excuse... and they often 'tie in' those who share their opinions, even if not their actual goals.

I,e, people who don't 'get' guns and 'the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government' are not going to care that they're impacting 100mm owners (and 300+mm law abiding citizens) in order to MAYBE save 25 people (and maybe KILL 50 more).

I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

Anwering my own question:

From https://wildlife-damage-management.exten...on-humans/

Quote:In the United States, four people have died from feral hog attacks since the late 1800s—three victims were attacked by a wounded boar while hunting.

First that I have heard that people need protection from feral hogs - but I do know that many ranchers and farmers suffer financial damages from predation of both livestock and crops by the feral hogs. I personally have seen a hog run off with a newborn goat. Killed it - a purebred milk goat kid.

Damn... it was a purebred milk goat?

Did you happen to hear about the dozens of 6-year-olds who were blown to bits by a crazy person with an AK?

Quote:And hogs multiply fast and often. I guess there are other ways to keep down feral hog populations, other than guns - but I don't know what they are.

Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops. I'm no rancher... but is this really a viable method? Are we talking having multiple people 24/7 patrolling all points of entry with AKs? On a 10,000 acre ranch? It would seem that if this is a huge problem then perhaps there are state/federal agencies that could address the problem more efficiently than lone ranchers sitting in their pickups with semi-automatic weapons.

At the very least you could have an exemption for these weapons for those who can demonstrate the need for them to protect livestock/crops.

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 07:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think this completely misses the point, 93.

'Banning assault rifles' is an example of what some consider a 'common sense law'... Yet ALL rifles are responsible for 400 or fewer deaths per year. SO the TOP END of the impact of an assault weapons ban is around 400... and the reality is that it will be more like 100 people. SO we're going to turn 100mm people into criminals and place a fundamental founding right of our democracy at what is somewhere between a meaningless and a crucial component depending on ones opinion.... in the hopes of saving 100 people... but the reality is that we will more likely simply change the method of murder for 75 of those, and prevent 25 more likely 'collateral damage'. We could also go the other way and people using bombs now create MORE collateral damage.

The bottom line is that unless you simply say 'its worth anything to save a single life', there is going to be a vast disagreement on both 'how many lives' and 'what you'd sacrifice for it'. Given that many have died specifically to CREATE that right, this is a huge and UNNECESSARY part of the discussion, and such talk actually prevents rather than enabling resolution.

There isn't ONE person who supports mass shooters. Not one. Preventing THAT is where we will agree and where the focus should be. SOLELY there. Too many want to try and address all sorts of other things (mostly opinions) using this as an excuse... and they often 'tie in' those who share their opinions, even if not their actual goals.

I,e, people who don't 'get' guns and 'the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government' are not going to care that they're impacting 100mm owners (and 300+mm law abiding citizens) in order to MAYBE save 25 people (and maybe KILL 50 more).

I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

Anwering my own question:

From https://wildlife-damage-management.exten...on-humans/

Quote:In the United States, four people have died from feral hog attacks since the late 1800s—three victims were attacked by a wounded boar while hunting.

First that I have heard that people need protection from feral hogs - but I do know that many ranchers and farmers suffer financial damages from predation of both livestock and crops by the feral hogs. I personally have seen a hog run off with a newborn goat. Killed it - a purebred milk goat kid.

Damn... it was a purebred milk goat?

Did you happen to hear about the dozens of 6-year-olds who were blown to bits by a crazy person with an AK?

Quote:And hogs multiply fast and often. I guess there are other ways to keep down feral hog populations, other than guns - but I don't know what they are.

Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops. I'm no rancher... but is this really a viable method? Are we talking having multiple people 24/7 patrolling all points of entry with AKs? On a 10,000 acre ranch? It would seem that if this is a huge problem then perhaps there are state/federal agencies that could address the problem more efficiently than lone ranchers sitting in their pickups with semi-automatic weapons.

At the very least you could have an exemption for these weapons for those who can demonstrate the need for them to protect livestock/crops.

Well, you have managed to derail this (discussion?) very effectively with your straw man. Sorry I fell for it. Yes, it was a purebred kid eligible for registry, and worth about $300 (vs about $40 for a nonpurebred). Ranchers and farmers do have economic losses due to feral hogs.

No,, I don't believe an AK-47 or whatever boogieman-gun you have selected is needed - a 12 gauge worked nicely in the above case. But nobody wants to face a feral hog unarmed.

But the point is you and the anti-gun lobby have made a cause celebre of a gun that is responsible for a tiny minority of deaths. Kind of reminds me of the BLM movement, which has made every police office and department out to be a hotbed of racism over a few isolated incidents. Must be a liberal thingie.



So back to the original question - what gun control measures being called for would have prevented these mass shootings? It appears you want AR-15s and certain magazines prohibited. Which shooting(s) would have been prevented or mitigated by these laws? I am asking politely - again.

If AR-15s are prohibited, and a crazy guy instead turns to a 30.06, then what?

OTOH, I think it very likely that the Indiana shooting and several others would have been mitigated had a person or persons at the scene had a gun to engage the shooter with. Many of the deaths occur because the shooter(s) have no incentive to stop while they roam the building looking for people cowering under desks, thus raising the death toll from (maybe) 2 or 3 to (maybe) 10 or 12. I know of no way or law that would stop the first shot, but I know a bullet to the head would stop subsequent shots.

(04-21-2021 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 07:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

Anwering my own question:

From https://wildlife-damage-management.exten...on-humans/

Quote:In the United States, four people have died from feral hog attacks since the late 1800s—three victims were attacked by a wounded boar while hunting.

First that I have heard that people need protection from feral hogs - but I do know that many ranchers and farmers suffer financial damages from predation of both livestock and crops by the feral hogs. I personally have seen a hog run off with a newborn goat. Killed it - a purebred milk goat kid.

Damn... it was a purebred milk goat?

Did you happen to hear about the dozens of 6-year-olds who were blown to bits by a crazy person with an AK?

Quote:And hogs multiply fast and often. I guess there are other ways to keep down feral hog populations, other than guns - but I don't know what they are.

Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops. I'm no rancher... but is this really a viable method? Are we talking having multiple people 24/7 patrolling all points of entry with AKs? On a 10,000 acre ranch? It would seem that if this is a huge problem then perhaps there are state/federal agencies that could address the problem more efficiently than lone ranchers sitting in their pickups with semi-automatic weapons.

At the very least you could have an exemption for these weapons for those who can demonstrate the need for them to protect livestock/crops.

Well, you have managed to derail this (discussion?) very effectively with your straw man. Sorry I fell for it. Yes, it was a purebred kid eligible for registry, and worth about $300 (vs about $40 for a nonpurebred). Ranchers and farmers do have economic losses due to feral hogs.

No,, I don't believe an AK-47 or whatever boogieman-gun you have selected is needed - a 12 gauge worked nicely in the above case. But nobody wants to face a feral hog unarmed.

But the point is you and the anti-gun lobby have made a cause celebre of a gun that is responsible for a tiny minority of deaths.

Or just trying to enact some low-hanging-fruit legislation...

Can you imagine if they tried to clamp down on pistol ownership?

Quote:Kind of reminds me of the BLM movement, which has made every police office and department out to be a hotbed of racism over a few isolated incidents.

Maybe many black people don't find these incidents to be as isolated as you do? At least when it comes to police brutality in general.

Quote:Must be a liberal thingie.


So back to the original question - what gun control measures being called for would have prevented these mass shootings? It appears you want AR-15s and certain magazines prohibited. Which shooting(s) would have been prevented or mitigated by these laws? I am asking politely - again.

Are you saying that no gun laws work? That other countries where mass shootings are not such an issue just have less-maniacal people than the United States? I'm not clear as to why we have such a problem with it while similar countries don't if it isn't easy access to guns.

(04-21-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Are you saying that no gun laws work? That other countries where mass shootings are not such an issue just have less-maniacal people than the United States? I'm not clear as to why we have such a problem with it while similar countries don't if it isn't easy access to guns.

So how do you explain the fact that those other countries had much lower rates of gun violence BEFORE they had their gun laws, and the gun laws haven't really had a material impact on them?

In the UK, the gun laws have been on the books for close to 100 years, and the rate of gun violence is higher today than it was then. In Australia a fairly draconian gun law has been on the books since 1997, and the rate of gun violence has declined in the 20+ years since--at exactly the same rate it declined in the 20+ years before the law took effect, and the rate was microscopic before. Neither is a ringing endorsement of gun laws.

(04-21-2021 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Are you saying that no gun laws work? That other countries where mass shootings are not such an issue just have less-maniacal people than the United States? I'm not clear as to why we have such a problem with it while similar countries don't if it isn't easy access to guns.

So how do you explain the fact that those other countries had much lower rates of gun violence BEFORE they had their gun laws, and the gun laws haven't really had a material impact on them?

In the UK, the gun laws have been on the books for close to 100 years, and the rate of gun violence is higher today than it was then. In Australia a fairly draconian gun law has been on the books since 1997, and the rate of gun violence has declined in the 20+ years since--at exactly the same rate it declined in the 20+ years before the law took effect, and the rate was microscopic before. Neither is a ringing endorsement of gun laws.

No reason to rehash the same thing that we've gone over countless times. I don't have time for that in any case. You guys don't think gun laws work and the other side thinks we should keep trying.

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Damn... it was a purebred milk goat?

Did you happen to hear about the dozens of 6-year-olds who were blown to bits by a crazy person with an AK?

Please list a few of those situations and tell me how the elimination of the specific weapon (which doesn't eliminate the intention NOR the dozens of other ways for a maniac to kill 6 yr olds) would address this problem?

You're using the inherent instinct to protect children to justify actions without showing how those actions would protect children. It's like saying most drunk drivers that kill children are drunk on beer, so lets ban beer.

Quote:Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops. I'm no rancher... but is this really a viable method? Are we talking having multiple people 24/7 patrolling all points of entry with AKs? On a 10,000 acre ranch? It would seem that if this is a huge problem then perhaps there are state/federal agencies that could address the problem more efficiently than lone ranchers sitting in their pickups with semi-automatic weapons.

At the very least you could have an exemption for these weapons for those who can demonstrate the need for them to protect livestock/crops.

SUre. The government could pass laws against feral hogs, or hogs that damage property or livestock. That will work as well as such laws work against crazy people or criminals. The government could also engage in hog eradication... such things have NEVER been a problem with other animals, right? How many dogs maim or kill children every year? At least pigs are (generally) edible. I know SOME cultures eat dogs, but we don't.

And you demonstrate the very problem. I don't live on a ranch... I live a mile from the county courthouse... We caught 16 pigs the other day... and about 50 in the past year.... and again, I don't remotely live 'in the woods'. My dog is at risk outside. They've been inside my fenced and gated yard. Do I need an AR15? No. But it certainly isn't a BAD weapon for the job. I'd probably prefer a .270 or 30.06... but I like semi-auto (so I don't risk pinching my hand or messing up my site as they run... its a safety issue)... and a semi-auto 30.06 is a VASTLY more deadly weapon than an AR... some people just think ARs look cool... and like a jeep, can be customized.

I appreciate that you admit that you don't understand the needs of ranchers... but that is precisely the point. You don't understand the needs of others... and yet you require that they 'demonstrate a need' to people, many of whom ALSO won't understand the need.

The best people to decide that would be people that DO understand the need.... and yet the moment you suggest that, someone would claim 'the fox watching the hen house'. NO!! It's the HEN watching the hen house... as opposed to having the cow watch it.... who knows nothing about being a hen, protecting a hen, or what a hen needs.


BTW 93... I hope the above doesn't come across too harshly. I think you're an honest person with real beliefs and you're aware of what you do and don't know.... and this is WONDERFUL for creating conversations that can lead to real solutions, and I regret when animosity or frustration towards 'some' opinions taint the responses to you. We may never see eye to eye on some issuse and that's okay. I think we could see eye to eye on a lot.

(04-21-2021 11:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  No reason to rehash the same thing that we've gone over countless times. I don't have time for that in any case. You guys don't think gun laws work and the other side thinks we should keep trying.

Please don't tell me what I think. I will tell you what I think.

I think the proposals have all been tried before, and the result is the mass shootings we are talking about. so maybe the laws don't work. yet we were told that they would stop mass shootings.

I think most of the proposals are for "more of the same", and will likely result in little if any improvement. No argument has been presented here that they will make a difference - just that they should keep trying.

I think when the left says "common sense" gun laws, it has little to do with common sense.

That is why I have asked you and others here why they think current proposals for more gun laws will make a significant difference. Nobody has given a reason why they think that.

I am OK with asking for ID when buying a gun, and don't think that is an infringement on a person's right to keep and bear arms, nor do I think it is racist, as many think it is when asked to present ID to vote.

I think violent felons should be prohibited from firearms. Not that they would pay attention, but it just seems proper.

That is some of what I think.

(04-21-2021 11:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Are you saying that no gun laws work? That other countries where mass shootings are not such an issue just have less-maniacal people than the United States? I'm not clear as to why we have such a problem with it while similar countries don't if it isn't easy access to guns.

So how do you explain the fact that those other countries had much lower rates of gun violence BEFORE they had their gun laws, and the gun laws haven't really had a material impact on them?
In the UK, the gun laws have been on the books for close to 100 years, and the rate of gun violence is higher today than it was then. In Australia a fairly draconian gun law has been on the books since 1997, and the rate of gun violence has declined in the 20+ years since--at exactly the same rate it declined in the 20+ years before the law took effect, and the rate was microscopic before. Neither is a ringing endorsement of gun laws.

No reason to rehash the same thing that we've gone over countless times. I don't have time for that in any case. You guys don't think gun laws work and the other side thinks we should keep trying.

Why don't you concern yourself with what you think, and let me tell you what I think?

I'm not saying that NO gun laws work. I'm saying that gun laws that have never worked probably won't. And outlawing ugly, scary weapons has never really worked.

The kinds of gun laws that have had an impact are laws that require some sort of training and certification for persons to purchase of possess guns or ammo, linked to the criminal database, so that if you pull and armed robbery you can't legally possess a gun. That plus some accommodation in the HIPAA laws to allow health care providers to identify potential problems to police more readily, but no gun seizure without a judicial process. You can't take away a constitutional right without due process, but if law enforcement does their job properly, you can meet that standard. Think about how many mass killers would have lost their guns if we had an adequate procedure in place for that.

I think we should definitely keep trying. But I think we should try things that have a chance to make a difference. When we have 30,000 gun deaths a year, and maybe 100 come form ugly, scary "assault weapons" (whatever they are), you are not going to have a significant impact by outlawing ugly, scary "assault weapons." And if you cut the number from 30,000 to 29,900, those 29,900 are still going to be just as dead.

But if you take guns out of the hands of violent criminals, gang members, and potentially violent or suicidal head cases, and allow the remainder of the citizenry to remain armed, my guess is that you cut that 30,000 number by 60-90%, and that is worth doing.

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

(04-21-2021 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Damn... it was a purebred milk goat?

Did you happen to hear about the dozens of 6-year-olds who were blown to bits by a crazy person with an AK?

Please list a few of those situations and tell me how the elimination of the specific weapon (which doesn't eliminate the intention NOR the dozens of other ways for a maniac to kill 6 yr olds) would address this problem?

You're using the inherent instinct to protect children to justify actions without showing how those actions would protect children. It's like saying most drunk drivers that kill children are drunk on beer, so lets ban beer.

I think there's a good chance that these mass shooting events would have less deaths if these weapons were not so readily available. Sure, people could roll grenades into classrooms and cause even more damage however that doesn't seem to be a problem. It might have to do with the inherent psychology of these shooters... there's something about mowing people down that "does it" for these shooters. I think it's unlikely that simply killing children by any means necessary is the goal here. I don't know... I'm not a psychiatrist.

Quote:

Quote:Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops. I'm no rancher... but is this really a viable method? Are we talking having multiple people 24/7 patrolling all points of entry with AKs? On a 10,000 acre ranch? It would seem that if this is a huge problem then perhaps there are state/federal agencies that could address the problem more efficiently than lone ranchers sitting in their pickups with semi-automatic weapons.

At the very least you could have an exemption for these weapons for those who can demonstrate the need for them to protect livestock/crops.

SUre. The government could pass laws against feral hogs, or hogs that damage property or livestock. That will work as well as such laws work against crazy people or criminals. The government could also engage in hog eradication... such things have NEVER been a problem with other animals, right? How many dogs maim or kill children every year? At least pigs are (generally) edible. I know SOME cultures eat dogs, but we don't.

If feral hogs are causing a major problem with food supply then it makes sense to have government agencies intervene. My guess is that this would be more effective than having a rancher patrol his property with an AK when he has the time in his otherwise busy waking hours to do so.

Quote:And you demonstrate the very problem. I don't live on a ranch... I live a mile from the county courthouse... We caught 16 pigs the other day... and about 50 in the past year.... and again, I don't remotely live 'in the woods'. My dog is at risk outside. They've been inside my fenced and gated yard. Do I need an AR15? No. But it certainly isn't a BAD weapon for the job. I'd probably prefer a .270 or 30.06... but I like semi-auto (so I don't risk pinching my hand or messing up my site as they run... its a safety issue)... and a semi-auto 30.06 is a VASTLY more deadly weapon than an AR... some people just think ARs look cool... and like a jeep, can be customized.

I have relatives in the western Houston suburbs that have had feral pigs dig up the grass around their suburban home (outside their fence). I think it would be better for local agencies to address this problem than to have my elderly relatives sitting on their back porch with an AK.

You caught 16 pigs in your yard? Were they destroying your property or threatening your pets? How would a 30.06 help in your situation? I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles.

Quote:I appreciate that you admit that you don't understand the needs of ranchers... but that is precisely the point. You don't understand the needs of others... and yet you require that they 'demonstrate a need' to people, many of whom ALSO won't understand the need.

Politicians vote on laws that don't match up with their previous occupation or their education. We discuss topics all time on this forum without having a expert background in them.

Quote:The best people to decide that would be people that DO understand the need.... and yet the moment you suggest that, someone would claim 'the fox watching the hen house'. NO!! It's the HEN watching the hen house... as opposed to having the cow watch it.... who knows nothing about being a hen, protecting a hen, or what a hen needs.

But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?

Quote:BTW 93... I hope the above doesn't come across too harshly. I think you're an honest person with real beliefs and you're aware of what you do and don't know.... and this is WONDERFUL for creating conversations that can lead to real solutions, and I regret when animosity or frustration towards 'some' opinions taint the responses to you. We may never see eye to eye on some issuse and that's okay. I think we could see eye to eye on a lot.

I appreciate that I and agree with the bolded.

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

(04-21-2021 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 11:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Are you saying that no gun laws work? That other countries where mass shootings are not such an issue just have less-maniacal people than the United States? I'm not clear as to why we have such a problem with it while similar countries don't if it isn't easy access to guns.

So how do you explain the fact that those other countries had much lower rates of gun violence BEFORE they had their gun laws, and the gun laws haven't really had a material impact on them?
In the UK, the gun laws have been on the books for close to 100 years, and the rate of gun violence is higher today than it was then. In Australia a fairly draconian gun law has been on the books since 1997, and the rate of gun violence has declined in the 20+ years since--at exactly the same rate it declined in the 20+ years before the law took effect, and the rate was microscopic before. Neither is a ringing endorsement of gun laws.

No reason to rehash the same thing that we've gone over countless times. I don't have time for that in any case. You guys don't think gun laws work and the other side thinks we should keep trying.

Why don't you concern yourself with what you think, and let me tell you what I think?

I'm not saying that NO gun laws work. I'm saying that gun laws that have never worked probably won't. And outlawing ugly, scary weapons has never really worked.

The kinds of gun laws that have had an impact are laws that require some sort of training and certification for persons to purchase of possess guns or ammo, linked to the criminal database, so that if you pull and armed robbery you can't legally possess a gun. That plus some accommodation in the HIPAA laws to allow health care providers to identify potential problems to police more readily, but no gun seizure without a judicial process. You can't take away a constitutional right without due process, but if law enforcement does their job properly, you can meet that standard. Think about how many mass killers would have lost their guns if we had an adequate procedure in place for that.

I could absolutely get behind laws of this nature. I believe that the vast majority of people would agree. So WHY do Republicans fight against this this type of legislation so vigorously?