You are not logged in.
You did see the half truth that was posted on the 2 links and how data with out the details makes for data that it has not useable....
So did the data accuracy change after the turn of the century, after ww2...is that data any better....
Its not the guns as you have indicated that are bad its the operator, the person that does not keep it in a controlled state once they own them, to keep them out of the hands not mature enough to identify a right from wrong use, to be strong enough to not use it in anger, hate or for racial reasons....
zero political....
Online
SpaceNut,
Lt. Col. Grossman was talking about kids mass murdering other kids.
I thought that point was clear, but I guess not. You won't find kids mass murdering other kids in our history until relatively recently (1970's, just like Lt. Col. Grossman said), despite the widespread availability of firearms, to include semi-automatic firearms, long before then.
Every kid I went to high school with had a deer rifle in the rack of their hand-me-down beat up old pickup truck, yet the idea of some kid mass murdering all of us was a foreign to me as space aliens landing. Why? Because something like that was totally nuts- the type of thing that would get you sent to the funny farm for the rest of your natural life, back when we still had more than a handful of those. These days, those kids would have the entire SWAT team out at their school for simply having an unloaded hunting rifle in their truck.
Something has changed and it's not the presence or absence of guns. You couldn't throw a rock in any direction and hit a house without at least one gun in it, most of which were never locked up. We simply knew not to touch things that didn't belong to us, like the guns that belonged to someone's father, lest we be on the receiving end of a strap across our hind parts. Oddly enough, most of us also had fathers who were around, even if some of them were mean 'ole cusses or drunks.
Think not having a Dad at all doesn't mean anything, either?
Look at the stats on how many kids grew up in foster homes or single parent homes who subsequently went to prison, then let me know what you think.
Edit:
I see that I even talked about the recent phenomenon of kids mass murdering other kids in the second sentence of the post you responded to. You need not read my entire post, but at least reading the first paragraph and watching the videos would be helpful. Oddly enough, this entire thread was started as a discussion on the issue of that kid in Florida mass murdering other kids.
Last edited by kbd512 (2019-05-27 17:49:36)
Offline
The boat anchor called a computer has its limitation and watching videos is the one that is the worst.
Yes,topic did get started with the florida but that had followed the many before of simular severity of like events.
I would agree that sometime shortly after the 70's it did change about the same time that adults were getting hauled into courts for disciplining there children.
Is there a chemical attribute which is being ignored something which had not been there until after that timeframe?
Since the open carry does not bother me in particular this will be more to those that think its a mistake waiting to happen as Texas bill allows people to open carry guns during natural disaster to deter looting which means the cops can no longer be expected to do what they are paid for....
Online
SpaceNut,
During that same timeframe in the 1970's, our mental health care system also started regularly administering psychotropic drugs without supervision to observe the results of taking the drugs, not taking the drugs, or taking too much of the drugs instead of using wholistic psychiatric treatment regimens that include close patient monitoring to determine whether or not taking the pills or suddenly going off the pills makes the patient in question even more psychotic than they were to begin with. There's a certain percentage of our population that is certifiable and will need long term or permanent psychiatric care to preclude those individuals from being a danger to themselves or others. That's sad, but true, and to my knowledge we have no other good solutions. We've already seen the results of pretending that there is no problem with our mental health care system, which would be the scourge of mass shootings and serial killings.
Police can't be expected to do what we pay them to do in a real disaster scenario to begin with. In practice, they typically don't. Police have families, too, and they should evacuate like everyone else. Those who stay behind should truly be on their own. I don't see the point in risking more lives over people who refuse to evacuate. I like to keep evacuation simple. If my government tells me to evacuate, then I take the minimum amount of stuff I think I need for my family to survive for about 3 days and get out of Dodge. If my government tells me to stay put, then I stay put. If they don't show up afterwards, and many times they can't, then I'm still on my own and need my tools (and yes, one of my tools is a firearm) to do what my government can't or won't do for me. I'm more than happy to let my government handle the criminal element of this world whenever and wherever such help is available. If they did a better job of that, I wouldn't feel the need to be armed to begin with. Unfortunately, they don't, and I've lived through the results without injury to myself or the criminal precisely because I was armed and trained. I'm pretty sure the story of how that all went down was posted somewhere on this forum.
I'm not a big believer in open carry as a general practice because most people I've known don't have the hand-to-hand combat skills to prevent the literal "gun grabbers" from snatching firearms away from their rightful owners. I don't fault people for doing it, though, and it doesn't make me the least bit uncomfortable. Back in the day, you could tell the good guys from the bad guys because the good guys never tried to hide the fact that they were armed. Today, merely being armed in public is seen as a good excuse for authoritarian types in our government to mess with people who probably don't need to be messed with. Mostly being cowards, criminals don't typically advertise the fact that they can defend themselves. Here in Texas, any criminal waving a gun around in public is also a good candidate for a Darwin Award. All that said, I think having a good solid six shooter in the holster of every well-adjusted and law abiding adult man or woman in America would lead to a more polite society with far fewer undeterred criminal activities and better treatment of our fellow Americans.
Offline
This is actually why not everyone should be allowed to get a gun as White campground manager fired after holding gun in confrontation with black couple
Online
Another act of gun violence in Va. shooting witness: It's way too much killing going on with 11 people killed in Virginia Beach shooting; suspect dead
Online
SpaceNut,
Many more than that were shot in Chicago last weekend, yet you made no mention of those people. Chicago has the "gun control" laws that Democrats say they want. All the criminals have guns and all the law abiding citizens are defenseless cannon fodder for the armed street thugs to murder at will while the Police and Democrat mayor do nothing effectual to solve the violence problem- except blame inanimate objects for their failures. Apparently, that's just how Democrats like it. They'll say and do anything to distract from their complete inability to do anything useful for the people they're supposed to serve. Anyone who wants to live there is welcome to move, but I'm not playing that game. I already know how it ends.
Offline
So are the guns which are out there unlawful or are they from a legal process that is broken?
Whom is to remove the illegal guns from those streets, what methods are there that can be used to accomplish that task?
Since that last mass murders I did not find anything current which rise to terror acts as the virginia beach does....
Appears that they did not want to be finger printed for having a gun.
Machine guns have been tightly regulated since 1934 and banned since 1986, except for the sale or transfer of such a weapon that “was lawfully registered and possessed before May 19, 1986,” according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And even then it can only be transferred from one registered owner to another registered owner.
So why are there so many getting used....
Online
Look, whether you are for or against guns doesn't matter. The guns are already out there, and you have to deal with that. Once out there, you won't get them back (only a fool would believe you could).
There's plenty of good reason for gun free zones. What's forgotten is that once declared, you have a moral obligation to defend them. This was proven, and the requirements defined, in the 19th century American frontier towns. That outcome still applies today, no matter how many deny that.
Lesson 1: must have multiple lawmen able to reach the scene of the disturbance within a single minute.
Lesson 2: make it easy for people to check their guns in upon entering the zone, and to retrieve them upon leaving (ease complying with the law raises compliance with the law).
Lesson 3: the lawmen must out-gun the bad guys.
Lesson 4: "lawman" means a fully-trained law enforcement officer, not some amateur with a gun. Like a teacher. Or some rent-a-cop security guard.
Simple as that. And just as hard to do in 21st century cities as you might think. It means a lot more police stations a lot closer to the places where bad things happen. You get EXACTLY what you pay for.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-06-01 09:56:10)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
SpaceNut,
This entire line of argumentation always falls flat. We don't take fingerprints or conduct background investigations for issuing driver's licenses, something that's not a "right" according to our Constitution, yet any 2 ton motor vehicle is every bit as much of a deadly weapon in the hands of someone not qualified or mentally capable of operating it as any firearm has ever been. The "evidence" for that statement would be all those bodies piling up from motor vehicle accidents.
I'm going to continue to corner all of these non-arguments until those in favor of government-sponsored theft of privately held firearms finally just admit to the fact that they want to take things from law abiding citizens who have never committed any crimes. I believe Clark already did just that. After the rest of the people in favor of gun confiscation just admit to what their ultimate intentions are, I'll stop arguing with them and let their own words speak for themselves.
After we go there, why just stop at firearms? Cars currently kill just as many people as firearms and your side keeps making the argument that cars are more heavily regulated than guns. That must mean that cars are more dangerous than firearms. Where would this sort of malevolence end? The socialists / communists in other countries have already answered that question for us. For them, there is no end to that line of argumentation. They will use the power of government to steal whatever they want from their people, whenever they want.
Offline
The 2 ton motor vehicle requires you to show proof that you are american with a birth certificate and a valid SS card all that is missing is blood sample and the finger prints...all under the guise of voting rights....maybe all vehicles need to have anti drunk breathalizer installed as well...
Online
SpaceNut,
Thanks for that. At least now everyone else can plainly see this line of reasoning for what it truly is- another authoritarian government power grab under the guise of "protecting" adults from themselves. Why stop there, though? We should just put everyone in their own rubber room. That way, nothing bad can possibly happen and no personal responsibility is required.
Offline
Nevada Senate gun control bill, through the legislative "red flag" measure that would let authorities or family members seek a court order to take guns away from those who pose a danger to themselves or others.
Online
Most of the gun control proposals do not address the largest problems we have, or are not supported by data as to effectiveness. Death rates from assault rifles are small compared to handguns, mass shootings notwithstanding. The mass shooter problem gets more media coverage, which gives the erroneous impression that it causes more deaths. You must look at the data and statistics to see this.
The handgun problem is not very amenable to solution, it generally being very large numbers of one-on-one crimes. Whether motivated by drugs, theft, family violence, or whatever, there's not just a whole lot one can directly do about this. Better background checks is the temptation here, but with the large number of guns already on the streets, that would have very little effect, if any at all.
Instead of trying futilely to get the handguns out of the hands of criminals and simply-angry people, it might well be more effective to address the causes of the crime and the anger, so that the guns just get used less for these purposes. We cannot know unless we try.
Most of the petty criminals appear to be very poor and cannot make an honest living for any of a variety of reasons. I dunno how to fix that, but it's worth looking into. As for anger provoking family violence, I think all of us are open to suggestion.
The mass shooters are a smaller effect upon total death rates from guns, but there really are some things we could reasonably do to address this. First, as I described in an earlier posting, defend adequately the gun-free zones you have declared. That would have a relatively significant effect.
Second, we need to address the pitifully-evident leak of legal guns into the hands of people with mental problems. The majority of mass shootings traces directly to this. The "red flag" law proposals seem like a step in the right direction, but I am very unsure that these as currently proposed are really the way we want to plug that leak. And as crummy as our politicians have become, I no longer trust them to write these things such that they cannot be abused or sidestepped. (Which is why I recommend de facto term limits by routinely not re-electing them.)
Third, the gun show leak with respect to background checks is likely not of significant effect to the overall gun death rates. Plug it if you want, but just don't expect to see significant change. If you'll forgive my unfortunate choice of words, there's just not much "bang for the buck" there.
Most of the rest of the gun control proposals are nonsense we already know won't work, with one exception. That's the bump stock and trigger-crank ban. We already have a ban on (fully-automatic) machine guns that works to our benefit. Those devices give a semi-automatic weapon a firing rate in the machine gun range, something we already know we just don't want on the streets. They being a way to legally cheat the machine gun ban, the bump stock/trigger crank ban is a good idea.
Bans on semi-automatic weapons, silencers, and large magazines are just not going to have any significant beneficial effect, and definitely infringe onto second amendment rights, as demonstrated by the vociferous opposition. Why go there? Not worth it.
For example, at 2 to 4 shots per second with a semi-automatic pistol or rifle, what difference is 2 more seconds to swap magazines going to make? Whether it's every 10 shots or 50 shots? Not very bloody much.
You can't hit anything at that 2-4 shots/second firing rate except randomly in a crowded room. Otherwise, it takes about a second or two to aim your shots at distant, dispersed targets. You'll never see the extra 2 seconds to swap a magazine at that lower rate.
I'd recommend doing only those things that have a real chance of working, and forget the knee-jerk stuff with little or no benefit. And address the petty criminal and angry-person problems as best you can.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-06-02 13:10:28)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
SpaceNut,
If people are actually concerned about mass shootings, which are universally done by people who would've been certifiable back when we had a real mental health care system in this country, then perhaps we could reconstitute our mental health care system. That is a tiny fraction of the shootings that occur each year, but real mental health care would put an end to it. Anyone taking psychotropic drugs should never, under any circumstances, have access to weapons of any kind. The side effects from taking, overdosing, or suddenly stopping doses of such drugs can be every bit as bad, or often worse, than the original mental condition that caused the drugs to be administered in the first place.
However, as you've already made it clear from your car example, these Democrat gun grabbers are only concerned with asserting state control over the individual. Fortunately for us, this is always a losing political issue for Democrats. I welcome as much talk of gun confiscation from the Democrats as they can possibly manage, so as to ensure their swift and overwhelming defeat at the polls. Nothing else seems to get my fellow Republicans to go out and vote against evil cretins as much as this particular issue.
Offline
If chicago is like many of our large cities then we do have a big issue with whom has access to guns.
Burst of violence leaves 31 shot in less than 12 hours in Chicago
In a burst of violence Friday night and early Saturday that touched nearly every part of the city, almost three dozen people were shot, four of them fatally.
long duration with multiple events....lots of people that should not have the guns....
Online
The gun control thing has (unfortunately) been politicized into a sort of party agenda thing. It's a belief system thing, not facts. GOP types are "against it", and Dem types are supposed to be "for it". This started happening decades ago, and I have not seen any proposals except the same lame knee-jerk things all those decades, with 1 exception (the bump stock/trigger crank ban).
Somehow or another, I'd like to slap both parties collectively upside their heads with a big stick, and thus break their fixations on these utterly-idiotic belief systems. They need to consider instead what practical things we really might do. Such would be data-driven or experience-driven. (Screw the knee-jerk crap, it is not data- or experience-driven.) I listed several such potential candidates in previous posts in this thread.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-06-02 21:29:37)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
It would really take the wind out of the GOPs sails on guns, though, if the Democrats endorsed a militia system (Swiss model?). You can have access to military-grade weaponry, but most of it has to be kept in the town armoury. It would be a lot harder to argue they're trying to overturn the second amendment if they did that.
I don't think it is likely.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Police thwarted by electronic doors during Virginia shooting
Police responding to the deadly mass shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal building were unable to confront the gunman at one point because they didn't have the key cards needed to open doors on the second floor.
Over the radio, they desperately pleaded for the electronic cards and talked of bringing in a sledgehammer, an explosive charge or other means of breaking down the doors.
Online
Seems a new target has been created as Two former state senators were found dead in their homes in Arkansas and Oklahoma within a span of two days this week
Online
This will not be all that impactful but if it lessens the guns falling in to the wrong hands....
Gun seller United Sporting goes bust, partly blaming Trump's election
As it wrongly anticipating that sales would increase after the 2016 presidential election but Lower-than-expected sales followed in 2017 and 2018, leading to an industrywide glut that forced United and rivals to heavily discount their merchandise...
Online
SpaceNut,
Former President Obama was the best gun salesman of all time. Since he's not doing any useful work now, not that he ever has, maybe the NRA could secretly hire him to talk about banning guns to increase gun sales. It worked so well last time, so why not try it again?
Offline
There Aren't as Many Obama Gun Laws as You Think...
List of Obama Gun Control Measures and Executive Orders
President Obama’s 2015 Executive Actions on Gun Control
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/sorti … -proposal/
With the reality of the Republicans in Congress blocked Obama's call for new gun laws after mass shootings
Online
Top 4 posts all about very partisan politics re about (I'm guessing) maybe 4% of the Earth's surface...? What message do you think that sends to anyone visiting this site allegedly dedicated to settlement of Mars? It's pathetic. This site needs to get its act together.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
SpaceNut,
I never said anything about the laws implemented by former President Obama. His public musings regarding his desire to confiscate firearms, as the Australians did, did more for firearms sales than anything any previous President ever implemented, to include the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994.
I always encourage our Democrats to loudly and proudly promote their firearms confiscation agenda, because it always ensure that they're swiftly voted out of office during the next election cycle. Until the Democrat Party's policies return to something approaching sanity, the best place for them is far away from any position of authority where their agendas harm the average citizen.
It's clear to me that this new Democrat Party is incapable of learning from past mistakes, with their incessant pushes for suppression free speech / firearms confiscation / illegal alien foreign invasions / destruction of the family / murdering minority babies agendas but a few examples. They really don't seem to have the best interests of America or their fellow American citizens in mind. That's why the American voter keeps handing them defeats at the ballot box. Frankly, we don't need people who can't learn from past mistakes in positions of authority. They're liabilities to themselves and everyone around them in a way that even some idiot with a gun can't manage to become.
Bernie is still yapping about how great socialism is while the poor people of Venezuela are mass murdered by their socialist / communist government through simple starvation and refusing to accept basic foreign aid, being shot like dogs by their own government troops- the only people permitted to have guns in those wonderful socialist dictatorships, or being run over by tanks in the streets. These people, who claim to be democratic socialists or "liberals", who are profoundly anti-social and illiberal, obviously, are either too arrogant and ignorant to run a lemonade stand, much less a third world country that can't feed it's own people, or they're so profoundly evil that nobody who isn't also as profoundly evil as they are should never cast a ballot in their favor.
Offline