Gun Violence in America

[RockRaines]

They only had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for something like 90 days between franken being seated late and Kennedy dying and being replaced by Scott Brown.

 

Actually even less, July 7th through August 29th, so a big chunk of that time was the summer recess. Actual in session days with filibuster proof majority wouldn't have been very many.

SHHHH, your facts dont line up with the narrative.

[StrangeSox]

The shooter tried to buy tracer rounds (the ones that glow like you'd see in WW2 films) at a gun show and he was also trying to shoot aviation fuel tanks at McCarron. Shooting them with normal bullets wasn't going to do anything, but hitting them with tracer rounds might have.

[RockRaines]

The shooter tried to buy tracer rounds (the ones that glow like you'd see in WW2 films) at a gun show and he was also trying to shoot aviation fuel tanks at McCarron. Shooting them with normal bullets wasn't going to do anything, but hitting them with tracer rounds might have.

So why the f*** are those legal? We need to take a deeper look at the ammo and what we allow.

[StrangeSox]

They're more of a gimmick than anything really dangerous. Just regular bullets with the same sort of coating that fireworks have so you can see them shoot into the air.

[RockRaines]

They're more of a gimmick than anything really dangerous. Just regular bullets with the same sort of coating that fireworks have so you can see them shoot into the air.

But they are designed for when you fire a lot of bullets quickly so you ensure your aim is right. At least thats what Ive seen from documentaries.

[StrangeSox]

Right, that's the original design of it. Lets you track where you're firing---but also lets people track where you're firing from. Generally useful when you're firing lots of rounds at long distances at high rates, which until Sunday, wasn't ever really anything to be concerned about in the civilian world. Just something people use at some ranges because it "looks cool" or whatever. For the vast, vast majority of shootings, even mass shootings, it isn't relevant so at least previously there wasn't good reason to ban it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Tobacco was American as apple pie and baseball at one point, and then we got smarter. I’m hoping that happens eventually here as well. It’s just sickening how many killlig devices we have out there.

 

Make every new gun or rifle have smart features. Eventually the dumb ones will phase out or will be super expensive.

 

Yeah but tobacco is harmful 100% of the time. Guns are not.

[Brian]

Tobacco was American as apple pie and baseball at one point, and then we got smarter. I’m hoping that happens eventually here as well. It’s just sickening how many killlig devices we have out there.

 

Make every new gun or rifle have smart features. Eventually the dumb ones will phase out or will be super expensive.

 

If, if if we outlaw guns, we may as well outlaw water because people drown! Yeah! Outlaw H2O!!!

[StrangeSox]

Tobacco was also brought down by a bunch of lawsuits holding them financially responsible for the deaths they caused even as they insisted for decades there was zero link (our current VP still believes this!). Gun makers have explicit legal protection from such lawsuits, so that same pathway isn't open to people looking to bring them down.

[Wanne]

I hope you place less trust in Fox News, who is easily the worst of the big three when it comes to reporting.

 

As for your second point, um, Obamacare.

 

If they took the Republican approach of keeping bills in secret, avoiding the CBO, not making any compromise, etc. maybe he would have gotten even more done in those two years.

 

Actually I find CNN to be the biggest joke out of all of them. And I've already said earlier in this thread they all lack...but CNN has proven to be completely untrustworthy...but they fit the liberal narrative. Of course that's my opinion...

 

Obamacare?!? BWAHAHAAAA...sorry...still find it probably one of the more disastrous things to happen in the past 10 years...but that's for another thread. But what do I know...I'm one of those self employed people that got Hitlered with a dry pineapple...that had his nice PPO plan skyrocket to them wanting almost $1000/mo (980) with a $10K deductible JUST FOR ME...a perfectly healthy male with no prexistings. I'm in AZ were everyone bailed...and not eligible for any subsidies. Yeah...thanks Barry!!! I plenty of people/families that got reamed just as bad. I guy I contract with...they wanted $1600 to cover his family. I said no thanks and bought a catastrophic plan from Golden Rule. Yeah...sorry if I don't jump up and down saying what a great thing Barrycare is. pffffffft......

 

Your last comment goes both ways. How many bills were presented to that pimple Harry Reid that died sitting on his desk that he refused to even bring to a vote? 400?....500? People always seem to ignore things like that. Hate to tell ya...it's both parties...that's the problem. The each serve their own interests. That fallacy that "Democrats work hard for the little people" is laughable....

 

 

[bmags]

Actually I find CNN to be the biggest joke out of all of them. And I've already said earlier in this thread they all lack...but CNN has proven to be completely untrustworthy...but they fit the liberal narrative. Of course that's my opinion...

 

Obamacare?!? BWAHAHAAAA...sorry...still find it probably one of the more disastrous things to happen in the past 10 years...but that's for another thread. But what do I know...I'm one of those self employed people that got Hitlered with a dry pineapple...that had his nice PPO plan skyrocket to them wanting almost $1000/mo (980) with a $10K deductible JUST FOR ME...a perfectly healthy male with no prexistings. I'm in AZ were everyone bailed...and not eligible for any subsidies. Yeah...thanks Barry!!! I plenty of people/families that got reamed just as bad. I guy I contract with...they wanted $1600 to cover his family. I said no thanks and bought a catastrophic plan from Golden Rule. Yeah...sorry if I don't jump up and down saying what a great thing Barrycare is. pffffffft......

 

Your last comment goes both ways. How many bills were presented to that pimple Harry Reid that died sitting on his desk that he refused to even bring to a vote? 400?....500? People always seem to ignore things like that. Hate to tell ya...it's both parties...that's the problem. The each serve their own interests. That fallacy that "Democrats work hard for the little people" is laughable....

 

You can make the argument that Dems didn't do anything when they had house/sen/exec, or you can make the argument that they did bad things, but you can't really argue both.

[RockRaines]

Yeah but tobacco is harmful 100% of the time. Guns are not.

Their other function being.....

[southsideirish71]

Stupid things that can be immediately outlawed. Its not like that hunters need to attack the forest like its Zero Dark Thirty and Bin Laden is upstairs.

 

 

Tracer rounds -Unless Bambi is in a rainy forest at night with 10k of his friends in a fortress there is zero reason to use tracer rounds to help your aim.

 

Armor Piercing Rounds -Unless Bambi is wearing Kevlar. There is no reason.

 

Bump devices -Unless you are worried about rate of fire with Bambi and his 10k forest friends there is no reason.

 

Silencers -I know at times its necessary to assault Bambi's house and have the tactical advantage but come on. What next you and 5 of your friends flash bang the animal from the blind with your throat mikes on yelling tango down.

 

Before the NRA asks

 

No rocket launchers, grenades, mines, tanks, air support ( wait for it I am sure that we will have a hunting drone soon if not already ), chemical or tactical nukes to take out Bambi and his elite deer fighting force.

 

At some point hunting is not a video game. There has to be some level of hunting actually involved. Its not just hey this reminds me of COD where I can just pull the trigger forever and if I hit something so be it. Most hunters are not asking for Zero Dark Thirty crap. Its the noobs who are using these weapons for some sort of testosterone trip or they have mental issues and think the government is coming to get them. Either way they dont count. So lets not worry about their feelings. If an intruder in my house cannot be stopped by a shotgun or a handgun then they are a cyborg, alien or deity. Me pulling a long gun to shoot the intruder 20 feet away down my upstairs hallway is great. Until I fire off a round and it goes through the wall, and into my neighbors house and kills someone there. Maybe people who want these weapons should pass a physics test. Bullets go through things. These high velocity high mass bullets go a long way, they go through everything it seems and dont stop once they miss your intended target. So no they are not good for home defense. You dont need to outlaw all guns. But my god some common sense things can be passed.

Edited October 6, 2017 by southsideirish71

[StrangeSox]

Heller codified a right to self-defense via owning readily accessible firearms into the constitution and incorporated it against the states. Any discussion of gun rights that focuses solely on hunting and target shooters ignores that pretty important caveat.

[RockRaines]

Real hunters use bows anyway

[Dick Allen]

For every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

 

That's one self-defense shooting for 22 accidental, suicidal or criminal shootings -- hardly support for the notion that having a gun handy makes people safer.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not making a moral argument for or against it. I'm just pointing out what Constitutional caselaw says.

[Jenksismyhero]

Their other function being.....

 

Sport? Hunting?

 

Your general point that attitudes change with regard to American traditions is well taken, but comparing guns and tobacco doesn't really work. Tobacco fell out of favor because it was (1) harming/killing a large number of people (far more than guns) and (2) the tobacco companies lied for decades about the harmful effects. I'm not aware of any gun manufacturer claiming that their guns are perfectly safe tools that don't harm people or don't have the potential to harm people.

 

[bmags]

Sport? Hunting?

 

Your general point that attitudes change with regard to American traditions is well taken, but comparing guns and tobacco doesn't really work. Tobacco fell out of favor because it was (1) harming/killing a large number of people (far more than guns) and (2) the tobacco companies lied for decades about the harmful effects. I'm not aware of any gun manufacturer claiming that their guns are perfectly safe tools that don't harm people or don't have the potential to harm people.

 

They have basically bought and paid for politicians to not allow the CDC to communicate these effects (via risk rates) including not allowing them to tell parents what additional risk a firearm in the home may cause.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

They have basically bought and paid for politicians to not allow the CDC to communicate these effects (via risk rates) including not allowing them to tell parents what additional risk a firearm in the home may cause.

 

They've also made it so that the ATF and FBI can only keep paper records on guns and gun transactions. This makes searching the records to, say, solve a crime extremely tedious and time-consuming.

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbd9y/t...s-explained-392

[Jenksismyhero]

They have basically bought and paid for politicians to not allow the CDC to communicate these effects (via risk rates) including not allowing them to tell parents what additional risk a firearm in the home may cause.

 

And as I said to Balta yesterday, the risk is patently obvious - death. Guns are dangerous tools. Guns kill. It's a zero sum game. If you have a gun in your home, there is a risk. You don't need a study to tell you that.

 

[bmags]

So anyway I buy that tobacco and guns are different, I don't think the lying about effects is that different as I do think they as an industry have tried extremely hard to prevent any try research on how to prevent gun violence.

[Jenksismyhero]

So anyway I buy that tobacco and guns are different, I don't think the lying about effects is that different as I do think they as an industry have tried extremely hard to prevent any try research on how to prevent gun violence.

 

Sure, they try to spin bad results, every company does that.

 

But "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is vastly different from "smoking is completely healthy! Light em up, including you, young Johnny! That's a good boy!"

[StrangeSox]

And as I said to Balta yesterday, the risk is patently obvious - death. Guns are dangerous tools. Guns kill. It's a zero sum game. If you have a gun in your home, there is a risk. You don't need a study to tell you that.

 

If you're trying to make a rational risk assessment, you need data. If I'm trying to decide whether to 1) keep a gun in my home 2) keep that gun readily accessible for defense 3) carry a gun with me in public, knowing what the actual risk factors are could be helpful.

 

At least theoretically, because it's almost definitely a more emotional decision than a beep boop logical one for people.

[bmags]

And as I said to Balta yesterday, the risk is patently obvious - death. Guns are dangerous tools. Guns kill. It's a zero sum game. If you have a gun in your home, there is a risk. You don't need a study to tell you that.

 

Rates matter. AT some point something may pose such a higher risk you choose differently. We don't have great data for those risk rates for the last 20 years.