Jump to content

Stories That Make You Shake Your Head At The World


Recommended Posts

To the claim of UBC's affecting only 1% of gun sales - that does not appear to be correct.  It would affect between 13-22% of sales - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/16/steve-bullock/what-percentage-gun-sales-are-done-without-backgro/

I appreciate the hesitations people have, but this is a common-sense piece of legislation supported by, depending on what poll you read, 80-95% of Americans. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

Good discussion here, but to ignore the striking similarity in these shootings is willful ignorance IMO - an AR-15 seems to be far and away the weapon of choice for mass shootings, perhaps we can find a way to make this all a wee bit harder to shoot 20 kids?

 

 

Look, I know that this is going to come off as crass and uncaring in the wake of this unfathomable tragedy, and with @rico and I both having granddaughters born on 5/9 and wondering what kind of f'd up world they were born into, it has to be said...

Mass shootings account for a minimal amount of the gun deaths in the US (1%). As tragic as yesterday was, and as much as I grieve for the people of Uvalde, particularly the parents who lost children (and as a father and grandfather I cannot even begin to imagine that pain) citing the guns that were used is a useless exercise to me. The largest mass shooting in US history was perpetrated by a mentally unstable psychopath with a Glock 19 and a Walther 22, both semi automatic pistols. If the guy yesterday hadn't brought the AR-15, he still had a pistol to do his despicable deed.

Folks, we need to have better mental evaluations, but we need to protect our children. Every school should have a well trained and armed resource officer. I would also encourage schools to look at "Faster Colorado" which instructs teachers in the use of firearms and other protective measure in this dangerous day and age.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same thing after after shooting. People suddenly care about mental health for a day or two. 

There is no way around it - we are an outlier on gun violence, traffic deaths, incarcerations, homelessness, drug overdoses, etc among developed nations. Other nations also have mental health issues and video games (see previous excuse in Buffalo). Those things are not unique to the US. 

We value individual freedom and cheap goods over everything else. We are a selfish and mean country that is OK with sacrificing our children and vulnerable people. And our politicians like it this way. It’s the best way to divide us, control us, and keep us at each other’s throats. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

Good discussion here, but to ignore the striking similarity in these shootings is willful ignorance IMO - an AR-15 seems to be far and away the weapon of choice for mass shootings, perhaps we can find a way to make this all a wee bit harder to shoot 20 kids?

 

 

Be careful about using cherry picked data to support an argument. https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/  shows over 100 mass shooting so Ar-15s may have been used in 10%? Not the 100% that is implied. Just an example of someone pushing their anti AR15 agenda, IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Bear arms, at the time, meant guns and not missiles. That is why guns are protected today. A handgun is a gun. A missile is not. 

Please stop dragging automatic weapons into the discussion. Automatic weapons are already strictly regulated and are rarely part of the problem but rather used to inflame emotions. Of course nobody wants mentally unstable people using automatic weapons and there is already 99% (my guess) acceptance of that and many laws already on the books regarding that.

Name one practical use of an automatic weapon outside of military or law enforcement?

What are we actually protecting ourselves from?  How many home invasions are committed by perpetrators using automatic weapons?  Okay, maybe ones involving drug cartels and the mob.  But, I think we can all agree that's a different situation than someone breaking into a home to commit a robbery or sexual assault.  Those perps can be stopped with a standard handgun or shotgun.

Again, name one practical use for an automatic weapon? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Look, I know that this is going to come off as crass and uncaring in the wake of this unfathomable tragedy, and with @rico and I both having granddaughters born on 5/9 and wondering what kind of f'd up world they were born into, it has to be said...

Mass shootings account for a minimal amount of the gun deaths in the US (1%). As tragic as yesterday was, and as much as I grieve for the people of Uvalde, particularly the parents who lost children (and as a father and grandfather I cannot even begin to imagine that pain) citing the guns that were used is a useless exercise to me. The largest mass shooting in US history was perpetrated by a mentally unstable psychopath with a Glock 19 and a Walther 22, both semi automatic pistols. If the guy yesterday hadn't brought the AR-15, he still had a pistol to do his despicable deed.

Folks, we need to have better mental evaluations, but we need to protect our children. Every school should have a well trained and armed resource officer. I would also encourage schools to look at "Faster Colorado" which instructs teachers in the use of firearms and other protective measure in this dangerous day and age.

Totally understand where you're coming from, we disagree but that's fine - I posted my original question because I wanted to hear what other people think, not to convince them 👊

To your point about school resource officers - the police were engaged with the shooter BEFORE he got to the school.  A good guy with a gun (or several of them) didn't stop this, so why do we think a glorified security guard would? https://www.newsweek.com/officers-engaged-gunman-before-mass-shooting-1709870

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Be careful about using cherry picked data to support an argument. https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/  shows over 100 mass shooting so Ar-15s may have been used in 10%? Not the 100% that is implied. Just an example of someone pushing their anti AR15 agenda, IMO. 

My friend, you do the same thing all the time :) I didn't do the extensive research, but I don't think that was implying that the tweet was an exhaustive list of shootings where AR-15's were used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Be careful about using cherry picked data to support an argument. https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/  shows over 100 mass shooting so Ar-15s may have been used in 10%? Not the 100% that is implied. Just an example of someone pushing their anti AR15 agenda, IMO. 

Do NOT lump the legal definition of a mass shooting (i.e. Billy Bob kills his ex-wife, her boyfriend, and his mother-in-law) with a mass shooting at a school.  

They are not remotely the same thing and people arguing that they are is a huge part of the problem, and one of the reasons why days like yesterday continue to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

Totally understand where you're coming from, we disagree but that's fine - I posted my original question because I wanted to hear what other people think, not to convince them 👊

To your point about school resource officers - the police were engaged with the shooter BEFORE he got to the school.  A good guy with a gun (or several of them) didn't stop this, so why do we think a glorified security guard would? https://www.newsweek.com/officers-engaged-gunman-before-mass-shooting-1709870

Access to the school should be restricted. One entry. Part of the "Faster Colorado" program along with many other ways to prevent this...

No one can gauge what another person will do in a pressure packed moment. Even a trained law enforcement officer could buckle. The video I saw of the shooter entering the building didn't look like he was under any kind of duress to me. If law enforcement engaged him outside and then gave him enough time to kill 20 people, that's a tragedy in itself.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

To the claim of UBC's affecting only 1% of gun sales - that does not appear to be correct.  It would affect between 13-22% of sales - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/16/steve-bullock/what-percentage-gun-sales-are-done-without-backgro/

I appreciate the hesitations people have, but this is a common-sense piece of legislation supported by, depending on what poll you read, 80-95% of Americans. 

According to the DOJ, 90% of criminals obtain their guns illegally. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

How about we start enforcing the existing laws and seeing if that works?

Gun shows are not exempt from background checks- https://reason.com/2021/04/09/contrary-to-what-biden-says-gun-show-sales-arent-exempt-from-background-checks/

There is overwhelming support for background checks. Your source, Politifact, claims 97%. 

However, Politifact has a terrible record  of reporting fair and honestly. You can see 100's of examples of their misrepresentations here- https://www.politifactbias.com/2019/01/politifacts-10-worst-fact-check-flubs.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Mass shootings account for a minimal amount of the gun deaths in the US (1%).

To flip this around. What are the chances you need an AR-15 to fend off a tyranical government coming to get you? What are the chances you need an AR-15 to fend off an armed intruder? What are the chances you need an AR-15 to fend off looters?

This is the least effective gun ever, we might as well just get rid of it then. 😎

 

Edited by tdhoosier
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

people arguing that they are is a huge part of the problem

Is that a vote for censorship? 

Come on man... we're discussing an issue. Automatically qualifying people with opposing viewpoints as "wrong" or "a part of the problem" isn't fair in my view. People are presenting opinions and I respect their right to do so...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Name one practical use of an automatic weapon outside of military or law enforcement?

What are we actually protecting ourselves from?  How many home invasions are committed by perpetrators using automatic weapons?  Okay, maybe ones involving drug cartels and the mob.  But, I think we can all agree that's a different situation than someone breaking into a home to commit a robbery or sexual assault.  Those perps can be stopped with a standard handgun or shotgun.

Again, name one practical use for an automatic weapon? 

 

Why do you think I support automatic weapons? They are already (mostly*) illegal. My point is that using the "automatic weapon" language isn't needed and merely flames emotions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

My friend, you do the same thing all the time :) I didn't do the extensive research, but I don't think that was implying that the tweet was an exhaustive list of shootings where AR-15's were used.

Understood. Just pointing out the same things people point out on my posts. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Is that a vote for censorship? 

Come on man... we're discussing an issue. Automatically qualifying people with opposing viewpoints as "wrong" or "a part of the problem" isn't fair in my view. People are presenting opinions and I respect their right to do so...

Amazing how an edit to my post can take it completely out of context.

I think my actual point got censored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Do NOT lump the legal definition of a mass shooting (i.e. Billy Bob kills his ex-wife, her boyfriend, and his mother-in-law) with a mass shooting at a school.  

They are not remotely the same thing and people arguing that they are is a huge part of the problem, and one of the reasons why days like yesterday continue to happen.

Mass shootings is no longer a relevant, or accurate, term. There is a mass shooting (by definition) practically every weekend in Chicago.  The Tweet @HoosierFaithful posted contained non school shootings. A mass shooting is a tragedy whether it happens in a school, church, movie theater or on the street in a bad part of town. All lives are precious. It disturbs me when a child is shot just as much as anybody else. Sorry "I'm part of the problem"

Edited by Reacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm bowing out of this topic after this post.

- No one has yet to provide a practical use of a weapon like the AR15 outside of military or law enforcement.

- No one has offered any compelling argument that the 2nd amendment had the AR15 in mind when it was written

- 'Facts' can be extremely misleading without context.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Amazing how an edit to my post can take it completely out of context.

I think my actual point got censored.

I understood your point, but any use of statistics can and will be used by both sides to support a point. 

The 1% I cited was from the government definition of a mass shooting (4 or more victims). Not really sure you can separate that from school shootings when making the case for banning "automatic" weapons (which are already banned).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I'm bowing out of this topic after this post.

- No one has yet to provide a practical use of a weapon like the AR15 outside of military or law enforcement.

- No one has offered any compelling argument that the 2nd amendment had the AR15 in mind when it was written

- 'Facts' can be extremely misleading without context.

I did, but I guess you either didn't see it or ignored it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the story of the Goldman Sachs employee being shot on the train in NYC-

https://abcnews.go.com/US/person-interest-identified-unprovoked-nyc-subway-shooting-sources/story?id=84908001&cid=social_twitter_abcn

20 prior arrests. 3 pending cases.... Why was he not in jail? And how could this criminal possibly have a gun? This was a senseless tragedy. And a very preventable one. The police did their job in arresting him (20 times). Why did the judge not incarcerate him? Those judges have blood on their hands. Why did he not serve full sentences? Keeping him in jail would have prevented countless crimes. 

"In January 2020, Abdullah was arrested as part of a gun-related case and in May 2017 he was charged with second-degree attempted murder as part of an 83-count federal indictment of the Harlem-based street gangs Fast Money and Nine Block. Abdullah was sentenced to three years in federal prison, but served just four months before being released in 2019."

This explains where criminals get their guns-

"It is believed the suspect handed the gun to a homeless man as he fled the Canal Street station. The homeless man then apparently sold the gun for $10 to a third person, who reported it to police, the sources said."

No background check would have saved this guys life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I'm bowing out of this topic after this post.

- No one has yet to provide a practical use of a weapon like the AR15 outside of military or law enforcement.

- No one has offered any compelling argument that the 2nd amendment had the AR15 in mind when it was written

- 'Facts' can be extremely misleading without context.

I am honestly "answering" your questions...

- The only use I, personally, would have for an AR15 would be to kill groundhogs doing crop/other damage to/on my farm place.

- I have wondered how our forefathers dealt with people who owned cannons?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

Love that Idea. I brought it up before. Train and arm teachers while we are at it.  Don't tell me there aren't some retired military that went into teaching that would already be well trained. Chicago Public schools used to have on duty police offers assigned inside the schools until they were kicked out. Apparently people objected to feeling safe? Many schools are already locked down to an extent but then doors left open because it is too much trouble to keep someone there to buzz kids in. I went to an after school event for my nephew a few weeks ago and was amazed I was able to enter a high school without being stopped / checked and roam the halls with tons of kids while trying to find out where  needed to go. 

I strongly disagree. Teachers need to teach, not be tasked with handling a firearm for a worst-case scenario. Arming them, placing the burden of self-preservation on teachers and the kids themselves, is not the answer, imho.

Arming teachers and teaching children how to protect themselves from an active shooter is not addressing the root problem, which is complex. It is merely trying to mitigate the symptoms of a system that has allowed it to happen in the first place.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MoyeCowbell said:

I strongly disagree. Teachers need to teach, not be tasked with handling a firearm for a worst-case scenario. Arming them, placing the burden of self-preservation on teachers and the kids themselves, is not the answer, imho.

Arming teachers and teaching children how to protect themselves from an active shooter is not addressing the root problem, which is complex. It is merely trying to mitigate the symptoms of a system that has allowed it to happen in the first place.

I don't think it is an either or. Both sides should be addressed. Treating the root causes will take time and in the meantime our children should not be sitting ducks. As @IUFLApointed out, there are successful programs around the country that train and arm teachers, or others, in the schools. I've never seen where all teachers should be armed but having a few that are willing and capable can go a long ways. 

According to your rationale, teachers shouldn't coach sports then. Spending hours per day doing that is much more of a distraction than maybe a couple hours per month of firearm / active shooter training. 

Lastly, Steve Kerr is in the news regarding the TX shooting. The same Steve Kerr who complained about having police in the schools. Put the police back and there is no need to arm and train teachers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rico said:

I am honestly "answering" your questions...

- The only use I, personally, would have for an AR15 would be to kill groundhogs doing crop/other damage to/on my farm place.

- I have wondered how our forefathers dealt with people who owned cannons?  

I think our forefather foresaw that their laws would not always be applicable in the future, which is why they allow amendments to the constitution. I believe that the constitution is a living and breathing document because of this. I don't give 2 shits about what our forefathers would have thought about a thought that they could not conceive at the time they wrote the constitution. Re-read that last sentence and and think about how dumb this is. What would they have thought about the 2nd amendment now???? Who cares!? Asking this is a pointless exercise. What they did think is that we can can be big boys and girls and amend the document as needed. That much we know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...