Walmart shooting

[swansong]

Funny. in 35 years, not a single gun that I own has ever jumped up and harmed anyone. Strange. 🤔

Hilarious. What's your point?

 

[swansong]

I don't care if it's military or not, any weapon that does the same thing is applicable here.
@swansong So you're saying any fire arm capable of firing multiple times? Why not go for an all out ban on things that can hurt you? You'd have the same luck.

All items aren't used in mass shootings. What's the common denominator in mass shootings?

 

[SerenityMoon]

All items aren't used in mass shootings. What's the common denominator in mass shootings?

The Common denominator is a person with a weapon in an area with out weapons.

 

[swansong]

Most areas at schools, malls, offices, uh, ya know, places, are areas without weapons.

 

[SerenityMoon]

Most areas at schools, malls, offices, uh, ya know, places, are areas without weapons.

Yep and one day you will understand that its not a gun problem its a people problem.

 

[swansong]

Oh, one day I will understand. So you think everything's fine, the US being the mass shooting capitol among democratic countries is fine.

 

[NavyWings]

They haven't been effective because there's a HUGE loophole in that check, it only applies to licensed dealers. Private sellers, gun shows and online sales aren't required to do background checks.


Oh, it's not a spray of bullets? Okay, I'll rephrase that and just say a stream of enough bullets that rips into your head so hard, some of those kids could only be identified by the shoes they were wearing because their faces were too shredded to recognize.

I don't care if it's military or not, any weapon that does the same thing is applicable here.

Not as "huge" a loophole as you might think.

A 2019 survey conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) found that some 43 percent of criminals had bought their firearms on the black market, 6 percent acquired them via theft, and 10 percent made a retail purchase – 0.8 percent purchased a weapon from a gun show.

 

[swansong]

I won't argue the size of the loophole but it is pretty daunting that with all this murder going on, not just mass shootings but daily homicides with guns, you can order these guns online and get them sent right to your house.

And I don't really buy the argument about the problem being the people and not the guns because other countries have people and you don't see the same wave of murder as the US.

 

[SerenityMoon]

You can not order guns on line and have them sent to your house. If you order a gun on line it must be mailed to a dealer.

Oh, one day I will understand. So you think everything's fine, the US being the mass shooting capitol among democratic countries is fine.

I never said it was fine. What I said was its not a gun problem its a people problem. Its a social economical people problem. When a people feel they have no other recourse to be heard the revert to violence. Its much deeper than just take away guns. There isn't space to time to resolve that issue or even scrape the surface of that discussion in a forums based media. But until you understand that an inanimate object is not the problem you can't have that discussion.
You say take away the guns? Make them illegal? If someone is willing to kill numerous people do you actually believe they care if they break a gun law?
Common sense is not a common virtue.

 

[swansong]

oops.

 

[swansong]

What I said was its not a gun problem its a people problem. Its a social economical people problem.

Of course it is, all problems stem from socio economic. Okay, so it's the people. Do we have to make it so easy for people to get machine guns?

Other developed countries have socio economic problems, you don't see the same level of kid slaughter over there.

You say take away the guns? Make them illegal?

No, I said I believe in the right to bear arms.

If someone is willing to kill numerous people do you actually believe they care if they break a gun law?

They don't need to break a gun law, that's the point. A lot of those mass shooters got their machine guns legally.

 

[Bread.]

While I agree with you, I thought Walmart stopped selling firearms. I'll raise your bet and take a bet that the shooter was white and a right winger. You know, the same people who are saying the Club Q shooting happened because there was (not true) "drag queen grooming event". Or that the people who stopped the shooter from retrieving hid AR 15 weren't heroes that Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero even though heroes save lives and don't take them?

I forget the percentage of shootings that went down when assault style weapons were banned, but I think it was in the 60's. These aren't guns purchased illegally, they're obtained legally in nearly every mass shooting but people wanna bring up Chicago instead of providing an easy solution which would be to ban these guns from being purchased or not allow unstable people to buy them.

They did not and I do believe a gentleman by the name of CJ1127 still owes me something

 

[SerenityMoon]

Of course it is, all problems stem from socio economic. Okay, so it's the people. Do we have to make it so easy for people to get machine guns?

Other developed countries have socio economic problems, you don't see the same level of kid slaughter over there.


No, I said I believe in the right to bear arms.

They don't need to break a gun law, that's the point. A lot of those mass shooters got their machine guns legally.

Well Machine guns are illegal for MOST of the public to own. Although there are few that have special licenses.
To legally own a machine gun, you first have to apply for approval from the federal government. After purchasing the gun, you must fill out an ATF Form 4 application and wait for approval before taking possession of the firearm.
I believe you don't understand the definition of a machine Gun. None of the Mass shootings in the last 10 years have involved a machine gun. Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 151 different handguns being used in 103 incidents between 1982 and November 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 137 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings.

 

[SerenityMoon]

That argument is stupid. If the government wants to become tyrannical, they will. You having that AR 15 in your closet isn't going to matter when an Abram's tank is firing shells into your living room.


You're also twisting your facts. The AR 15 was first used by the military as the M16 debuting in Vietnam. They then modified them for civilian use in the late 80s until the rise in mass shootings had them banned in 94 but even during then, the military still used them. Just because they were made for civilian use, doesn't mean it makes it OK. It's legal to own a surface to air missile, does that make it right just because you can?



The second amendment was made during the time were muskets were used, not AR 15's. It's a broad term and you could make the same argument that fully automatic guns and belt fed machine guns should also be made legal.

9/10 times the gun used in mass shootings is an AR 15. There's a reason pistols are the hardest guns to obtain and that's because they can cover a lot of areas and quickly reloaded, the AR 15 is even easier to use if you need to clear out a room. There's nothing an AR 15 does for home defense that a shotgun can't. Children are dying and this dumb argument is consistently used as an echo chamber even when gun violence went down by over 60% when they were banned.

So Miss informed.

 

[babydolla]

i wonder how many of the ppl here even having this debate are even from america 💁🏼‍♀️

 

[Bread.]

That argument is stupid. If the government wants to become tyrannical, they will. You having that AR 15 in your closet isn't going to matter when an Abram's tank is firing shells into your living room.

The second amendment was made during the time were muskets were used, not AR 15's. It's a broad term and you could make the same argument that fully automatic guns and belt fed machine guns should also be made legal.

9/10 times the gun used in mass shootings is an AR 15. There's a reason pistols are the hardest guns to obtain and that's because they can cover a lot of areas and quickly reloaded, the AR 15 is even easier to use if you need to clear out a room. There's nothing an AR 15 does for home defense that a shotgun can't. Children are dying and this dumb argument is consistently used as an echo chamber even when gun violence went down by over 60% when they were banned.

You do realise there are plenty of conventional methods for civilians to destroy the tanks, people in the in the tanks, or render them immovable. You do realise that even in your hypothetical scenario having the right to bear arms "AR 15" is better than trying to combat an Abram or the army that comes with it, with sticks and stones. 9/10 times the guns used in mass shootings may be AR15s but guess what, 10/10 times the people who do mass shootings are nutjobs. The 2nd amendment was not created for home defense it was created for self defense. That includes defending yourself against a tyrannical government as well as as diabolically psychotic people. Banning guns is not going to stop or deter mentally ill people who seek to harm to themselves or others. Theres a reason the military doesnt send their own soldiers out on the battlefield to defend themselves with shotguns.

 

[Deleted member 292068]

You do realise there are plenty of conventional methods for civilians to destroy the tanks, people in the in the tanks, or render them immovable. You do realise that even in your hypothetical scenario having the right to bear arms "AR 15" is better than trying to combat an Abram or the army that comes with it, with sticks and stones. 9/10 times the guns used in mass shootings may be AR15s but guess what, 10/10 times the people who do mass shootings are nutjobs. The 2nd amendment was not created for home defense it was created for self defense. That includes defending yourself against a tyrannical government as well as as diabolically psychotic people. Banning guns is not going to stop or deter mentally ill people who seek to harm to themselves or others. Theres a reason the military doesnt send their own soldiers out on the battlefield to defend themselves with shotguns.

Your argument supports the thread makers point, more than you think. If it's so easy to take out a tank, the Ukraine wouldn't have been funded so much.

No one is saying bam guns, we're talking about banning assault style rifles and having stricter laws. Banning the mentally ill from obtaining guns would be a start, but Trump removed that law.

As for your battlefield argument, a living room where a shotgun is efficient, isn't the same as an open field.

Also the 2nd Amendment was made during a time where we didn't have air crafts, tanks, mentally unstable people shooting up schools. We had muskets and cannons. It was made so long ago and needs to be revised.

 

[SerenityMoon]

Your argument supports the thread makers point, more than you think. If it's so easy to take out a tank, the Ukraine wouldn't have been funded so much.

No one is saying bam guns, we're talking about banning assault style rifles and having stricter laws. Banning the mentally ill from obtaining guns would be a start, but Trump removed that law.

As for your battlefield argument, a living room where a shotgun is efficient, isn't the same as an open field.

Its amazing how the places with the most strict gun laws have the highest gun crime.
Shall not be infringed comes to mind.
I'm pretty sure that any gun owner or gun advocate would agree that if you could legislate one gun law that was enforceable that would prevent crime they would support it.
Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 151 different handguns being used in 103 incidents between 1982 and November 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 137 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings.

 

[Bread.]

Your argument supports the thread makers point, more than you think. If it's so easy to take out a tank, the Ukraine wouldn't have been funded so much.

I didn't say it was easy to take out a tank I said there are conventional ways to take them out. But the governments don't just have tanks they have soldiers with guns at their disposal. And thats why i mentioned sticks and stones, sure we could fight them with handguns but when they have ar 15s then we are disatvantaged. Not like we are already at a disatvantage to begin with since they much much more than ar 15. But having modern tactical grade long range weapons instead of muskets and hanguns would be more conductive to overthrowing a tyrannical government, army, or any other form of someone threatening our well being and freedom.

No one is saying ban guns, we're talking about banning assault style rifles and having stricter laws. Banning the mentally ill from obtaining guns would be a start, but Trump removed that law.

Idk i didnt read the whole thread im just here to argue. I just saw mass shooting and ar15 and people flipping out about gun control so naturally i wanted to say my opinion.

As for your battlefield argument, a living room where a shotgun is efficient, isn't the same as an open field.

Yes i agree its not the same so i dont know why you came up with the argument that you only need to bear arms (shotgun) for home defense. 2nd amendement is more than just home defense.

Also the 2nd Amendment was made during a time where we didn't have air crafts, tanks, mentally unstable people shooting up schools. We had muskets and cannons. It was made so long ago and needs to be revised.

I dont suppose making a revision to "ban ARs" its going to be revised in favor of the people either. You give them permission to start revising the 2nd ammendment to take away things and soon they will be revising all amendments until your basic human rights are gone. Revisions that have already been made were made to further expand or extend rights already guaranteed to us. Not take them away.

 

[Bread.]

Also just to make a point.
Mass shootings only account for like what less than 1-3% of all gun related deaths in the usa?
Round that number and its like 500 deaths per year.
While the other 97-99% are suicides and homicides?
Which account for what like 50k deaths per year?
(yes children die in suicides and homicides too not just mass shootings)

So what matters more 500 deaths or 50 thousand?

If ar15s are so much more dangerous than guns or "any other weapon" that they need to banned then why is rifles/assault rifles the lowest category for homicides. (this is total rifle graph not just assault style rifle)

For every given "rifle death" there is about 15 handgun deaths". Banning ARs is not going to stop mass shootings from happening. You ban ARs and mentally ill people will buy handguns or vehicles or explosives or whatever else they can to cause harm.