Wow, who knew that the massively lower mass shooting rates in the UK and France and Australia and Japan was just due to cowardice and being losers.


What an incredibly ignorant argument. Thank you for showing your true self though, it takes a lot of bravery to publicly air one's stupidity.

Your argument style and your fear of seeing the truth codes as low class. Do better.

It is due to those countries not having access to the lead by tool the american population has.... There are clear differences between our population and their population. Grow up.

This is your problem then. This is a thread about mass shootings. You're spouting off about mass murder in general. You may want to find another thread to spout off in. Those are two different things. The solution to the former is gun control.

Dude quit with the attitude. What did he or anyone else here say to make you respond like that? Argue the point, not the poster or this thread will get locked like all the others have.

And a mass shooting is a mass murder with guns…the premise that if someone wanted to kill a bunch of people and would find a way to carry that out even if the person didn’t have a gun is relevant to this discussion.

This is your problem then. This is a thread about mass shootings. You're spouting off about mass murder in general. You may want to find another thread to spout off in. Those are two different things. The solution to the former is gun control.

True but murder is murder... You take away one option and another will be used... You really didn't solve the overall problem. You just removed a tool.

Dude quit with the attitude. What did he or anyone else here say to make you respond like that? Argue the point, not the poster or this thread will get locked like all the others have.

And a mass shooting is a mass murder with guns…the premise that if someone wanted to kill a bunch of people and would find a way to carry that out even if the person didn’t have a gun is relevant to this discussion.

Yes and making it harder to kill people by removing tools of mass murder, like guns, is a well-proven way to lower the homicide rate.

Your argument style and your fear of seeing the truth codes as low class. Do better.

It is due to those countries not having access to the lead by tool the american population has.... There are clear differences between our population and their population. Grow up.

Yes and their population has lower homicide and mass shooting rates than we do. Sounds like we're the losers here. Feel free to add proof of your position at any time by the way, otherwise you just seem wholly out of your depth.

Yes and their population has lower homicide and mass shooting rates than we do. Sounds like we're the losers here. Feel free to add proof of your position at any time by the way, otherwise you just seem wholly out of your depth.

Continue to place your head in the sand and continue to get the same results. We can never progress with your same old tired ideas and your same old discussion methods. Enjoy your thread sir.

Continue to place your head in the sand and continue to get the same results. We can never progress with your same old tired ideas and your same old discussion methods. Enjoy your thread sir.

I'm open to new ideas. Show me the data. What are you basing your argument on? Or are you going to continue with just spouting things without actually backing them up?

I'm open to new ideas. Show me the data. What are you basing your argument on? Or are you going to continue with just spouting things without actually backing them up?

As I asked earlier…what is the likelihood that what you’re proposing, the ban and confiscation of all firearms, is remotely possible from a political or practical stand point in the US?

Yes and making it harder to kill people by removing tools of mass murder, like guns, is a well-proven way to lower the homicide rate.

Why are you “spouting off” about mass murder in a mass shooting thread?

It's the guns.

It's the vehicles killing nearly 38K people a year in motor accidents.

I agree. It's the guns. The blame also lies with the El Paso County officials in Colorado who refused to enforce the red flag laws on the books.

https://www.kktv.com/content/news/El-Paso-County--507063911.html

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/11/colorado-springs-mass-shooting-red-flag/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=trace-branded&utm_content=edit-promo

But of course nothing will happen and kids in schools, church goers, bar hoppers, and grocery shoppers will continue to be senselessly slaughtered.

Why are you “spouting off” about mass murder in a mass shooting thread?

Because I was responding to someone who brought it up in the first place. I'm glad you agree that conversation about mass murder in general really doesn't belong here, which is the point I was making earlier.

Because I was responding to someone who brought it up in the first place. I'm glad you agree that conversation about mass murder in general really doesn't belong here, which is the point I was making earlier.

LOL

And you still haven’t answered my question.

As I asked earlier…what is the likelihood that what you’re proposing, the ban and confiscation of all firearms, is remotely possible from a political or practical stand point in the US?
It's not. It's a pipe dream of anti-gun proponents.

Yes and making it harder to kill people by removing tools of mass murder, like guns, is a well-proven way to lower the homicide rate.And as I've pointed out that simply isn't possible in the US in the foreseeable future. Our gun culture is completely different than anywhere else in the world. Much like many of our customs. Come up with something else that will work.

And as I've pointed out that simply isn't possible in the US in the foreseeable future. Our gun culture is completely different than anywhere else in the world. Much like many of our customs. Come up with something else that will work.

This... Polisci this...

Maybe we could consider the ways our society has changed in tandem with the escalation of mass shootings. But that sort of work would be hard, much harder than getting the federal government to pass a law and then move on to the next hot topic of the moment.

Believe it on not we just had an issue defending my need to be armed. Our Ring door bell rang and I didn't know the guy at the door. He rang it three times. Then he started BANGING on our glass storm door screaming that we had to answer the door. So I answered with my Glock pointing at his chest. He ran as fast as he could go. I'm sure many will question this story being true but as God as my witness it happened!

Smart guns would be a viable way to start the process of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong folks.
https://nj.com/politics/2019/06/smart-gun-debate-reignites-in-nj-with-bill-requiring-gun-shops-to-sell-them.html

Did the politics board re-open?

Why do you consider this a political issue?

Actually thought for the most part we’ve done a decent job avoiding the politics on this one so far.

Just reported a mass shooting inside a Walmart near Chesapeake Virginia.

And this goes on and on. It seems like another copycat massacre due to some "looney tune" seeing all the attention from the media. There are many other valid points also.

What are usually called assault weapons like AK47s and AR15s and/or clones are readily available at most any store that sells guns.

where can i buy an ak 47 ?? that would be great ...

an assualt weapon can fire fully automatic . .. and ususally a 3 round burst ..

an ar15 is a sporting rifle ... people just don't like how it looks ....

I cannot imagine that Gen Z will allow the current setup to last very long once they find their way into cross generational influence and political power.

I'd say those who believe that we should not create additional legislation at this time have about 10 years to start creating something that improves the issue before it cements Gen Z's views and about 20 years before the 2nd amendment's future is in question.

where can i buy an ak 47 ?? that would be great ...

an assualt weapon can fire fully automatic . .. and ususally a 3 round burst ..

an ar15 is a sporting rifle ... people just don't like how it looks ....
I did say "or clones". And most people think of those styles of rifles as assault rifles. Mainly because when news reports on mass shootings with those styles of rifle they call them assault rifles. Yes technically a rifle has to be selective fire to really be an assault rifle.

Yes technically a rifle has to be selective fire to really be an assault rifle.


agree

where can i buy an ak 47 ?? that would be great ...

an assualt weapon can fire fully automatic . .. and ususally a 3 round burst ..

an ar15 is a sporting rifle ... people just don't like how it looks ....

You’re just defining it however you want. But during the assault rifle ban the government had simple and clear definition of what constitutes an assault rifle. Pistol grip, collapsible stock, detachable magazines, threaded barrel.

It’s clear and obvious that the ability to fire 30 or more rounds using a high velocity bullet from a light and easily handled rifle is why it’s the weapon of choice for those who want to kill many people quickly.

YouÂ’re just defining it however you want. But during the assault rifle ban the government had simple and clear definition of what constitutes an assault rifle. Pistol grip, collapsible stock, detachable magazines, threaded barrel.

ItÂ’s clear and obvious that the ability to fire 30 or more rounds using a high velocity bullet from a light and easily handled rifle is why itÂ’s the weapon of choice for those who want to kill many people quickly.

the assult rifle was defined for decades and decades .... PR choices do not change the meaning of words ...

the AR platform is not a Military weapon .. i was in the military ... again .. PR ... it is also not a particularly powerful weapon ..

PR? The federal government is who came up with this simple and clear definition.

PR? The federal government is who came up with this simple and clear definition.

congress ...... that is all about PR >>>>>......

and again . it is not simple or clear ... and factually and historically inaccurate ..

I did say "or clones". And most people think of those styles of rifles as assault rifles. Mainly because when news reports on mass shootings with those styles of rifle they call them assault rifles. Yes technically a rifle has to be selective fire to really be an assault rifle.

The press knowingly reporting false information to juice the ratings? Imagine my shock.

You’re just defining it however you want. But during the assault rifle ban the government had simple and clear definition of what constitutes an assault rifle. Pistol grip, collapsible stock, detachable magazines, threaded barrel.

It’s clear and obvious that the ability to fire 30 or more rounds using a high velocity bullet from a light and easily handled rifle is why it’s the weapon of choice for those who want to kill many people quickly.
Actually it's a US Army definition and BoulderSooner is technically correct.

"The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."

The 1994 law banned "Semiautomatic assault weapons" so Congress did pretty much create that definition.

I did say "or clones". And most people think of those styles of rifles as assault rifles. Mainly because when news reports on mass shootings with those styles of rifle they call them assault rifles. Yes technically a rifle has to be selective fire to really be an assault rifle.

With the legislation banning bump stocks only being upheld this year it was simple to make a semi automatic AR-15 into an assault weapon.
To learn about the AR-15 and tbe military version of the same weapon, the M-16, here is a link to the history of this weapon. The M-16 was directly based on the AR-15. Also the AR-15 was introduced in 1959 to the Air Force. To say the AR is not a military platform one must ignore history or be disingenous in their arguement.

A nod to the poster who mentioned the assault weapon ban of 1994. This weapon was rightly banned.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-complete-history-of-the-ar-15-rifle

My concern is the young age most of these shooters have been. At their young age why is there a disconnect about how sacred life is?? A more difficult question is how can we help a younger generation deal with their mental health struggles so their mass killing temptation can be curtailed?

With the legislation banning bump stocks only being upheld this year it was simple to make a semi automatic AR-15 into an assault weapon.
To learn about the AR-15 and tbe military version of the same weapon, the M-16, here is a link to the history of this weapon. The M-16 was directly based on the AR-15. Also the AR-15 was introduced in 1959 to the Air Force. To say the AR is not a military platform one must ignore history or be disingenous in their arguement.

A nod to the poster who mentioned the assault weapon ban of 1994. This weapon was rightly banned.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-complete-history-of-the-ar-15-rifleWhere in the quote you referenced did I say an AR isn't a military platform?
And as to bump stocks I'm really, and pleasantly surprised the current shooters aren't using them. The designs were so readily available before being banned that I'm sure a determined person could get a design and lots of people have 3D printers.

My concern is the young age most of these shooters have been. At their young age why is there a disconnect about how sacred life is?? A more difficult question is how can we help a younger generation deal with their mental health struggles so their mass killing temptation can be curtailed?
I agree completely.
If that question could be answered we'd be a long way towards fixing the problem.
If that question could be answered we'd be able to completely fix the problem.

Where in the quote you referenced did I say an AR isn't a military platform?
And as to bump stocks I'm really, and pleasantly surprised the current shooters aren't using them. The designs were so readily available before being banned that I'm sure a determined person could get a design and lots of people have 3D printers.

It is obvious that you did not say the AR-15 was not a military platform, the poster in # 89 did. Providing your quote was a point of refrence about semi-automatic weapons v. automatic weapons. My apologies if I offended you. I just didn't want to make a separate post when you and the same poster were defining "assualt" weapons and I wanted to clarify the AR-15.

It is obvious that you did not say the AR-15 was not a military platform, the poster in # 89 did. Providing your quote was a point of refrence about semi-automatic weapons v. automatic weapons. My apologies if I offended you.Ok. We're fine. I've just seemed to have a rash of posters telling me I'm wrong when they're misquoting me. So I'm a bit testy right now. The main offender is banned so need to get over it.

Just reported a mass shooting inside a Walmart near Chesapeake Virginia. I just read the latest on this shooting. A manager walking into a routine employee meeting and opens fire. I'm in no way capable of doing such a horrible thing but next week I have to call a meeting with my people to address some changes that corporate is making and the Walmart shootings will be on my mind. It definitely sucks.

In 1986 3 million new guns were sold in the US. In 2016 11.5 million new guns were sold in the US. Growth patterns suggest over 12.5 million new guns sold in 2022. These are ATF numbers. Unlike cars and VCRs, guns have longevity and functionality levels closer to bricks and wall plugs.

America is awash in guns and the gun lobby is the most successful in US history. No society on earth has ever had more guns and more liberal gun laws than the US today.

And as I've pointed out that simply isn't possible in the US in the foreseeable future. Our gun culture is completely different than anywhere else in the world. Much like many of our customs. Come up with something else that will work.

This right here is why we have mass shootings. Our gun culture is different from anywhere else in the world, and our society is worse off for it.

Is there a solution? Probably not. The second amendment is an unalterable suicide pact and we're just going to have to live and die with that. It won't get better and will most likely just keep getting worse.

My concern is the young age most of these shooters have been. At their young age why is there a disconnect about how sacred life is?? A more difficult question is how can we help a younger generation deal with their mental health struggles so their mass killing temptation can be curtailed?

Some young people are taught that certain lives aren’t sacred. It’s a lot easier to commit these violent crimes when you don’t see the people you’re aiming at as human.

Some young people are taught that certain lives aren’t sacred. It’s a lot easier to commit these violent crimes when you don’t see the people you’re aiming at as human.
So, who is teaching them that? And which young kids are you talking about?

The second amendment is an unalterable suicide pact and we're just going to have to live and die with that. It won't get better and will most likely just keep getting worse.

I'd tend to disagree. It comes down to the SCOTUS. If, for example, Congress was to pass a comprehensive militia regulatory framework in which it commissioned officers of the militia, provisioned the militia and determined qualifications for membership in the militia, I could see a path for an evolution of the understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

Remember, the first half of it is pretty much ignored by the gun nuts.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It certainly seems that the original intent was that there would be a militia and that it would be a well-regulated one.

Right now, the Court is a political problem. With the recent goings-on with Alito being outed for leaking the Hobby Lobby opinion to right wing donors prior to its release, and the increased likelihood he is also the source of the Dobbs leak, the right wing justices of that body are forfeiting the argument that the SCOTUS is an apolitical body. This certainly makes court expansion/reform far more palatable to me.

So, who is teaching them that? And which young kids are you talking about?

Specifically the Colorado shooter is the young person I’m talking about in this instance. As far as who was teaching him, that would be his immediate family. The news interview the shooter’s dad gave after the crime was committed was one of the most grotesque things I’ve ever heard.

Although generally, the internet is a great tool for radicalizing certain young people in this way.

^ I quite honestly thought that interview was a (sick) parody when I first saw it. Disgusting.

I'd tend to disagree. It comes down to the SCOTUS. If, for example, Congress was to pass a comprehensive militia regulatory framework in which it commissioned officers of the militia, provisioned the militia and determined qualifications for membership in the militia, I could see a path for an evolution of the understanding of the 2nd Amendment than the 1st half of it.

Remember, the first half of it is pretty much ignored by the gun nuts.



It certainly seems that the original intent was that there would be a militia and that it would be a well-regulated one.

Right now, the Court is a political problem. With the recent goings-on with Alito being outed for leaking the Hobby Lobby opinion to right wing donors prior to its release, and the increased likelihood he is also the source of the Dobbs leak, the right wing justices of that body are forfeiting the argument that the SCOTUS is an apolitical body. This certainly makes court expansion/reform far more palatable to me.

The Supreme Court may always be a political problem for the foreseeable future as long as the 2nd Amendment isn't abolished or changed to reflect modern times. In other words, conservative high courts will always think it's more important to pay more serious and literal attention to the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment. Too bad how the 2nd Amendment wasn't more clearly written. But, no doubt, times were much different back when it was written.

After essentially nothing was done after the shocking, record-breaking Las Vegas and Orlando mass shootings, along with a congressman among 6 shot at a Congressional Baseball Game, I've given up hope that anything can be done about stopping mass shootings through gun control. Years before a congress woman was severally wounded from a shooting. So, mass shootings will continue. Gun rights supporters rule. They think the 2nd Amendment is more important to protect for the country than innocent human lives. If you like to be at mass gatherings, then better consider making a will or updating one if needed. In Oklahoma, the opposite of gun control could happen if state legislators pass a bill that all criminals getting out of prison must have their 2nd Amendment rights restored, unless federal laws would overrule it. After all, as gun rights supporters would reason, they have done their time for society.

Roosevelt didn't need to resort to packing the Supreme Court because enough justices eventually came around to see things his way. But I'm afraid the present court won't see how much sensible gun control is needed without packing it.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens (https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1849807678)

It may be intended as satire from that satire site but is closer to the truth than satire.

Specifically the Colorado shooter is the young person I’m talking about in this instance. As far as who was teaching him, that would be his immediate family. The news interview the shooter’s dad gave after the crime was committed was one of the most grotesque things I’ve ever heard.

Although generally, the internet is a great tool for radicalizing certain young people in this way.
Wow I went and looked that up. It almost seems like the dad knew he failed but he is tweaking hardcore:


https://youtu.be/0f6TXdNXcWk

Roosevelt didn't need to resort to packing the Supreme Court because enough justices eventually came around to see things his way. But I'm afraid the present court won't see how much sensible gun control is needed without packing it.

Roosevelt would have packed the Court had Justice Roberts not switched his vote. It's a political body. It's acting like a political body and it's time it started being treated as a political body.

And Oklahoma won't restore gun rights to felons because the whole idea of keeping guns out of felons' hands is based upon keeping white folks armed and black folks disarmed.

--and for the redneck parts of the State, the whole felon not being able to keep a firearm thing is what makes bow hunting season so popular.

Roosevelt would have packed the Court had Justice Roberts not switched his vote. It's a political body. It's acting like a political body and it's time it started being treated as a political body.

And Oklahoma won't restore gun rights to felons because the whole idea of keeping guns out of felons' hands is based upon keeping white folks armed and black folks disarmed.

--and for the redneck parts of the State, the whole felon not being able to keep a firearm thing is what makes bow hunting season so popular.

Do the Democrats have enough votes to pack with a 50 or 51 seat majority?

Seems like you’d need 60+ votes to change the Court’s composition. And I’m not sure it would play well electorally.

You act as though the court is there to rule based on popularity. They rule based on their interpretations of the law and the constitution. I certainly don't like every judgement they make, now or in the past, but l do know the justices have far more experience and knowledge than any of us on here.

Do the Democrats have enough votes to pack with a 50 or 51 seat majority?

Seems like you’d need 60+ votes to change the Court’s composition. And I’m not sure it would play well electorally.

60 votes is only a Senate rule, that rule can be changed with 51 votes.

the assult rifle was defined for decades and decades .... PR choices do not change the meaning of words ...

the AR platform is not a Military weapon .. i was in the military ... again .. PR ... it is also not a particularly powerful weapon ..

The issue with the AR variants is not the "power" of the weapon, it's the amount of people who can be killed in a short period of time.

Do the Democrats have enough votes to pack with a 50 or 51 seat majority?

Seems like you’d need 60+ votes to change the Court’s composition. And I’m not sure it would play well electorally.

I tend to agree with you, but this is such a polarized electorate, it's possible that NOT doing something could hurt the Dems more than doing something that may upset middle of the road voters. There basically aren't any middle of the road voters any more.

Roosevelt would have packed the Court had Justice Roberts not switched his vote. It's a political body. It's acting like a political body and it's time it started being treated as a political body.

And Oklahoma won't restore gun rights to felons because the whole idea of keeping guns out of felons' hands is based upon keeping white folks armed and black folks disarmed.

--and for the redneck parts of the State, the whole felon not being able to keep a firearm thing is what makes bow hunting season so popular.

Did you feel that way when it had a left leaning majority or just now that it has a right leaning majority?

The Supreme Court may always be a political problem for the foreseeable future as long as the 2nd Amendment isn't abolished or changed to reflect modern times. In other words, conservative high courts will always think it's more important to pay more serious and literal attention to the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment. Too bad how the 2nd Amendment wasn't more clearly written. But, no doubt, times were much different back when it was written.

After essentially nothing was done after the shocking, record-breaking Las Vegas and Orlando mass shootings, along with a congressman among 6 shot at a Congressional Baseball Game, I've given up hope that anything can be done about stopping mass shootings through gun control. Years before a congress woman was severally wounded from a shooting. So, mass shootings will continue. Gun rights supporters rule. They think the 2nd Amendment is more important to protect for the country than innocent human lives. If you like to be at mass gatherings, then better consider making a will or updating one if needed. In Oklahoma, the opposite of gun control could happen if state legislators pass a bill that all criminals getting out of prison must have their 2nd Amendment rights restored, unless federal laws would overrule it. After all, as gun rights supporters would reason, they have done their time for society.

Roosevelt didn't need to resort to packing the Supreme Court because enough justices eventually came around to see things his way. But I'm afraid the present court won't see how much sensible gun control is needed without packing it.

This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s role. It’s not the court’s job to see how much “sensible gun control” is needed. That’s the legislature’s job, it’s the court’s job to determine whether the laws passed by the legislature are constitutional if challenged. If they determine them not to be constitutional then it’s the legislature’s job to amend the constitution so that the sensible gun control that was ruled unconstitutional wouldn’t be any longer.

Democrats had the majority in both houses from 2007-2011 (along with the presidency from 2008-2011 and at some point during that time I believe had a super majority) and controlled the house, senate and presidency from January 2021 through January 2023. Obviously the Democratic Party would be the most likely to agree on and pass sensible gun control policies…why haven’t they done more when they’ve been able to and why haven’t the laws they’ve passed made a much of a difference?

Howard Woodridge is a retired police officer who now works as a lobbyist in DC to try to convince Congress to legalize drugs. He regularly attends a weekly meeting of 100 very big shooter conservative Republicans who discuss a variety of issues. Never ever do they bring up that there’s a problem of mass shootings in this country. Instead, the problem of transgender athletes comes up on a regular basis. So, no wonder that was the only political issue in TV ads that Markwayne Mullin concerned himself with when running for senator. He likely thinks more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is the best way to combat mass shootings. But that would probably make more mass shooters see the importance of putting on body armor. The upside of that is they will be easier to take down by people brave enough to try to do it and they won't be able to run away as fast. But I sure don't see how more guns will reduce the number of suicides by gun. The majority of gun deaths are done that way.

As for the drug issue, Woodridge believes the main part of his work is to convince DC Republicans and Democrats to employ the 10th amendment, when it comes to the issue of marijuana and other drugs.

This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s role. It’s not the court’s job to see how much “sensible gun control” is needed. That’s the legislature’s job, it’s the court’s job to determine whether the laws passed by the legislature are constitutional if challenged. If they determine them not to be constitutional then it’s the legislature’s job to amend the constitution so that the sensible gun control that was ruled unconstitutional wouldn’t be any longer.

Democrats had the majority in both houses from 2007-2011 (along with the presidency from 2008-2011 and at some point during that time I believe had a super majority) and controlled the house, senate and presidency from January 2021 through January 2023. Obviously, the Democratic Party would be the most likely to agree on and pass sensible gun control policies…why haven’t they done more when they’ve been able to and why haven’t the laws they’ve passed made a much of a difference?

The sad and sorry situation simply reflects that the 2nd Amendment is too vague for these modern times and should be abolished or substantially changed. The 2nd half of it goes: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What can that mean? That it is unconstitutional to deny convicted armed robbers their arms when they get out of prison for starters?

The first half goes, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." What does that mean? That convicted armed bank robbers just out of prison should not be trusted to join a well-regulated militia and can be banned from joining? Of course, they should still have the right to keep their arms as a non-member, if you take the second half of the 2nd Amendment literally and seriously. If I was a Supreme Court Justice, I sure wouldn't like how to decide on gun control laws at all and would tell Congress to do something about the 2nd Amendment.