More mass shootings

[jakee 1,490]

wmw999

Maybe this is just his equivalent of the "fuck you, see if you can figure it out."

I think it's more like, no-one knows what's going to happen when they start firing machine guns out of a hotel window into a music festival crowd, because no-one who wants to do it has ever done it before.

He doesn't know how long it's going to take for the police to find him, he doesn't know how long it's going to take for the crowd to disperse, he doesn't know if he's going to get hit by a crippling wave of emotion as the reality of what he's doing sets in halfway through the massacre. How could you know? So, since it was obviously easy enough for him to bring them in, why wouldn't he stock up enough guns and ammunition for his 'best case' scenario, while being aware that he probably wouldn't end up using all of them.

Like the guy at the all you can eat buffet who loads up four plates before suddenly needing to barf halfway through the second one.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bob_Church 7]

"Why did this guy have so many guns in his room that he did not use?"

Look at how often we jump with twice as many parachutes as we need.

This guy was rich and pretty much positive that this would be a one off. If he does live through the night he'll spend the rest of his life in a cage. If someone, someone he gets away he's not going to be able to access his money or legally buy firearms, and illegal ones are sometimes a lot more expensive. Especially if the seller knows who he is. So why scrimp? Why risk being one short after a couple of them jammed. It's not like he had any idea how long it would take for them to get to him.

[rushmc 23]

There we go, a solution you must start lobbying to get all that put in place congratulations

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[RonD1120 62]

kallend

******>There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

There is no law that can stop murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism or fraud.

But we have laws against all those things - and they help reduce murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud.

No, the laws do not deter them significantly. Everyone who commits those crimes believes they can get away with it. Criminals simply get smarter.

Based on your belief stated above, do you believe that there should be no laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud because those laws are as ineffective as you claim?

IMO, the laws provide a reasoned path for punishment not so much for effective deterrence.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[headoverheels 333]

kallend

Based on your belief stated above, do you believe that there should be no laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud because those laws are as ineffective as you claim?

Just because some bad people use their penises illegally and/or violently, it doesn't mean that I should have restrictions on mine.

[yoink 321]

rushmc

There we go, a solution! You must start lobbying to get all that put in place. Congratulations!

- punctuation mine...


Just so we're clear - in this post you have agreed that any one of the laws I suggested (if passed) would put a stop to these kind of incidents.

I'm glad we can finally agree that a law of some sort CAN indeed be developed and put in place that would theoretically stop these kinds of events.

So much for your 'there's no law' argument.

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

Wrong. Australia's experience gives the lie to your statement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[yarpos 4]

The law didnt stop it, the populations willingness to comply with the law stopped, if you beleive anything was stopped.

You woud never get that kind of compliance in the US and frankly I doubt your LEOs would even try to enforce it.

In reality gun related deaths were on a slow downward path in any case before the changes, that has just continued including the Port Arthur tragedy.

At a personal level as a shooter , I have no great problem with our gun laws and I think they are good insurance. I dont however hold them up as anything that would work in the US. Different culture, mindset and the gun availability horse has long bolted.

regards, Steve
the older I get...the better I was

[kallend 2,027]

yarpos

The law didnt stop it, the populations willingness to comply with the law stopped, if you beleive anything was stopped.

You woud never get that kind of compliance in the US and frankly I doubt your LEOs would even try to enforce it.

So you're saying that those "law abiding gun owners" aren't actually law abiding.

Got it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Blacksmith311 0]

Do you honestly believe that if they outright banned guns in America just like Australia it would work the same. That law abiding owners AND criminals would turn in every gun they can find? In a country where 300 million legal and illegal guns are held both in and out of registration identifying the actual owner?


Australia only had to deal with over a million guns, I'm not so sure with the US culture it would would out with similar results. I would foresee criminals and gangs buying up as many guns as they can before the ban and continue to operate as usual for decades to come only impacting legal owners the free easy opportunity to defend themselves.

[billvon 2,991]

>Do you honestly believe that if they outright banned guns in America just like
>Australia it would work the same.

Nope. They didn't outright ban guns in Australia so the question is sort of meaningless. It's like asking why gun owners love mass shootings so much.

> I would foresee criminals and gangs buying up as many guns as they can before
>the ban and continue to operate as usual for decades to come only impacting legal
>owners the free easy opportunity to defend themselves.

You figure there are no criminals and gangs in Australia?

[kallend 2,027]

Blacksmith311

Do you honestly believe that if they outright banned guns in America just like Australia it would work the same. That law abiding owners AND criminals would turn in every gun they can find? In a country where 300 million legal and illegal guns are held both in and out of registration identifying the actual owner?


Australia only had to deal with over a million guns, I'm not so sure with the US culture it would would out with similar results. I would foresee criminals and gangs buying up as many guns as they can before the ban and continue to operate as usual for decades to come only impacting legal owners the free easy opportunity to defend themselves.

Australia was founded as a penal colony, so there probably aren't any criminals there.

If it weren't for the fact that you can spell, I'd think you are a sock puppet for Marc Rush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

kallend

***Do you honestly believe that if they outright banned guns in America just like Australia it would work the same. That law abiding owners AND criminals would turn in every gun they can find? In a country where 300 million legal and illegal guns are held both in and out of registration identifying the actual owner?


Australia only had to deal with over a million guns, I'm not so sure with the US culture it would would out with similar results. I would foresee criminals and gangs buying up as many guns as they can before the ban and continue to operate as usual for decades to come only impacting legal owners the free easy opportunity to defend themselves.

Australia was founded as a penal colony, so there probably aren't any criminals there.

If it weren't for the fact that you can spell, I'd think you are a sock puppet for Marc Rush.

Well, signed up a while back, but no posts until recently.
ALL those posts are in SC.

Picked up the arguments very smoothly, as if he was here before. Pro gun, anti liberal.

Very good spelling, grammar & punctuation.

Remind you of anyone?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Blacksmith311 0]

Understood, don't take my word for it. This is what I am referring to.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21884/should-us-adopt-australias-gun-laws-heres-why-james-barrett

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-assault-rifle-bans-wont-work-in-the-us-20151214-glnk2l.html

https://mic.com/articles/146380/why-australia-s-gun-ban-wouldn-t-work-in-the-us-according-to-australians#.yR5QGhozN

[nolhtairt 0]

RonD1120

*********>There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

There is no law that can stop murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism or fraud.

But we have laws against all those things - and they help reduce murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud.

No, the laws do not deter them significantly. Everyone who commits those crimes believes they can get away with it. Criminals simply get smarter.

Based on your belief stated above, do you believe that there should be no laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud because those laws are as ineffective as you claim?

IMO, the laws provide a reasoned path for punishment not so much for effective deterrence.

One way to effectively deter habitual drunk drivers is to impound their vehicles. Force them to find rides if they have jobs to go to. I'd institute this after the 2nd DUI.

[normiss 801]

Easy to apply the removal of licensing to weapons violations as well.
Seems to work on auto insurance non-compliance, lack of paying child support, possession of various drugs, domestic abuse cases, excessive traffic violations, medical conditions, as well as a handful of other legal situations I'm still unaware of.

[rushmc 23]

yoink

***There we go, a solution! You must start lobbying to get all that put in place. Congratulations!

- punctuation mine...


Just so we're clear - in this post you have agreed that any one of the laws I suggested (if passed) would put a stop to these kind of incidents.

I'm glad we can finally agree that a law of some sort CAN indeed be developed and put in place that would theoretically stop these kinds of events.

So much for your 'there's no law' argument.

You missed the sarcasm.

What you suggests was a list of ridicules proposals that are worse than what we have and you know damned well not one of them is viable.

In short, you ain't got shit......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

Wrong. Australia's experience gives the lie to your statement.

Ahhh
You had better get better info there dude.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yoink 321]

rushmc

******There we go, a solution! You must start lobbying to get all that put in place. Congratulations!

- punctuation mine...


Just so we're clear - in this post you have agreed that any one of the laws I suggested (if passed) would put a stop to these kind of incidents.

I'm glad we can finally agree that a law of some sort CAN indeed be developed and put in place that would theoretically stop these kinds of events.

So much for your 'there's no law' argument.

You missed the sarcasm.

What you suggests was a list of ridicules proposals that are worse than what we have and you know damned well not one of them is viable.

In short, you ain't got shit......

Now you're changing the goalposts.

You have stated repeatedly that 'no law would stop these incidents'. That was the argument you kept making while offering nothing substantive of your own... You said nothing about the viability of getting the law passed, and 'worse' is entirely subjective.

In short, you're wrong. Again. As usual.

[billvon 2,991]

>Now you're changing the goalposts.

Of course he is. It's the old gun two-step.

"He could have killed them with a CAR! Why don't you ban CARS?"
"Cars have licensing, insurance, inspection and registration requirements. So you'd be OK with such laws for guns?"
"No law would have prevented this!"
"No law prevents ANYTHING, but it does reduce the incidence of the crime."
"Well, no law would do that!"
"Here's a law that DID do that: X"
"X would never work!"
"It worked in Australia."
"Well, the, uh, the . . . Second Amendment!"

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

"He could have killed them with a CAR! Why don't you ban CARS?"
"Cars have licensing, insurance, inspection and registration requirements. So you'd be OK with such laws for guns?"

No, I wouldn't be OK with "licensing, insurance, inspection and registration requirements" for guns. Cars & trucks already have these restrictions and requirements and are used to kill, in one attack, 86 people and the injury of 458 others. They would not be any more effective for guns than they are for cars & trucks.

Non-gun owners do not care how much restrictions are place on guns because these restrictions would not affect them. For example, I do not own or want to own a bump stock. I don't care if they are restricted.

You keep trying to get to step 2 (what laws should we pass to reduce gun-deaths) and skipping step 1 (how much restriction will any new law create vs. how much of a reduction on gun-deaths and is the trade-off worth it?).

The equation (restrictions (s) vs. gun-deaths) looks different depending on where you stand. For someone that doesn't own guns, they would want as much restrictions as possible. The restrictions don't affect them and there is a reduction in gun-deaths, however small. For a gun owner, the small reduction is not worth the large restriction(s) to get it.

Quote

No one here is against guns.

Quote

"Here's a law that DID do that: X"
"X would never work!"
"It worked in Australia."

You aren't against guns, yet you suggest passing the same law that Australia did....... See why I laughed when you said, "No one here is against guns"?

Derek V

[billvon 2,991]

>You keep trying to get to step 2 (what laws should we pass to reduce gun-deaths)
>and skipping step 1 (how much restriction will any new law create vs. how much of
>a reduction on gun-deaths and is the trade-off worth it?).

Those aren't two steps; they are two sides of the same equation, and have to be considered at the same time. That's true of ANY law, not just gun laws.

1) What benefit will it have? (you can quantify this any way you like - money saved, lives saved, transparency increased etc.)

2) What existing rights will it restrict?

If 1 is greater than 2, then in general it's a good law.

Most of the more rabid gun supporters think that ANY restriction of existing rights is unacceptable.

>You aren't against guns, yet you suggest passing the same law that
>Australia did......

No, I don't.

Again with the two step.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Those aren't two steps; they are two sides of the same equation, and have to be considered at the same time. That's true of ANY law, not just gun laws.

1. Define the problem.
2. Brainstorm solutions
3. Pick a solution.
4. Implement the solution.
5. Review the results.

1. We fundamentally disagree on the definition of the problem. You see a need to go to step 2. I do not.

Derek V

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

You aren't against guns, yet you suggest passing the same law that Australia did....... See why I laughed when you said, "No one here is against guns"?

Derek V

I don't think banning guns outright would work in the US. If I thought it would then I'd be for it.

But what I've not heard from you (or from most people on the gun rights side) is either an admittance that you personally are willing to accept the continual mass murders so that you can continue to have access to firearms, or any remote suggestion of what controls might work.

It's a piece of piss just to sit there and go 'no' to every suggestion - it requires no effort, thought or flexibility on your part. You don't even bother to explain WHY you think ideas aren't valid because that would open the door for discussion which is anathema to you.

Let's try with a simple question that you posed a page ago - what is the acceptable number of deaths to YOU? Is it the current 11,000+? Is it 5000? 500? Is there no limit?

I actually think the idea of a remotely locked firearm which can only be fired in specific designated areas is something that might work. You can have as many guns as you want, but they can only be fired on your own property or at a range by default. If you want an exception for hunting you'd need to apply for a specific zone for a specific date which would then need to be approved.
Obviously if someone starts applying for a zone in a school, or city center it doesn't get validated...

[rushmc 23]

yoink

*********There we go, a solution! You must start lobbying to get all that put in place. Congratulations!

- punctuation mine...


Just so we're clear - in this post you have agreed that any one of the laws I suggested (if passed) would put a stop to these kind of incidents.

I'm glad we can finally agree that a law of some sort CAN indeed be developed and put in place that would theoretically stop these kinds of events.

So much for your 'there's no law' argument.

You missed the sarcasm.

What you suggests was a list of ridicules proposals that are worse than what we have and you know damned well not one of them is viable.

In short, you ain't got shit......

Now you're changing the goalposts.

You have stated repeatedly that 'no law would stop these incidents'. That was the argument you kept making while offering nothing substantive of your own... You said nothing about the viability of getting the law passed, and 'worse' is entirely subjective.

In short, you're wrong. Again. As usual.

That, which is reasonable, is far beyond you it seems.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln