Jump to content
Sniper

Joe Biden: Time to Sue Gun Manufacturers

Recommended Posts

Greenday is 10 times the distraction that Arthur kill was! I truly believe he is paid real dollars to do what he does here!  We all joined this community because we share an interest in guns and the shooting sports and we love the Constitution of The United States of America! Especially the 2nd Amendment!

Look up "Paid Trolls" on a search engine! Decide for yourself if I am right! How many times has Greenday said "i was wrong" or "you may be right"!  I have blocked this troll's posts from the beginning but it does no good as most times when I check in and click on unread content, 4 out of five threads are responses to Greenday to try to convince him that his last point was wrong!  So many hours wasted on responding to the troll and so few hours putting our heads together to find ways to fight the PRNJ and save our 2A rights!

The troll collects another paycheck and WE LOSE!  The saddest part is we let it happen! Some even welcome the debate!  IT'S NOT DEBATE, IT'S DISTRACTION AND REDIRECTION!  The sooner the Admins and Mods realize this and dump his ass, the better we will all be!

We have lost many long time members here who, like me, are tired of the bullshit!  Ask @PK90 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 9:55 AM, Underdog said:

If AVB was honest I would agree with you, but he is NOT honest and twists things, etc.    Additionally, he is trying to push his views and agenda on me.  I don't care if he wants to turn his guns in, register them, etc. or if he gives his significant other the ability to turn him in, and if he wants to buy only one gun a month.  Leave me alone, Joe and AVB.   And you should think about the radicals such as Giffords that you associate with.  

By the way, Greenday, do you agree with AVB?   

@Underdog:

I was asked by @Sniper for my opinion and I responded with my opinion.  By expressing and sharing my opinion is just that straight forward.  I am not "trying to push" my "views and agenda" on you or anyone.  FYI, my views are shared by a good portion of U.S. citizens and it is all fair and fine if you and others disagree with them.  I understand from your posts that you subscribe to a more Libertarian political perspective where you want minimal government at all levels and want to be left alone.  That is fine.
I resent though, your accusation that I am not being honest in my posts and do not cite facts.  Also, I would appreciate your refraining from the childish name calling.  It detracts from the valid points, (rare as they are...), that you are attempting to make.  I am and have cited facts to support my arguments, over the past several years, along with sharing my strong opinion on topics, especially regarding Donald Trump.  We fundamentally disagree about Donald Trump as both a person, his character, his behavior, his fitness for office and probably even his mental stability.  I am not going to change your mind about him, nor are you or others here going to change my mind about him.  I have stated countless reasons to support my arguments.  If you choose to disagree with them then that is your choice.

 Unlike you and so many others here, I recognize that I am not always right and appreciate a spirited, while civil and respectful discourse of the topic at hand.  It is normal to get agitated by what each of us interprets as unbelievable ignorance, naivety, gullibility or worse.....  I certainly have with you and others here and you and they with me.  As I have said in the past and will say once again.... the more I learn the more I realize how much more I still need to learn.  It seems that honest and astute self-reflective attitude is not shared with around a dozen or so posters here in the 1st Amendment forum, who seem absolutely certain that they are always right, that their dogmatic beliefs are correct and refuse to learn, let alone seriously consider a different point of view or more drastically, trying a different approach to solve a persistent problem.

Now, getting back to Biden's campaign stance on guns....  My reasoning for supporting much of Biden's proposals are my realization that the constant gun-related fatalities needs to be addressed by us as a civilized society.  Yes, I know that in our country that about 2/3's of the total of those deaths are a result of suicide.  But the remaining 1/3 is still a staggering number in our country, easily eclipsing those of all other western countries.  Furthermore, I refuse to accept and to become numb about what now appears to be almost regular weekly or bi-monthly mass shootings around the country.  That has propelled me to join the camp of those who believe that we need to try doing something differently in an attempt to stem that growing tide of death.  I am willing to support legislation that most of you find way too drastic and abhor since you are afraid that it will lead to effectively eliminating our rights under the 1st Amendment.  As you had pointed out in your rebuttal to my positions, not all of the consequences of some of the proposed legislation have been considered and I agree that they would need to be addressed in any final form of the proposed legislation.  I also would support a reasonable limited time frame for the lifespan of those bills, including some form of sunset clause, that would allow Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of each law.  If it is proved effective or non-effective from the resulting studies by multiple groups, then Congress can vote again to either reinstate each law separately or let it just die.

A number of posters here, including you and @Mrs. Peel, have made some compelling arguments in favor of retaining the PLCAA, for which I appreciate and will consider further as I do some additional research into that specific Act and whether or not it's repeal would truly put firearms manufacturers out of business.  I do not think they would go out of business, but I could be mistaken....  

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

Greenday is 10 times the distraction that Arthur kill was! I truly believe he is paid real dollars to do what he does here!  We all joined this community because we share an interest in guns and the shooting sports and we love the Constitution of The United States of America! Especially the 2nd Amendment!

Look up "Paid Trolls" on a search engine! Decide for yourself if I am right! How many times has Greenday said "i was wrong" or "you may be right"!  I have blocked this troll's posts from the beginning but it does no good as most times when I check in and click on unread content, 4 out of five threads are responses to Greenday to try to convince him that his last point was wrong!  So many hours wasted on responding to the troll and so few hours putting our heads together to find ways to fight the PRNJ and save our 2A rights!

The troll collects another paycheck and WE LOSE!  The saddest part is we let it happen! Some even welcome the debate!  IT'S NOT DEBATE, IT'S DISTRACTION AND REDIRECTION!  The sooner the Admins and Mods realize this and dump his ass, the better we will all be!

We have lost many long time members here who, like me, are tired of the bullshit!  Ask @PK90 

@JohnnyB:

I don't think that @Greenday is a paid troll.  But I no longer have the stamina or time to devote to reading all recent posts in all threads here as he and some others seem to have.  I find that to be quite exhausting and for many silly topics, a real waste of one's time.

As you know, for quite some time, some folks here accused me of being a paid troll.  I tried to shrug it off with humor, responding: "yes, and that I am paid by the word...."  Eventually, those accusations died down, especially after a number of us have met one another on various occasions for gun shooting outings, both indoors and outside.  I think it is possible to agree to disagree on politics and still appreciate each other's company while discussing other things, sharing our experiences and knowledge of various firearms and mutually enjoying our interest in shooting our guns.

If anyone could possibly be a paid troll here in the 1st Amendment forum, it may very well be someone who has never attended any NJGF inspired get-together and hides behind an online secret curtain of anonymity, by omitting all of their personal information from their profile here.   
BTW, has anyone here ever met face-to-face with @Handyman......???   Or is he living somewhere inside Russia?   Hmmmmm.

AVB-AMG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@JohnnyB:

I don't think that @Greenday is a paid troll.  But I no longer have the stamina or time to devote to reading all recent posts in all threads here as he and some others seem to have.  I find that to be quite exhausting and for many silly topics, a real waste of one's time.

As you know, for quite some time, some folks here accused me of being a paid troll.  I tried to shrug it off with humor, responding: "yes, and that I am paid by the word...."  Eventually, those accusations died down, especially after a number of us have met one another on various occasions for gun shooting outings, both indoors and outside.  I think it is possible to agree to disagree on politics and still appreciate each other's company while discussing other things, sharing our experiences and knowledge of various firearms and mutually enjoying our interest in shooting our guns.

If anyone could possibly be a paid troll here in the 1st Amendment forum, it may very well be someone who has never attending any NJGF inspired get-together and hides all of their personal information by omitting that from their profile here.   
BTW, has anyone here ever met face-to-face with @Handyman......???   Or is he living somewhere inside Russia?   Hmmmmm.

AVB-AMG

I’m pretty sure @Handyman lives with @voyager9 shooting @BobA‘s 45 in a bunker.

its just a theory though.

sniper isn’t worth my time let alone yours

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@JohnnyB:

I don't think that @Greenday is a paid troll.  But I no longer have the stamina or time to devote to reading all recent posts in all threads here as he and some others seem to have.  I find that to be quite exhausting and for many silly topics, a real waste of one's time.

As you know, for quite some time, some folks here accused me of being a paid troll.  I tried to shrug it off with humor, responding: "yes, and that I am paid by the word...."  Eventually, those accusations died down, especially after a number of us have met one another on various occasions for gun shooting outings, both indoors and outside.  I think it is possible to agree to disagree on politics and still appreciate each other's company while discussing other things, sharing our experiences and knowledge of various firearms and mutually enjoying our interest in shooting our guns.

If anyone could possibly be a paid troll here in the 1st Amendment forum, it may very well be someone who has never attending any NJGF inspired get-together and hides all of their personal information by omitting that from their profile here.   
BTW, has anyone here ever met face-to-face with @Handyman......???   Or is he living somewhere inside Russia?   Hmmmmm.

AVB-AMG

@AVB-AMG

       Please note I did not mention you in my post about Greenday!  I don't believe you are a paid troll. I believe you are a misguided victim of our higher educational system! Too many liberal professors that brainwashed you into believing that Socialism is a viable form of government! I am sad for you that can't see beyond that false panacea and instead, I wish you would have the wisdom to look at history and learn from it! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I’m pretty sure @Handyman lives with @voyager9 shooting @BobA‘s 45 in a bunker.

its just a theory though.

sniper isn’t worth my time let alone yours

Says the guy who thinks boiling ribs is the correct way to cook them...  :sarcastichand:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 8:27 PM, WP22 said:

Let's go down the memory lane for the benefit of the noobs that weren't around and the geezers with poor memories, shall we? 

Years ago after a particularly bad mass shooting, a member here, one of us, came  on this very board defending the banning assault rifles.; If I remember correctly " maybe it was time to give them up, maybe the risks of owning don't outweigh the benefits" or some other pap like that.

Obviously, he got beaten back. Later he offered that he had a change of views, that he had considered all opinions and changed his. Again, the man can lay it thick.

Most here, at the time,  seemed to have believed him.

Now, let me ask ya'll a question. Have you ever seen a tiger turning vegan? Sure he may nibble on a bean sprout to impress a woke tigress, but he won't change. That's his nature and his nature will always come to the top. The man's a grabber.

@WP22:

Ok, I know you are referring to me and my posts in another thread that I started over 19 months ago.
I admit that at times, I have vacillated in some of my view points regarding guns and gun control.  I am constantly learning and will admit when I believe that I was mistaken or wrong.  Unlike your assertion, I do believe that this is not a black and white issue but has many shades of gray to be considered, many which are conflicting and contradictory.  I try to consider all sides of an argument as I eventually evolve my thinking and opinion.
  
For those here who are curious about this and are interested, here are links to two of my posts from that thread that explain in detail how I was convinced that my initial thinking was flawed and eventually came around to understand and agree with the sensible and logical arguments that were presented regarding banning assault weapons. (FYI - Click on the arrow each of the upper right corners to go to the appropriate post).

AVB-AMG

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 11:37 PM, JohnnyB said:

@AVB-AMG

       Please note I did not mention you in my post about Greenday!  I don't believe you are a paid troll. I believe you are a misguided victim of our higher educational system! Too many liberal professors that brainwashed you into believing that Socialism is a viable form of government! I am sad for you that can't see beyond that false panacea and instead, I wish you would have the wisdom to look at history and learn from it! 

@JohnnyB:

Actually, I do not believe that strict Socialism is a viable form of government and have never said so or advocated that.
I do believe that from what history has shown us that IMHO, the ideal form of government is essentially what we currently have in the U.S. - a constitutional republic that strives, while not always succeeding, in being a democracy.  Ideally, I believe that this should be a combination of democratic social concepts, (i.e. Social Security, Medicare & ultimately Universal Healthcare), that deal with our broad social issues, along with an fairly regulated, (i.e. Glass-Steagall Act), capitalist economic approach for business and commerce.  We saw and experienced the meltdown in the financial services industry back in 2008, when a few greedy banks and financial services institutions almost collapsed our entire financial system.

Yet, unfortunately, I also recognize that in reality our country is currently and has been for awhile, struggling to deal with conflicting forces of control that include oligarchy, kleptocracy, fascism and populism.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Golf battery, @W2MC, @njpilot@Underdog & @Mrs. Peel:

As I said in my post itemizing Joe Biden’s proposals regarding gun control, I am AGAINST his proposal to Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as being against his proposal to End the online sale of firearms and ammunition.

Also, while I am not totally against Biden’s proposal to Regulate Assault Weapons under the National Firearms Act, I do think that as others here have pointed out, that the term “assault weapons” needs to be clearly and accurately defined.  If that definition is too general and all-encompassing then this proposal would go too far for my support.  IMHO, it would be naïve, simplistic and pointless to attempt to ban or confiscate any one type of gun, nor should we, since there are over 350 million guns already in private hands in the U.S.  Having said that, imposing some form of regulations of guns is acceptable.  For example, I have previously indicated that I am against allowing the legal sale of any device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to be modified to mimic the speed and action of a fully-automatic weapon, (i.e. bump-stocks).

While I am essentially supportive of Biden’s other proposals, as stated on his web site, they are very brief and generalized.  The actual proposed bills in Congress would need to consider and address the many important details and consequences that may be anticipated by their enactment.  Also, serious consideration should be given to including some form of sunset provision for each bill so that the ensuing law has a limited life span.  Then, appropriate studies could be performed to determine the effectiveness of each of those laws.

Just to be very clear, contrary to the assertions by some here, I do support the ability of capable American citizens from obtaining most types of firearms for their recreational use and for self-defense.  I am not supportive of the extreme far-left advocates who fundamentally want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate all firearms, neither of which will ever happen in our country, IMHO.  I believe that most gun owners, be they hunters, sport shooters, lawful collectors or those concerned about home safety/personal protection, are not 2nd Amendment fundamentalists, but their strength as a political force has been high jacked by extremists. With one gun atrocity following another at an increasing frequency, it is time for sensible voices to be heard. We come back to the same question: What are we, as "responsible" gun owners, going to do about it? 

My answer: I am for reasonable gun control, since the 2nd Amendment does include the term “regulate”.  I am open to and could tolerate more practical and enforceable gun control than currently exists at either the state or federal levels. I do not believe that this is an "all or nothing" situation.  I do believe that we as a nation can collectively come up with an acceptable compromise that would address this problem, potentially reducing future gun fatalities and mass shootings, while still allowing gun owners to keep and enjoy their guns.  So what am I suggesting?  The following:

Enforce Existing Gun Laws - As said earlier, we have many state and federal laws already on the books that regulate firearms that are not enforced.  The first step we need to take as a society is to actually properly enforce those existing laws, including closing any loopholes, which is not really the case today.  This also means that the current NICS system needs to be upgraded and expanded since the existing database is not up to date and do does not effectively communicate on a timely basis with other appropriate federal and state agencies.

Institute Universal Background Checks - As a gun owner I support regulation designed to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated through their behavior that they are a danger to themselves or others - as long as that restriction is administered with appropriate due process necessary to infringe upon a Constitutional Right.  I believe that many (perhaps most) of the mass shootings at schools occur partially from a systems failure in this country.  The Parkland shooter is an example of every “red flag” being raised and ignored because of a lack of safety-net (mental health) and systems communication, (reports of threat to FBI, for example). I support instituting uniform and universal background checks for ALL gun sales.  This would involve ensuring that we create a better way for the existing NICS system communicates with state and local law enforcement agencies, courts and healthcare institutions to create a deeper search capability to flag those individuals who should not be allowed to legally obtain a firearm.

Address Mental Health Issues - I agree with the basic argument that we need to treat the underlying problem and not just the resulting symptoms.  I also recognize that part of the mass shooting phenomenon lays in mental health issues in some people, primarily the group category of young white men.  We are the only modern industrial country in the world without a universal health care system.  I support mitigating the root cause of much of the mass shootings by making mental and physical health a priority for all U.S. citizens, instead of just the privileged members of our society. Therefore, I am for exploring further how to realistically and fairly institute some sort of check on one’s mental health and then dealing appropriately once a diagnosis has been made, as one of the main strategies on combating deaths associated with guns.  @Mrs. Peel made a good point on this in a post awhile back.  She said that “tightening up our response to these signs of a potentially violent kid is absolutely critical IMO.... and holding people responsible when they fail!”.  She also cited an example in Switzerland, that after one of their own school shootings, they began to fund an in-school psychologist in every school to help identify potentially violent kids and pull them into treatment. I agree with her that is another idea worth exploring and considering instituting here in the U.S.  Also, I agree with @High Exposure, where he astutely noted in one of his posts that he believes “that the big issue we are facing is the fact that those with mental instability of any kind are placed in a “protected class”. By doing such we are doing everyone a disservice. I think we need a complete overhaul of the mental health system before we will see a drastic change in the kind of behavior that creates someone that thinks shooting up a school is a good thing.

Require Firearm Safety Training – I believe that responsible gun owners become educated via formal mandatory training in the safe and proper use, maintenance, storage and transportation of their firearms.  Most of us do that on our own account, but many others do not.  This type of training greatly reduces the chance of serious accidents involving firearms.  I think this is an area where we can take what the NRA has already established and make it a national program, (which would certainly help their current troubled financial situation).  This firearm safety training would be required of all gun owners and proof of course participation and completion would be required as part of gun ownership.  To me, that just makes sense…  For example, my ability to drive a car is not infringed by requirements that I demonstrate my capability to drive safely, abiding by traffic laws, obtain a license, register my vehicle and purchase insurance against accidents. The same requirements for gun owners would not infringe their Second Amendment rights.

Require Gun Owner’s to have Insurance - Let's add the requirement for all gun owners to purchase and maintain liability insurance for all of their firearms, similar to that required for cars. We allow cars to be driven on public roads but the driver must be insured in case he/she harms someone or damages property. The same should be true for owning and using guns, especially if CCW is eventually allowed nationally.

Finally, I understand and accept that no law is going to eliminate a criminal or a deranged individual who is really intent on obtaining some type of gun from doing so and committing crimes, murders or mass-murders.  But I do not believe that we as a civilized society, should do nothing and just accept that the steadily increasing gun-related violence and crime, is the "price" for our freedom.  We should not let the mounting number of deaths that are gun-related continue without attempting to address it, that truly is in ALL of the public's best interest.  I do not have all the answers but am willing to try out some new ideas in an effort to stem the tide of this growing violence and death toll.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The road to hades is paved with good intentions.

The goals you state are admirable; but nothing you have proposed will change the direction you are headed.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

Finally, I understand and accept that no law is going to eliminate a criminal or a deranged individual who is really intent on obtaining some type of gun from doing so and committing crimes, murders or mass-murders. 

 

14 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

We should not let the mounting number of deaths that are gun-related continue without attempting to address it, that truly is in ALL of the public's best interest. 

@AVB-AMG

I appreciate you taking the time to post another one of your short novels, explaining your position. I'm not going to take the hours to respond to each one...

I'll reference that first one I just reposted, as this is the BIGGEST issue in my view. Yes, there is no way ANY law will stop a deranged individual from committing the carnage he's looking for. If a deranged guy wants to kill a group of people with a gun, a car, a truck, a knife, poisons, a airplane, or even fertilizer, not a single existing law or NEW law will stop him. Unfortunately, every new gun law that gets passed, just restricts the law abiding gun owner, and never the criminals.

Easily over 90% of the past mass shooters have all exhibited some sort of mental derangement or illness. It's virtually impossible to legislated away "crazy". So, the response by politicians, legislate away  Constitutional rights instead...

So, you can pass all the new laws you want, nothing will change if a deranged guy wants to kill people.

Now, regarding all the increased gun-related deaths from mass shootings. I'm in no way going to diminish the loss of life, as every life is special. But when you step back, remove the EMOTIONAL responses by people who fear guns, the true number of people killed by "assault weapons" each year isn't even a blip on the radar, when comparing to all other causes of death annually.

The Emotional response by certain groups and the media make it a lot bigger issue than it is. You know the stats, so I won't repeat them, but deaths by other causes: medical, autos, knives, overdoses, etc, by far, surpasses deaths by assault weapons, by 10x, 20x, 30x more... yet the politician completely ignore those facts... why?

28 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

But I do not believe that we as a civilized society, should do nothing and just accept that the steadily increasing gun-related violence and crime, is the "price" for our freedom.

The politicians think putting MORE restrictions on the millions of law abiding gun owners is the solution, and YOU agree with many of them... that's just wrong and sad... 

Unfortunately, the "price for our freedom" includes people dying, both in wars and the military, and here at home, by the hands of a deranged individual, who gets his hands on a gun. For some reason, the country can't handle a few dying this way, but they get into a car every day, knowing that 40,000 people die in car accidents and millions more get severely injured ever year. Where's the logic there?

Piling on MORE, knee-jerk, emotionally written gun laws isn't the answer. I do agree with you, how about LEOs start doing a better job enforcing the EXISTING laws on the books, and holding people accountable? How's that for a novel idea?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AVB-AMG - your latest posts mention the increase in gun violence. Though every death matters tremendously, the fact remains that the US is still in a long-term "trough" in terms of gun violence - far below the last peak in and around 1992, and even 92 was lower than the worse peak in 1974. Specifically:

There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974. And the rate of gun suicides – 6.9 per 100,000 people in 2017 – remained below the 7.7 per 100,000 measured in 1977.

Check out the FBI and the CDC for actual facts about death by guns. Don't get pulled in by the Trace, or Giffords or the other activist sites. Here are the facts:

  • We're at near 30-year lows in our rate of per capita gun death.
  • We've had a slight uptick in the last 2 years, ALL of it accounted for by increases in a few major cities - with many criminologists attributing it to a specific issue in those cities - the growing pushback against police, and in turn, the police then being "less enthusiastic" about rushing into known gang territory to be surrounded by hostile people with smart phones (or worse, throwing rocks, tossing unknown liquids at them, etc., etc.)
  • Our rate of MASS murders has definitely ticked up, after remaining virtually the same for many decades. Though, that said, it is still an exceedingly rare crime (again, using the credible FBI definition and stats). One likely cause that too few focus on:  for years, experts on these issues have asked repeatedly that the media stop publishing the photos and manifestos of mass killers. Most of these experts (criminologists, forensic psychologists and the like) believe strongly that the media is complicit in spurring copycats/contagion effect when they do that. And yet, with rare exception, the media has refused to comply. They want their advertising dollars - bodies be damned! So, they glamorize these crimes, create copycats, and then rail against the "increase in mass murders". Do you see the irony/pattern of bias there? At the same time, they virtually refuse to give Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) the same kind of national-level breathless coverage given to mass shooters. Again, recognize a pattern here? If you wonder "what can we do" as a society to stop mass shootings in particular, well... we'll never stop all acts of madness... but it seems wise to heed expert advice. We should begin by pressuring our media to work with these experts to develop and then voluntarily sign on to new industry standards on how to cover these atrocities in a way that doesn't create more of them!
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

... I am for reasonable gun control, since the 2nd Amendment does include the term “regulate”. ...

Aw c’mon AVB, I know you’re smart enough to understand what “well regulated” means in the historical context of militias, that it does not mean “restricted” and that it does not apply to “the people” even if it did.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sniper said:

 

@AVB-AMG

I appreciate you taking the time to post another one of your short novels, explaining your position. I'm not going to take the hours to respond to each one...

I'll reference that first one I just reposted, as this is the BIGGEST issue in my view. Yes, there is no way ANY law will stop a deranged individual from committing the carnage he's looking for. If a deranged guy wants to kill a group of people with a gun, a car, a truck, a knife, poisons, a airplane, or even fertilizer, not a single existing law or NEW law will stop him. Unfortunately, every new gun law that gets passed, just restricts the law abiding gun owner, and never the criminals.

Easily over 90% of the past mass shooters have all exhibited some sort of mental derangement or illness. It's virtually impossible to legislated away "crazy". So, the response by politicians, legislate away  Constitutional rights instead...

So, you can pass all the new laws you want, nothing will change if a deranged guy wants to kill people.

Now, regarding all the increased gun-related deaths from mass shootings. I'm in no way going to diminish the loss of life, as every life is special. But when you step back, remove the EMOTIONAL responses by people who fear guns, the true number of people killed by "assault weapons" each year isn't even a blip on the radar, when comparing to all other causes of death annually.

The Emotional response by certain groups and the media make it a lot bigger issue than it is. You know the stats, so I won't repeat them, but deaths by other causes: medical, autos, knives, overdoses, etc, by far, surpasses deaths by assault weapons, by 10x, 20x, 30x more... yet the politician completely ignore those facts... why?

The politicians think putting MORE restrictions on the millions of law abiding gun owners is the solution, and YOU agree with many of them... that's just wrong and sad... 

Unfortunately, the "price for our freedom" includes people dying, both in wars and the military, and here at home, by the hands of a deranged individual, who gets his hands on a gun. For some reason, the country can't handle a few dying this way, but they get into a car every day, knowing that 40,000 people die in car accidents and millions more get severely injured ever year. Where's the logic there?

Piling on MORE, knee-jerk, emotionally written gun laws isn't the answer. I do agree with you, how about LEOs start doing a better job enforcing the EXISTING laws on the books, and holding people accountable? How's that for a novel idea?

Here is my issue with the "we can't just do nothing" line we hear politicians recite over and over. No one is saying do nothing, but we shouldnt do something for the sake of doing something. No one refutes that none of these laws would have prevented a shooting, but they always say its better than doing nothing.

I'm all for any law that is 1) effective in its intended goal and 2) doesnt infringe on peoples rights. If it fails either of those than in my opinion it is bad policy.

i'm appaled by the apathy from people who are perfectly ok eroding a right just because they themselves do not use it. And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberatarian leaning and the more statist leaning. I dont hunt but i'll defend your right to hunt. I have spoken to people who just go "well i dont have guns so it doesnt effect me, they can ban whatever they want". Sorry for the segway into a more philosophical point

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

i'm appaled by the apathy from people who are perfectly ok eroding a right just because they themselves do not use it. And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberatarian leaning and the more statist leaning. I dont hunt but i'll defend your right to hunt. I have spoken to people who just go "well i dont have guns so it doesnt effect me, they can ban whatever they want"...

And there we have it. It's been a multi-generational move to make all firearms related experiences as "bad" so as to lower the eventual resistance to the apathy we see today.

Can you imagine the current crop of congresscritters serving during, say, 1946-1952? There would have been an armed conflict!

We are only one or two generations removed from the "Greatest Generation", yet here we are watching our rights go down the tubes.

Sad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Check out the FBI and the CDC for actual facts about death by guns. Don't get pulled in by the Trace, or Giffords or the other activist sites. Here are the facts:

Speaking of FACTS, the FBI just released the stats from 2018 regarding homicides by each weapon. Hey @AVB-AMG, do you accept the data from the FBI (even though they seem to lean "Left" recently), versus Giffords or Bloomberg's Anytown?

Here's the quick rundown of the murder rates per weapon:

FBI Data Shows 5 Times More People Killed By Knives Than Rifles Last Year

Of the 14,123 murders in 2018, 10, 265 of them involved firearms—a 7 percent drop from the previous year. That being said, the number of rifle deaths is extremely important given that this is the weapon most often targeted by gun grabbers.

But as the statistics show, a AR15 really isn’t being used against that many Americans. In fact, far more Americans are dying by knives. According to the FBI data, 1,515 were stabbed, cut, or maimed to death by a knife or other cutting instrument. This is a number 5 times higher than those killed by rifles, which sits at just 297.

What’s more, twice as many people were beaten to death with hands, fists, and feet (672) than were killed by rifles. And, nearly 150 more people (443) were bludgeoned to death with hammers and other blunt objects than killed with rifles.

The weapon most often targeted by gun grabbers appears to play a rather tiny role in the majority of murders carried out in the United States. This is in spite of Americans owning around 16 million AR style rifles.

Another important fact is that the FBI data does not differentiate as to what kind of rifle was used in the murder—meaning that it is not likely that all 297 rifle deaths were caused by AR type rifles. The FBI data includes all rifles — including bolt action, pump or lever action rifles — not just AR-15s.

If we were to compare stabbings to just AR-15 rifle deaths, that disparity would more likely than not be even greater.

Knowing these facts about rifles makes the gun grabbers calls for taking your AR-15s that much more hollow. Even if they were able to disarm all Americans of their AR-15 rifles, this would have little to no effect on the number of total murders.

So, @AVB-AMG, since you say you're willing to learn and adjust your thinking... based on this DATA by the FBI, do you still think a "assault weapons" ban/confiscation will really reduced mass murder? Also, do you see where the TRUE issue is, and what items are used to do the majority of killings?

 

FBI weapons 2018.jpg

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo I’ll shoot with @AVB-AMG

I’ll  drink beers with. I'll talk shop with him. I’ll talk cars with him. I like him.

 

I won’t talk politics with him. Because he’s not gonna change my mind..I’m not gonna change his.

I truly laugh at him and you other idiots that think you are winning hearts and minds one keystroke at a time.

@Greenday I tried. I tried hard. He’s jus dumb and probably gonna get someone hurt.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vacillate is something liberals do all the time.  Its easy when you have little to no core values.

Supporting lawsuits against a gun manufacturer for something someone does with their product is asinine 100% of the time.

It’s a long standing problem in general aviation.  Some dip shit flies his V Tail Beech Bonanza into a strong thunderstorm, loses control and exceeds the documented structural limits of the aircraft and it comes apart in flight.  His estate sues Beech and wins.  This is profoundly unjust yet judges and others who know nothing about aviation make ignorant judgements against manufacturers.  We don’t want this bullshit in the firearms industry.

Oh....and they also sued Slick Magnetos, who cut their loses and settled.  The magnetos had what to do with the aircraft failure?  ...nothing....

That honor was 100% on the shoulders of the dead guy strewn over the landscape of NE PA.

NFA licensing of a fictional gun referred to as an assault weapon?  Ahhh.  No.

In fact.... NO.... to every one of Biden’s proposals.  The is no such thing as an assault weapon or a common sense gun law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I won’t talk politics with him. Because he’s not gonna change my mind..I’m not gonna change his.

I truly laugh at him and you other idiots that think you are winning hearts and minds one keystroke at a time.

The thing you don't understand, not all posts are made strictly to address the original poster. Many posts are made to educate OTHER members not NOT posting in the thread, not to mention all the lurkers that read the forum, but don't post at all.

(FYI, there were 90 people/bots viewing the forum in the last 30 minutes).

You know what happens when you assume, right?

frank-zappa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeke said:

Sooo I’ll shoot with @AVB-AMG

I’ll  drink beers with. I'll talk shop with him. I’ll talk cars with him. I like him.

 

I won’t talk politics with him. Because he’s not gonna change my mind..I’m not gonna change his.

I truly laugh at him and you other idiots that think you are winning hearts and minds one keystroke at a time.

@Greenday I tried. I tried hard. He’s jus dumb and probably gonna get someone hurt.

AVB - I disagree.  He, and those like him, need to be engaged ... they are the reason NJ is as screwed-up as it is currently.

Greenday - I agree.  I would not want to shoot on the same range ... I dont want to be anywhere near him when his overstressed rifle finally lets go.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sniper said:

Of the 14,123 murders in 2018, 10, 265 of them involved firearms—a 7 percent drop from the previous year. That being said, the number of rifle deaths is extremely important given that this is the weapon most often targeted by gun grabbers.

Thank you for this! I didn't realize this was just published. Nice to see that the rate is trending down again - the direct opposite of the "epidemic" some people call it. (If a disease was at near 30+ year lows, would anyone in their right mind call it an "epidemic"? Of course not! That's the most obvious spin!)

7 hours ago, Sniper said:

...not all posts are made strictly to address the original poster. Many posts are made to educate OTHER members not NOT posting in the thread, not to mention all the lurkers that read the forum, but don't post at all.

Exactly. Anytime I see blatantly false info on these forums about gun crime and closely related topics, I feel compelled to challenge it... because far more people read these forums than post to them. Related to that point, AVB also mentioned another common myth in one of his posts - that of the "angry white male mass shooter" - the belief that white men specifically are over-represented among mass shooters. How this myth got started, I'll never know... but it is false! Now, it's true that men in general are overrepresented in that crime category, but mass shooters do NOT skew white - they closely match their racial percentage in the general population. (The white shooters tend to get WAY more media coverage...which probably fuels this myth). Anyway, here's a chart of mass shootings by race. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/  - as you'll see, white shooters perpetrated 65% of the mass shootings turning the time period shown - but racially, the country is about 62% white - so that is directly proportional.  Of course, if you expand to include other types of gun crimes, then white men are actually greatly under-represented in gun crimes. But, does the race of the shooter even matter? I would say NO. But, it's important that we don't promulgate common myths about gun crime when they're demonstrably false ---- on a gun forum, for goodness sakes!! :facepalm: 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sniper said:

Speaking of FACTS, the FBI just released the stats from 2018 regarding homicides by each weapon. Hey @AVB-AMG, do you accept the data from the FBI (even though they seem to lean "Left" recently), versus Giffords or Bloomberg's Anytown?

So, @AVB-AMG, since you say you're willing to learn and adjust your thinking... based on this DATA by the FBI, do you still think a "assault weapons" ban/confiscation will really reduced mass murder? Also, do you see where the TRUE issue is, and what items are used to do the majority of killings?

@Sniper:

Yes, I accept and believe that the data from the FBI on the is credible.  Thank you for posting that interesting chart, for I found it to be quite informative.

For some reason you seem to be confused about my stand on the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). If you have read my posts on the subject over the past couple of years you will see that I have evolved my position and no longer believe that re-instituting some variation on the AWB would be effective in achieving the stated intend of its sponsors.  I came to that realization over a year and a half ago, (see the links to those applicable posts above, as well as my posts in this thread.  So to be clear with you: I am against an AWB....

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

Also, while I am not totally against Biden’s proposal to Regulate Assault Weapons under the National Firearms Act, I do think that as others here have pointed out, that the term “assault weapons” needs to be clearly and accurately defined.  If that definition is too general and all-encompassing then this proposal would go too far for my support.  IMHO, it would be naïve, simplistic and pointless to attempt to ban or confiscate any one type of gun, nor should we, since there are over 350 million guns already in private hands in the U.S.  Having said that, imposing some form of regulations of guns is acceptable.  For example, I have previously indicated that I am against allowing the legal sale of any device thatallows a semi-automatic firearm to be modified to mimic the speed andaction of a fully-automatic weapon, (i.e. bump-stocks).

The British would've loved having your support back in the late 1700s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Anytime I see blatantly false info on these forums about gun crime and closely related topics, I feel compelled to challenge it... because far more people read these forums than post to them. Related to that point, AVB also mentioned another common myth in one of his posts - that of the "angry white male mass shooter" - the belief that white men specifically are over-represented among mass shooters. How this myth got started, I'll never know... but it is false! Now, it's true that men in general are overrepresented in that crime category, but mass shooters do NOT skew white - they closely match their racial percentage in the general population. (The white shooters tend to get WAY more media coverage...which probably fuels this myth). Anyway, here's a chart of mass shootings by race. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/  - as you'll see, white shooters perpetrated 65% of the mass shootings turning the time period shown - but racially, the country is about 62% white - so that is directly proportional.  Of course, if you expand to include other types of gun crimes, then white men are actually greatly under-represented in gun crimes. But, does the race of the shooter even matter? I would say NO. But, it's important that we don't promulgate common myths about gun crime when they're demonstrably false ---- on a gun forum, for goodness sakes!! :facepalm: 

@Mrs. Peell:

FYI – it is NOT a common myth that over the past approximately 20 years in the United States, that the typical profile of a mass shooter is that of an “angry white male”….. My assertion is correct.  It is factual information confirmed by in-depth studies conducted by respected institutions and not my opinion.

For proof of that please refer to the FBI study published in June 2018, titled: “A Study of the Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States.” 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view

The study examined 63 active shooting incidents in the US between 2000 and 2013, in an attempt to identify “those who may be on a pathway to deadly violence.”

In it, a single demographic data point clearly distinguishes American mass shooters from other citizens: 94% were men. In a separate FBI study published in April 2018, analyzing 50 active shooter incidents between 2016 and 2017, all shooters were male.

Most active shooters were also either single (57%) at the time of shooting, or divorced or separated (22%).

image.png.c94c646d1cf950dc1b58714f76297ad3.png

According to the June 2018 study, mass shooters are mostly white (63%), but that is in line with the 60% of the US population that identifies as white and non-Hispanic.

Beside being male and single or divorced, most shooters had “concerning behavior” in common: abuse, harassment, bullying, and sometimes violence.

The FBI found that a third of mass shooters had been convicted of a crime as an adult (35%). Nearly two-thirds of active shooters (62%) had a history of acting in an “abusive, harassing, and oppressive way,” says the June report, including incidents of “excessive bullying and workplace harassment.” About one in five shooters (16%) had engaged in “intimate partner violence,” and 11% exhibited behavior that could be considered “stalking.”  The shooters in the study exhibited an average of 4.7 examples of “concerning behavior” before their attacks.

The FBI’s June 2018 report also showed that active shooters had, on average, 3.6 “stressors,” or things in their life causing them stress, at the time of the shooting. These ranged from financial problems and mental health issues to the death of a relative.

I combined the “concerning behavior” traits with the “stressors” in my simple term “angry”, but you get the point…

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...