DOJ taking action in curbing mass shootings

Aug 2019
797
743
Albuquerque, NM
You have proved my points, in your typical rambling and self-absorbed fashion. It is all about your imperfect but self-absorbed need for a firearm that folks like you oppose broad legal restrictions that might otherwise reduce firearm violence but would be an inconvenience. You object to the access of the mentally ill because we have imperfect control of their access to firearms, then admit to the anger management issues that promote impulsive action, and STILL do not recognize the role of firearms in the acts of lethal violence in this country by "responsible gun owners" as well as criminals , the mentally ill, and the reckless. You might a well just argue that, to allow your convenient access to firearms needed to indulge your paranoia and irrational fear of attack, we just need to accept that irrational and criminal violence will occur. It apparently has not occurred to you that the justification for your "self-defense" need for few regulations of firearms make it EASY for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms. YOU gun knuts have created the very problem that you claim your firearms are necessary to prevent.

Once again, I suspect that you or your acquaintances have personally had preventable injury from a firearm...odds support that. You all your rambling does not address that likely fact.
All that crap was proba
Rampage mass shooting (usually by RWingers) are typically done with semi-automatic assault weapons, either handguns or rifles.

I don't know why pro gun people feel the need to lie. If you have a sound argument against regulation, make it without lying about how many people are being slaughtered because of our lack of gun laws and willy nilly nature we have to gun ownership. Instead of making sound arguments as to why regulation is bad, they have to try to downplay the fact this country has a gun violence problem, becuase we have more guns than people. Or worse, acting like having some gun regulations means taking guns away.

I'd respect them more if they just said they don't care how many people die, they want their guns
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007 and Biff
Aug 2019
797
743
Albuquerque, NM
Lloyd's statement was wrong. Period. It was yet another example of his making up "facts" to support his untenable positions.

Just as this is yet another example of your arguing for the sake of hearing yourself talk.

The point is that the argument that "assault rifles" should be banned because they are "more deadly" than pistols is skewed; almost all centerfire rifles are more powerful than most handguns. There are exceptions if one picks the rifle and the handgun carefully. I said "almost all" to avoid getting sucked into an irrelevant hairsplitting exercise about the exceptions. Alas, this effort was unsucessful.



OK, change that to the deadliest mass shooting use assault rifles. But as usual, instead of making arguments why assault rifles shouldn't be banned, you just try to downplay how bad they are and play semantics. There is no need for assault rifles for defense, this isn't war. it's designed to kill the most in the least amount of time. It's totally disingenuous and tells me pro gun peopel don't have any real reasons why assault rifles should be legal. And don't simply throw out "2nd amendment" that's another copout, without providing any other arguments

Why it matters: These weapons possess an incredible amount of killing power, and amplify the destructive will of the person who carries out an attack. Nine people died and 27 were injured in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio in an attack that lasted 32 seconds. The killer used an AR-15 style assault rifle.
  • Since 1999, there have been 115 mass shootings (defined below) in which 941 people were killed and 1,431 were injured.
  • Of those 115 attacks, 32 — just over a quarter — involved semi-automatic rifles. But those attacks accounted for 40% of all deaths and 69% of all injuries.
  • Since 2017, 12 of the 31 mass shootings involved assault rifles — which caused 39% of the deaths and 92% of the injuries.
Mass shootings that involved the use of high-capacity magazines resulted in more than twice as many fatalities and 14 times as many injuries on average compared to those that did not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Biff
Nov 2018
5,363
2,835
Rocky Mountains
With regards to suicide, well...let me ask you this, if I took away a suicidal person's gun, does that fix them? What if I treat their mental illness and get them help for depression, or whatever other mental impairment they may be dealing with? Would that help stop them? Certainly more likely right? With suicide, using your terms, the agent of injury is honestly irrelevant.
Firearms, broadly, are far more lethal than ingestions or falls. Suicide success is more prevalent when a firearm is available and those who survive suicide typically get help and appreciate the failure of their attempt. Firearm lethality is the factor to consider. Suicide, especially by males, is more common in states with higher firearm availability. What more do you need to know, "truthseeker"?

I'm not even going to bother with this...there are an average of over 1 million deaths per year due to vehicles.
Well, you are going to have to get ALL the other sources of data on this subject of motor vehicle accidents to change because that is flatly incorrect.

yet people still use cell phones and drive. I guess writing a law doesn't stop it eh?
Once again, we have laws and regulations to reduce damaging behaviors, not to effectively prevent them always and forever. Are you advocating that bank robbery or murder should not be illegal because the law does not "stop" every criminal act? Really are you THAT clueless??
 
Nov 2018
5,363
2,835
Rocky Mountains
I'd respect them more if they just said they don't care how many people die, they want their guns
I have often thought that as well. In a different situation, but somewhat analogous, with the Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Festival it is encouraging to see the Republicans finally accepting the facts of the case and trying to argue that it was just the typical application of influence and not an impeachable offense. Republicans CAN become rational after all. It was certainly refreshing that Bolton and Sessions were serious about facts, not blind allegiance to the fallacy of Trump ( I don't agree with their politics, but have to respect their apparent ethical backbone)
 
Aug 2018
598
357
been around
When you speak of real solutions, like stop 'n frisk in high gun crime areas (which promptly cleaned up NY), VERY long sentences for any crime using firearms.......and how about stop depicting guns as the answer to problems in movies, tv shows, video games, and media in general - things that would actually work - the Left refuses.

Why? Because those real solutions don't remove firearms from law-abiding citizens.

That tells you the real agenda here
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happytruthseeker
Jun 2019
103
50
CA

OK, change that to the deadliest mass shooting use assault rifles. But as usual, instead of making arguments why assault rifles shouldn't be banned, you just try to downplay how bad they are and play semantics. There is no need for assault rifles for defense, this isn't war. it's designed to kill the most in the least amount of time. It's totally disingenuous and tells me pro gun peopel don't have any real reasons why assault rifles should be legal. And don't simply throw out "2nd amendment" that's another copout, without providing any other arguments
Correction noted. Yes, rifles are more deadly than handguns. So you want to ban "assault rifles" because they are deadlier than handguns. Then it will be my bolt action 30-06 "sniper rifle" because it's far more powerful than the "assault rifle" you just banned. When does it stop? What would be enough for you?

Saying the Bill of Rights is a cop out is, well, a cop out. Like it or not, they are "arms in common use" and are protected by the Second Amendment.

That's why the DOJ's proposal is the way to go; it will reduce the number of mass shootings rather than violate the Constitution to make then slightly less efficient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTP
Nov 2018
5,363
2,835
Rocky Mountains
When you speak of real solutions, like stop 'n frisk in high gun crime areas (which promptly cleaned up NY), VERY long sentences for any crime using firearms.......and how about stop depicting guns as the answer to problems in movies, tv shows, video games, and media in general - things that would actually work - the Left refuses.

Why? Because those real solutions don't remove firearms from law-abiding citizens.

That tells you the real agenda here
So you are in favor of search without warrant, censorship of media, and extreme punishment (all violations of civil rights) to "protect" your privilege of purchasing a firearm easily and essentially without restriction such as inspection, training, certification, licensing or registration... go figure. Many, many accidents, suicides, and crimes are committed by "law-abiding citizens" .... until they aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Sep 2019
86
46
CA
Firearms, broadly, are far more lethal than ingestions or falls. Suicide success is more prevalent when a firearm is available and those who survive suicide typically get help and appreciate the failure of their attempt. Firearm lethality is the factor to consider. Suicide, especially by males, is more common in states with higher firearm availability. What more do you need to know, "truthseeker"?
But your focus is on targeting a tool they use as opposed to targeting the problem they suffer. You can take away the tool, but it doesn't stop or help them. I want to help them and focus on helping them overcome the issues weighing on them and making them consider suicide in the first place. If we're to actually help, why waste any time focused on things that won't solve their issue and are nothing more than 1 of many means to an end?

Well, you are going to have to get ALL the other sources of data on this subject of motor vehicle accidents to change because that is flatly incorrect.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has collected data throughout the world on vehicle accidents, injuries, and deaths. They detailed all of it here:
Road Safety Facts — Association for Safe International Road Travel

They say that there are reportedly about 37,000 deaths per year due to vehicles and there are 2.35 million injured or disabled. They also state that there are over 1,600 children under 15 that die each year and that crashes cost the US 230.6 BILLION per year.

Soooo, compare that to the number of deaths by firearm and you're only close if you add up ALL firearms. Now, you tell me...how many deaths are caused by the rifle you and dems are fighting and spending SOOOO much money on to ban? You tell me how many lives are lost to it and how much money is spent fighting to ban them...then ask yourself...is that really the best use of our time and money to save and protect more lives?

Once again, we have laws and regulations to reduce damaging behaviors, not to effectively prevent them always and forever. Are you advocating that bank robbery or murder should not be illegal because the law does not "stop" every criminal act? Really are you THAT clueless??
1. laws are created to help keep a society civil.
2. Laws are ONLY effective if adhered to.
3. Criminals DON'T adhere to the laws, hence why they are CRIMINALS!
4. Creating more laws that CRIMINALS will disregard as they commit heinous crimes and take innocent lives therefore is ineffective.
5. The only people that generally follow laws, are "Law Abiding" citizens, hence the term.
6. Since ONLY law Abiding citizens follow the laws, any laws that removes right from law abiding citizens is punitive in nature without merit or reason to the same group that doesn't commit the criminal acts or could help protect lives had they the means.

I do appreciate that you think I'm clueless when you're logic and reason is so flawed. You literally want to pass another law, that criminals would disregard to commit a crime. That's my point. You go ahead and pass whatever law you want...but it's ONLY a placebo for emotional type to feel they did something. You literally are deluding yourself by being fixated on such antiquated and flawed logic and you keep regurgitating it over and over which by definition is insane.

Laws punishing people for crimes like murder, robbery, assault, etc are all to punish people after they committed the crime. If the law was a meaningful deterrent, the crimes wouldn't happen. However, emotions, needs, frustration, or any number of other traits criminals tend to have give them their twisted rationale to commit these crimes regardless of the laws and when caught, we punish them so that there is justice in our society. Now, let me ask you this...what if we could take away the reason these criminals want to commit these crimes? What if we could instead give a bank robber who is stealing to live...a different means to live so they don't have to steal? What if we help the starving family so they don't have to steal food and live as criminals to survive? WOuldn't that reduce the likelihood that these criminals need to turn to crime int he first place? That would be a PROACTIVE approach to preventing crime correct? certainly more PROACTIVE then passing more laws to punish them with after the crime was committed. Same applies to mass murderers...and that's my point. If we stop wasting time passing laws to punish them after the fact (even though most kill themselves before being caught)...then we can stop the crimes rather than punish after they are committed.

Even you have to recognize the difference between a proactive approach and a punitive approach that is useless because criminals will ignore it and if they kill themselves before being brought to justice...well...then we just have a bunch of innocent lives lost and you're no closer to anything...but you have your law...a toothless, waste of time that wouldn't help fix anything. That's my entire point.
 
  • Love
Reactions: LTP
Sep 2019
86
46
CA
Correction noted. Yes, rifles are more deadly than handguns. So you want to ban "assault rifles" because they are deadlier than handguns. Then it will be my bolt action 30-06 "sniper rifle" because it's far more powerful than the "assault rifle" you just banned. When does it stop? What would be enough for you?

Saying the Bill of Rights is a cop out is, well, a cop out. Like it or not, they are "arms in common use" and are protected by the Second Amendment.

That's why the DOJ's proposal is the way to go; it will reduce the number of mass shootings rather than violate the Constitution to make then slightly less efficient.
Honestly, I tend to wonder about the whole, "Which is deadlier" argument. You can kill someone with a .22 just like you can a .50 cal. A shotgun loaded with a slug will certainly leave a person with a bigger hole than say that .22 I spoke of. Likewise, a handgun like a .44 mag is the preferred choice for encounters with Brown Bear while an AR wouldn't stand a chance. I just tend to wonder who makes up these reports because there are so many factors that play in. Handguns are easily concealable, come in some VERY hard hitting calibers and it always just makes me laugh when I hear someone try and tell me one is deadlier than another....

Frankly I agree with most of what you were implying...I just have a hard time swallowing some argument that one is deadlier than another...it's like the argument of which is more deadly...a .45 or a 9mm...it's all relative to the person wielding the firearm, their skill with round placement, and frankly some luck.

anyways...enjoy and sorry to argue something that didn't need to be argued.
 
Sep 2019
86
46
CA
So you are in favor of search without warrant, censorship of media, and extreme punishment (all violations of civil rights) to "protect" your privilege of purchasing a firearm easily and essentially without restriction such as inspection, training, certification, licensing or registration... go figure. Many, many accidents, suicides, and crimes are committed by "law-abiding citizens" .... until they aren't.
So you seem to imply that you are for our rights...yet you want to take away MY rights to own firearms I do....seems a little silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTP