Take the guns first, due process second.

[OldLady]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

Right. What does the man who designed it know?

Except it is his family that is making the claim, not him. Why only now and not when he invented it?

Why now? Because there are people like you arguing that it was designed as a sport rifle.

His family is making the claim because he is dead.

Where did I claim it was designed as a sport rifle?

I am merely stating a fact. No one knows what he designed or intended. We have no idea what the family’s motivation for making the statement. Their statement didn’t use facts, it used emotion as in “we feel”. I look for motivation and deeper meanings and how things are said. I don’t take things at face value.

Ridiculous argument, imo.

What he designed was sold to the military; they added an auto fire feature and dubbed it the M-16. When Stoner's patent ran, Colt copied it. It was out of his hands.

His family knew him better than you, don't you think? The fact that he, an avid sportsman and ex-Marine, never owned one might tell you something, too. You are obfuscating to bury the main point.

It doesn't really matter what he thought, anyway. The guys who came up with the atom bomb might have lost a few nights of sleep, too, but regardless how they felt about it, the rest of us need to deal with it. Now. Doesn't matter what he thought. His family apparently was concerned about its knock off in the Pulse shooting and discussion of banning it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A dubious term with a variety of subjective meanings.

.

m'k... those that take high velocity ammo that can take multi round mags & drums.

You mean, like these:

Could you clear it up further please. The high vel ammo part. Playtime don't understand how all that works. I don't see threads on those barrels so would you high velocity ammo with those or subsonic?

Playtime has demonstrated that she should not be part of the process of defining which weapons should be banned. She is clueless.

But, to clear it up, every one of those would be considered "high-velocity" whether chambered in .223 or something else, unless they are specifically NOT high-velocity or maybe "subsonic" cartridges. "High-velocity" can range from 1,900 feet per second to over 4,000 feet per second.

Pretty much every single rifle caliber could be considered "high-velocity".

The question I have is, why does velocity matter? .300 Blackout is deadly as FUCK in the AR system and it is subsonic.

uh-huh. .223 ammo was used to kill them thar 'varmints' at sandy hook.... & parkland... & the orlando nightclub.................. it's not just the bullets - like i said it's the multi round mags & drums as well. they were all turned into swiss cheese in mere seconds & those bullets don't enter & exit in a relative 'straight line'... the dude that invented the AR-15 didn't want it for public consumption.

Learn when to shut the fuck up. You are clueless.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Of course he didn't intend for a select-fire full-auto rifle to be used by civilians.


You are so fucking ignorant, I don't expect you to know the difference.

.

 

[OldLady]

So this is what Trump said. Mike Pence says take ANYTHING that is dangerous. I gotta ask how this squares with Trumps claim to love the 2nd amendment and his promise to protect it, yet here he is trying to remove it, as well as the 4th amendment.



So I ask you die hard trumpkins, y'all good with this?

I am not a Trumpkin, and you harm your cause when you use such insults.

I was likely one of the very first people no this forum to denounce Trump for these anti-Constitutional red flag laws.

Why do you want homicidal/suicidal people in crisis to have guns?

I don't.

I don't want YOU or ANYONE to take guns away from people who are NOT homicidal or suicidal.

You don't cure drunk driving by taking the privilege of driving away from those who are sober.

We are talking about Red Flag (ERPO) laws. They only apply to people who are homicidal or suicidal. I fail to see your issue.

Do you fail to see the violation of liberties to the American citizen? In your world, is it better to be thought guilty first and then force someone to become bankrupt trying to prove their innocence, all on the strength of an accusation?

Next you'll be saying that some liberties must be denied for the good of the many. A line and policy that every mass-murdering government in history has utilized.

It's not hard to prove you're not homicidal, and I don't believe you would have to pay for your own lawyer. Doesn't our court system provide one free of charge to defendants? The judge would automatically order a mental health evaluation (he/she would not make a determination without one) and that also would be paid for by the court.
You need to stop spinning this into something it isn't and never will be.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

Right. What does the man who designed it know?

We will never know. He is fucking DEAD. All we have is baseless, speculative hearsay.

Regardless, it does not fucking matter one bit. His intent is fucking irrelevant. He could have intended it to be use as a sex toy and it would not matter one single fucking bit.


.

 

[OldLady]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Of course he didn't intend for a select-fire full-auto rifle to be used by civilians.


You are so fucking ignorant, I don't expect you to know the difference.

.

Good work, playtime! You've triggered Bootney. Must have said something right.

 

[OldLady]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

Right. What does the man who designed it know?

We will never know. He is fucking DEAD. All we have is baseless, speculative hearsay.

Regardless, it does not fucking matter one bit. His intent is fucking irrelevant. He could have intended it to be use as a sex toy and it would not matter one single fucking bit.


.

Yes, exactly what I said, only much more politely.

 

[OldLady]

one of the first things trump did when he got the keys to the white house:

Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales

Christopher Wilson
Senior Writer
Yahoo NewsAugust 5, 2019

In the wake of this weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, President Trump was quick to point to mental illness as a cause, echoing a Republican talking point that emerged in interviews and social media posts on Sunday.

“Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun,” said Trump in a speech Monday morning from the White House. He said the country “must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”

But in his first full month in office, Trump signed a bill rolling back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. The rule would have used Social Security records to add about 75,000 names to the database used in background checks of gun buyers (from licensed firearms dealers). People receiving supplemental-income support for mental disability and those found unfit to handle their own financial affairs would have been precluded from purchasing firearms. While the rule went on the books just before Trump took office in January 2017, compliance was not mandatory until December 2017.
[...]
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales

Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?

I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

Right. What does the man who designed it know?

We will never know. He is fucking DEAD. All we have is baseless, speculative hearsay.

Regardless, it does not fucking matter one bit. His intent is fucking irrelevant. He could have intended it to be use as a sex toy and it would not matter one single fucking bit.


.

Yes, exactly what I said, only much more politely.

When we have asswipes refusing to even acknowledge that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms and forcing us to fight that issue all the fucking way to the fucking Supreme Court, that level of despicable dirty play warrants a whole lot more that a few f-bombs and impolite comments.

I want people to be executed for that shit.

So, yes. We're entitled to be mad as fuck at anyone trying to get ONE GODDAMN IOTA of additional regulation.]

FUCK NO!!!

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?

I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

Give us full-auto machine guns, then we MAY consider something new.

But, the gun-grabbing side's despicable conduct warrants nothing from us. NOT ONE THING. FUCK OFF.

.

 

[G.T.]

Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?

I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

 

[OldLady]

 

[Papageorgio]

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

Right. What does the man who designed it know?

Except it is his family that is making the claim, not him. Why only now and not when he invented it?

Why now? Because there are people like you arguing that it was designed as a sport rifle.

His family is making the claim because he is dead.

Where did I claim it was designed as a sport rifle?

I am merely stating a fact. No one knows what he designed or intended. We have no idea what the family’s motivation for making the statement. Their statement didn’t use facts, it used emotion as in “we feel”. I look for motivation and deeper meanings and how things are said. I don’t take things at face value.

Ridiculous argument, imo.

What he designed was sold to the military; they added an auto fire feature and dubbed it the M-16. When Stoner's patent ran, Colt copied it. It was out of his hands.

His family knew him better than you, don't you think? The fact that he, an avid sportsman and ex-Marine, never owned one might tell you something, too. You are obfuscating to bury the main point.

It doesn't really matter what he thought, anyway. The guys who came up with the atom bomb might have lost a few nights of sleep, too, but regardless how they felt about it, the rest of us need to deal with it. Now. Doesn't matter what he thought. His family apparently was concerned about its knock off in the Pulse shooting and discussion of banning it.

I have no idea what Stoner's intent was, I am just saying at a time when the AR-15 is unpopular in the PC world, the family all of a sudden claims what they feel what his intent was.

You have no clue what his intent was either.

 

[OldLady]

I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

 

[danielpalos]

This is the Common Law for the Common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

 

[Papageorgio]

This is the Common Law for the Common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

You have no choice but to obey "the LAW".

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is a Red Flag Law? Does one exist, promulgated by the Congress or any State Legislature and signed by the Executive?

 

[Crixus]

I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

 

[OldLady]

Right. What does the man who designed it know?

Except it is his family that is making the claim, not him. Why only now and not when he invented it?

Why now? Because there are people like you arguing that it was designed as a sport rifle.

His family is making the claim because he is dead.

Where did I claim it was designed as a sport rifle?

I am merely stating a fact. No one knows what he designed or intended. We have no idea what the family’s motivation for making the statement. Their statement didn’t use facts, it used emotion as in “we feel”. I look for motivation and deeper meanings and how things are said. I don’t take things at face value.

Ridiculous argument, imo.

What he designed was sold to the military; they added an auto fire feature and dubbed it the M-16. When Stoner's patent ran, Colt copied it. It was out of his hands.

His family knew him better than you, don't you think? The fact that he, an avid sportsman and ex-Marine, never owned one might tell you something, too. You are obfuscating to bury the main point.

It doesn't really matter what he thought, anyway. The guys who came up with the atom bomb might have lost a few nights of sleep, too, but regardless how they felt about it, the rest of us need to deal with it. Now. Doesn't matter what he thought. His family apparently was concerned about its knock off in the Pulse shooting and discussion of banning it.

I have no idea what Stoner's intent was, I am just saying at a time when the AR-15 is unpopular in the PC world, the family all of a sudden claims what they feel what his intent was.

You have no clue what his intent was either.

All of a sudden, three years ago, just after the Pulse nightclub shooting. Someone unearthed it again because we are once again talking about banning the AR after a mass shooting in which it was used.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

We do have a right to be violently pissed about the shenanigans, do we not?

.