Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Daryl Hunt]

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Death Race was a movie about needless deaths and violence.
Firearms are used 99% of the time for defense.
Otherwise police would not be armed.
And I trust average people WAY more than I trust police, and in fact, there are few police I trust at all.
The democratic republic is also worth some risk.
We do not want to trade some imagined safety for freedom.
Freedom always comes with some risks and it is a very worth while trade off I think.
Gun control accomplishes nothing except make honest people helpless in the face of crime or government corruption.
That essentially is both foolish and treason, at the same time.

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.
Someone with a pump shotgun can much more easily and quickly kill far more people than with a semi AR.
As far as magazine size goes, they are just sheet metal that any one can easily and quickly modify.
I probably still would not even mind a magazine size limit except that I already bought a couple of large ones, and do NOT intend to ever give them up.

You also are totally wrong about more guns being the answer.
The ONLY time you ever have a lot of collateral damage from people firing irresponsibly in a crowd is by the police.
Average citizens are extremely hesitant to fire at all, and have NEVER caused collateral damage that I know of.
But police to it constantly, like the time they shot Amadou Diallo 42 times, and he had committed no crime and had no weapon. Clearly the most important thing we MUST do is get armed police OFF the streets.

Clearly mass shootings are a suicide declaration, that can easily be stopped by the proper mental health access. Guns have nothing at all to do with the cause or the cure.

And anyone can build a Nuclear Device in the Basement, right? Your logic fails in real life.

This is such a sad strawman argument.

You know that the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAN has been trying to get nukes for decades, right?

I want you to show me a single private individual or even a large corp/conglomerate that has the means to develop a fucking nuke, much less the will to use it, forget that doing so is akin to this:

(burning a mountain of money)

.

 

[Rigby5]

Death Race was a movie about needless deaths and violence.
Firearms are used 99% of the time for defense.
Otherwise police would not be armed.
And I trust average people WAY more than I trust police, and in fact, there are few police I trust at all.
The democratic republic is also worth some risk.
We do not want to trade some imagined safety for freedom.
Freedom always comes with some risks and it is a very worth while trade off I think.
Gun control accomplishes nothing except make honest people helpless in the face of crime or government corruption.
That essentially is both foolish and treason, at the same time.

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

NO! Absolutely and completely wrong.
In a close range setting like that, a pair of pistols or a shotgun can easily kill 10 times the number of people you can kill with an AR. An AR has way too much recoil and prevent rapid target acquisition. With 2 pistols, you can begin targeting one while the other is firing. With a shot gun, you would not even have to aim at close range. And both of those are MUCH easier to reload than the bulky and heavy large AR magazine. An AR is the dumbest possible choice of weapon, and by far the least lethal. Its purpose it a mid range, jungle, firefight, and is awful for close urban situations.
As far back as WWII, it was clear what was best for urban combat, and it uses a pistol bullet,

This is the Soviet PPSH, but every country made and makes something similar. In fact, most pistols can easily be modified to be very similar. An AR is nearly impossible to modify at all, and is extremely difficult to make full auto.
David Koresh was making ARs full auto in Waco, but it took a precision machine shop. Most pistols are trivial to make full auto.

 

[Rigby5]

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

If you want to diminish drug use, you have to reduce the profits so there are fewer people selling it. And that means legalization, so you can under cut the black market prices.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

NO! Absolutely and completely wrong.
In a close range setting like that, a pair of pistols or a shotgun can easily kill 10 times the number of people you can kill with an AR. An AR has way too much recoil and prevent rapid target acquisition. With 2 pistols, you can begin targeting one while the other is firing. With a shot gun, you would not even have to aim at close range. And both of those are MUCH easier to reload than the bulky and heavy large AR magazine. An AR is the dumbest possible choice of weapon, and by far the least lethal. Its purpose it a mid range, jungle, firefight, and is awful for close urban situations.
As far back as WWII, it was clear what was best for urban combat, and it uses a pistol bullet,

This is the Soviet PPSH, but every country made and makes something similar. In fact, most pistols can easily be modified to be very similar. An AR is nearly impossible to modify at all, and is extremely difficult to make full auto.
David Koresh was making ARs full auto in Waco, but it took a precision machine shop. Most pistols are trivial to make full auto.

The AR has a recoil problem? You just ended any chance of any of the rest of us listening to anything you have to say. Time to thin the gene pool. Have a nice day.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

NO! Absolutely and completely wrong.
In a close range setting like that, a pair of pistols or a shotgun can easily kill 10 times the number of people you can kill with an AR. An AR has way too much recoil and prevent rapid target acquisition. With 2 pistols, you can begin targeting one while the other is firing. With a shot gun, you would not even have to aim at close range. And both of those are MUCH easier to reload than the bulky and heavy large AR magazine. An AR is the dumbest possible choice of weapon, and by far the least lethal. Its purpose it a mid range, jungle, firefight, and is awful for close urban situations.
As far back as WWII, it was clear what was best for urban combat, and it uses a pistol bullet,

This is the Soviet PPSH, but every country made and makes something similar. In fact, most pistols can easily be modified to be very similar. An AR is nearly impossible to modify at all, and is extremely difficult to make full auto.
David Koresh was making ARs full auto in Waco, but it took a precision machine shop. Most pistols are trivial to make full auto.

The AR has a recoil problem? You just ended any chance of any of the rest of us listening to anything you have to say. Time to thin the gene pool. Have a nice day.

No, YOU just demonstrated that you have either forgotten how an AR performs and handles, or you never did know from the beginning. When is the last time you fired such a weapon? Did you ever use it in a CQB setting?

There's a reason spec ops and SEAL teams use the MP5 (.45 apc) over the M4 carbine. There's a reason the VTech shooter had twice as many casualties as similar mass shootings with an AR variant.

Somehow, you have been programmed to believe the AR must go. You are marching on like a good little soldier, ignoring the implications of implementing a ban on such a system.

.

 

[dblack]

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

Of course it's a problem. Just like driving drunk. Or driving angry. Or texting while driving. Or just driving recklessly in general. And guess what? They're all, already, illegal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

If you want to diminish drug use, you have to reduce the profits so there are fewer people selling it. And that means legalization, so you can under cut the black market prices.

That would never happen because no state will go that route unless they get a huge cut like in pot states. You are not going to diminish drug usage by making it legal. You will only increase the usage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Death Race was a movie about needless deaths and violence.
Firearms are used 99% of the time for defense.
Otherwise police would not be armed.
And I trust average people WAY more than I trust police, and in fact, there are few police I trust at all.
The democratic republic is also worth some risk.
We do not want to trade some imagined safety for freedom.
Freedom always comes with some risks and it is a very worth while trade off I think.
Gun control accomplishes nothing except make honest people helpless in the face of crime or government corruption.
That essentially is both foolish and treason, at the same time.

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

If I use my semi-auto 9mm with a 15 round clip and you use an AR, and we both start firing as fast as we can, both our magazines will empty out at the same time. In fact I can probably change the magazine on my gun faster than you could on yours.

The type of gun is irrelevant, the person is not. Until we can get rid of this mentality that guns kill all on their own, we will never be able to address this problem seriously.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

Pot has different effects on different people. When I smoked pot, all I wanted to do was put on some headphones and listen to music. Others got high and were running all over the place throwing a football around.

My late neighbor was like that. She was stickler about her yard. On the weekends during the summer, she would wake up at 5:30 am and work on that yard until sundown. She was an avid pot smoker; from morning until night. She died of lung cancer, but until she got sick, she had ten times more energy than I ever did.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

You really can't get addicted to pot.

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

The amount of revenue generated off taxing the drugs will more than pay for social services, rehab, education and community programs. You’re all good Ray. Check the box’

I doubt that, but even if it did, you can't replace a human life at any cost.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

Of course it's a problem. Just like driving drunk. Or driving angry. Or texting while driving. Or just driving recklessly in general. And guess what? They're all, already, illegal.

But according to Rigby, no one drives stone. Sounds like a stoner trying to come up with more reasons to make it legal....wait.....many states it's already legal so I have no idea what the fruitcake is getting at. AFter his BS about the great amount of kickback from an AR, I decided to thin the gene pool a bit and suggest others just put him under ignore as well. If you wish to put me on ignore, feel free.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

If I use my semi-auto 9mm with a 15 round clip and you use an AR, and we both start firing as fast as we can, both our magazines will empty out at the same time. In fact I can probably change the magazine on my gun faster than you could on yours.

The type of gun is irrelevant, the person is not. Until we can get rid of this mentality that guns kill all on their own, we will never be able to address this problem seriously.

You are one half step away from a break through that I noted myself. Cultism. It's not just the one side yelling a screaming about how dangerous the AR is, it's also the other side that has taken owning the AR to cult status. In a home defense situation, the semi auto or even the wheel gun is far superior to the full sized AR. Yet there are those that make the claim that that is why they own the AR. But in a battle field situation that handgun is only worth anything as a very last resort while the AR will be the first resort. I consider a mass shooting on the same scale as a Battle Field and the same weapons apply. To claim the AR is only a hunting rifle because it can shoot a ground hog and that is the only reason you have it is a lie. There are much better ground hot rifles than the AR by far. To say you have it to scare the living hell out of those around you, now you are getting somewhere. Break the Cult and the AR goes out of vogue very quickly because as a sport gun, it's way down on the list for anything. As a home defense weapon, it's way down on the list as well. It is designed for one thing and one thing only and that is for the Battle Field and THAT it's better than any crumby sport rifle out there.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

If I use my semi-auto 9mm with a 15 round clip and you use an AR, and we both start firing as fast as we can, both our magazines will empty out at the same time. In fact I can probably change the magazine on my gun faster than you could on yours.

The type of gun is irrelevant, the person is not. Until we can get rid of this mentality that guns kill all on their own, we will never be able to address this problem seriously.

You are one half step away from a break through that I noted myself. Cultism. It's not just the one side yelling a screaming about how dangerous the AR is, it's also the other side that has taken owning the AR to cult status. In a home defense situation, the semi auto or even the wheel gun is far superior to the full sized AR. Yet there are those that make the claim that that is why they own the AR. But in a battle field situation that handgun is only worth anything as a very last resort while the AR will be the first resort. I consider a mass shooting on the same scale as a Battle Field and the same weapons apply. To claim the AR is only a hunting rifle because it can shoot a ground hog and that is the only reason you have it is a lie. There are much better ground hot rifles than the AR by far. To say you have it to scare the living hell out of those around you, now you are getting somewhere. Break the Cult and the AR goes out of vogue very quickly because as a sport gun, it's way down on the list for anything. As a home defense weapon, it's way down on the list as well. It is designed for one thing and one thing only and that is for the Battle Field and THAT it's better than any crumby sport rifle out there.

Why does your alleged (but complete bullshit) existence of a "gun cult" or "AR cult" relevant in the fucking least?

If there were a gun cult, how does that make one fucking hill of beans?

You want to break up this alleged cult that you have imagined, and don't mind SHITTING ON THE RIGHTS OF MILLIONS TO DO SO!!!

It's not a Bill of Needs. It's a Bill of Rights.

.

 

[Slade3200]

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

The amount of revenue generated off taxing the drugs will more than pay for social services, rehab, education and community programs. You’re all good Ray. Check the box’

I doubt that, but even if it did, you can't replace a human life at any cost.

Agreed. That’s even a more potent point in the gun debate as people take other people’s lives with guns and doing drugs is a personal choice

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

The amount of revenue generated off taxing the drugs will more than pay for social services, rehab, education and community programs. You’re all good Ray. Check the box’

I doubt that, but even if it did, you can't replace a human life at any cost.

Agreed. That’s even a more potent point in the gun debate as people take other people’s lives with guns and doing drugs is a personal choice

The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

The amount of revenue generated off taxing the drugs will more than pay for social services, rehab, education and community programs. You’re all good Ray. Check the box’

I doubt that, but even if it did, you can't replace a human life at any cost.

Agreed. That’s even a more potent point in the gun debate as people take other people’s lives with guns and doing drugs is a personal choice

The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.

True but the body count is much, much lower.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

If I use my semi-auto 9mm with a 15 round clip and you use an AR, and we both start firing as fast as we can, both our magazines will empty out at the same time. In fact I can probably change the magazine on my gun faster than you could on yours.

The type of gun is irrelevant, the person is not. Until we can get rid of this mentality that guns kill all on their own, we will never be able to address this problem seriously.

You are one half step away from a break through that I noted myself. Cultism. It's not just the one side yelling a screaming about how dangerous the AR is, it's also the other side that has taken owning the AR to cult status. In a home defense situation, the semi auto or even the wheel gun is far superior to the full sized AR. Yet there are those that make the claim that that is why they own the AR. But in a battle field situation that handgun is only worth anything as a very last resort while the AR will be the first resort. I consider a mass shooting on the same scale as a Battle Field and the same weapons apply. To claim the AR is only a hunting rifle because it can shoot a ground hog and that is the only reason you have it is a lie. There are much better ground hot rifles than the AR by far. To say you have it to scare the living hell out of those around you, now you are getting somewhere. Break the Cult and the AR goes out of vogue very quickly because as a sport gun, it's way down on the list for anything. As a home defense weapon, it's way down on the list as well. It is designed for one thing and one thing only and that is for the Battle Field and THAT it's better than any crumby sport rifle out there.

Ah yes, the gun cult again. Let me ask: If you fancy cars and have several of them, are you part of the automobile cult? How about a musician that loves rare guitars, are they part of the guitar cult?

It doesn't matter why people want an AR or AK, removing them is not going to solve a single problem. There are people who just love weapons, and likely have several different models and makes. Hey! Why do they need different kinds of guns when you only use one for home defense?

I have friends just like that. They enjoy the sport of shooting, and they don't even hunt. Shooting at targets for competition or personal satisfaction is plenty good for them. They used to talk about it all the time when we were in our bowling cult.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

The amount of revenue generated off taxing the drugs will more than pay for social services, rehab, education and community programs. You’re all good Ray. Check the box’

I doubt that, but even if it did, you can't replace a human life at any cost.

Agreed. That’s even a more potent point in the gun debate as people take other people’s lives with guns and doing drugs is a personal choice

The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.

True but the body count is much, much lower.

No evidence to support that. Like I said, two of any semi-automatic weapons can be emptied out at the same time.