Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Blues Man]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

 

[pismoe]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

---------------------------- it is the most popular for Some , but mostly among older 'FUD' people who like the looks of nice wood and Blued metal . Course I Guess that an AR is cheaper and a number of different calibers can be shot from a custom AR customized by the owner or other source . So an AR is more versatile . Also , there is less concern about keeping an AR Clean and shiny as it has a Parkerized finish and easily replaced plastic furniture or gun parts like Stocks and Handguards . AR is simply a nice gun and is superior in many peoples opinion RDave .

 

[pismoe]

and if you rode a 125cc motorbike instead of a Harley, you'd still be considered a biker.

Nah, you'd be considered a motorcycle rider.

----------------------------------------- a little tiny 'piddler' motorcycle until the foreign brit or similar government said you could get a bigger motorcycle or a Harley .

 

[Blues Man]

and if you rode a 125cc motorbike instead of a Harley, you'd still be considered a biker.

Nah, you'd be considered a motorcycle rider.

----------------------------------------- a little tiny 'piddler' motorcycle until the foreign brit or similar government said you could get a bigger motorcycle or a Harley .

Shit I must have been a bad ass biker when I was 8 years old because I had a 125

 

[pismoe]

Its you lefties that show paranoia as you work and try to remove Americas RIGHTS . Its youse guys that are skeered of Americans having firearms and weapons CNM .

Not sane Americans.

------------------------------------------- and its YOU and you ilk that gets to decide who is sane and who is not sane eh RDave .

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I'm sorry for your lack of comprehension. To put is simply..I was rejecting Swiss laws as a solution to American problems...as I feel that our large population and diverse culture argue against it. 8m is not 300+m. Yes, the American culture is unique among developed nations..you used the term 'exceptional'... in its tolerance of gun violence as the 'go to' solution.I don't believe that this is going to change any time soon.
I also reject a per capita rubric as a valid basis of comparison between the two cultures...for many of the same reasons listed above.

To conclude..just because the Swiss have a large per capita rate of gun ownership with a low rate of per capita gun violence does not mean that the same is possible here.

CNM's comprehension is okay, the occasional lapse notwithstanding. Happens to all of us.

This - "8m is not 300+m" - just doesn't make sense, unless you are willing to say that a duly enacted law cannot be enforced once the population grows beyond a certain number. This is obviously nonsensical in face of the fact that laws, even unpopular laws such as the tax code, are routinely being enforced. It isn't easy, and folks find ways to counter act and violate that law, but it is in force. The same would happen with strict, Swiss-style gun regulations, just as it happens with the tax code, and against a "culture" that in essence maintains, "tax is theft", or at the least, "taxes are too high".

Gun regulations are fare more a case of political will (or rather the lack thereof), and even that appears to be changing, and rapidly, as urbanization and modernization see to it that tolerance for guns and gun violence is dwindling, and Democrats are more and more willing to pick up the cause. The question, "Are scores of dead kids really a price worth paying for lax gun laws and hundreds of millions of guns in private hands?", is going to demand an answer with increased urgency, and the trend is toward answering in the negative. It's just a matter of time, fighting spirit, and, devastatingly enough, a case of the costs of the current non-regulation piling up.

Indeed the laws are 'in force'...but they don't appear to be 'enforced', with any degree of consistency or regularity.
As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense. Most people obey the law..not for fear of consequence..but because they believe in the rule of law and that it is their duty to abide by statute. I'm not at all sure that this would be the case in this country as regards gun regulation..in fact, I'm pretty sure that the gun laws are violated every day with no consequence..either social or criminal.
We come to the crux of it..as tens of millions still answer your question with a resounding 'yes'..that the deaths of innocents are worth what they perceive of as their gun rights.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm sorry for your lack of comprehension. To put is simply..I was rejecting Swiss laws as a solution to American problems...as I feel that our large population and diverse culture argue against it. 8m is not 300+m. Yes, the American culture is unique among developed nations..you used the term 'exceptional'... in its tolerance of gun violence as the 'go to' solution.I don't believe that this is going to change any time soon.
I also reject a per capita rubric as a valid basis of comparison between the two cultures...for many of the same reasons listed above.

To conclude..just because the Swiss have a large per capita rate of gun ownership with a low rate of per capita gun violence does not mean that the same is possible here.

CNM's comprehension is okay, the occasional lapse notwithstanding. Happens to all of us.

This - "8m is not 300+m" - just doesn't make sense, unless you are willing to say that a duly enacted law cannot be enforced once the population grows beyond a certain number. This is obviously nonsensical in face of the fact that laws, even unpopular laws such as the tax code, are routinely being enforced. It isn't easy, and folks find ways to counter act and violate that law, but it is in force. The same would happen with strict, Swiss-style gun regulations, just as it happens with the tax code, and against a "culture" that in essence maintains, "tax is theft", or at the least, "taxes are too high".

Gun regulations are fare more a case of political will (or rather the lack thereof), and even that appears to be changing, and rapidly, as urbanization and modernization see to it that tolerance for guns and gun violence is dwindling, and Democrats are more and more willing to pick up the cause. The question, "Are scores of dead kids really a price worth paying for lax gun laws and hundreds of millions of guns in private hands?", is going to demand an answer with increased urgency, and the trend is toward answering in the negative. It's just a matter of time, fighting spirit, and, devastatingly enough, a case of the costs of the current non-regulation piling up.

Indeed the laws are 'in force'...but they don't appear to be 'enforced', with any degree of consistency or regularity.
As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense. Most people obey the law..not for fear of consequence..but because they believe in the rule of law and that it is their duty to abide by statute. I'm not at all sure that this would be the case in this country as regards gun regulation..in fact, I'm pretty sure that the gun laws are violated every day with no consequence..either social or criminal.
We come to the crux of it..as tens of millions still answer your question with a resounding 'yes'..that the deaths of innocents are worth what they perceive of as their gun rights.

When our gun laws are enforced they work

Virginia Project Exile

Study 1
Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

 

[pismoe]

But we cannot deny people any of their rights because they MIGHT commit a crime.

True, you can make it so handguns and military style semi automatic rifles are not a right. Just like other weapons which citizens have no right to. After all, RPGs are commonly carried by the military and would be damned useful to a militia.

Any other wishes you want to share?

Everyone knows how to change the Constitution and if there was any chance in hell of repealing the Second Amendment it would have already been tried.

The Second will never be repealed in our lifetime. But in the meantime we should enforce the laws we already have because when they are enforced they work.

There is absolutely no reason to deny law abiding people the right to own firearms

I think the problem is that people think the ight to own firearms means any firearm of any style.

If you had a single shot .22 rifle, you would bear arms.

And a single shot .22 is useless as tits on a bull when it comes to self defense

---------------------------------- that's why they would let you have a .22 . But keep it locked up in approved storage along with the ammo in seperate gov approved storage and be ready for 'cop' banging on your door to make sure that you are following THEIR rules . And don't dare think that you can use it for Self Defense . [I refer to 'england' ]

 

[Blues Man]

But we cannot deny people any of their rights because they MIGHT commit a crime.

True, you can make it so handguns and military style semi automatic rifles are not a right. Just like other weapons which citizens have no right to. After all, RPGs are commonly carried by the military and would be damned useful to a militia.

Any other wishes you want to share?

Everyone knows how to change the Constitution and if there was any chance in hell of repealing the Second Amendment it would have already been tried.

The Second will never be repealed in our lifetime. But in the meantime we should enforce the laws we already have because when they are enforced they work.

There is absolutely no reason to deny law abiding people the right to own firearms

I think the problem is that people think the ight to own firearms means any firearm of any style.

If you had a single shot .22 rifle, you would bear arms.

And a single shot .22 is useless as tits on a bull when it comes to self defense

---------------------------------- that's why they would let you have a .22 . But keep it locked up in approved storage along with the ammo in seperate gov approved storage and be ready for 'cop' banging on your door to make sure that you are following THEIR rules . And don't dare think that you can use it for Self Defense .

And don't expect that cop to come to your aid when you need it

 

[Olde Europe]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

Hmmm...maybe it's my failure to couple population with geography that's at fault here. It is far harder to police the area that the US encompasses--than it is the relatively smaller area of Switzerland...juxtapose that with our far greater population...and i think I might communicate what i mean better.

Then add the notably fractious nature of our citizenry.....

As for culture..it is not just the gun nuts I'm referring to..but our society as a whole and its tolerance for gun violence. We admire it in our entertainment...we celebrate despicable criminals as cultural heroes--we often applaud vigilante justice. All this is the systemic root of our gun culture. As a culture that often celebrates lawlessness...would we obey an unpopular gun law?

I believe that cultural inertia..the tendency for us to go on as we have been going on.....will doom any real changes..for quite some time.

I'd love to be wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

Based on... what?

You do understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table - right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

True, you can make it so handguns and military style semi automatic rifles are not a right.

True - by amending the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you people always appeal to the ridiculous?

I'm surprised you didn't use a nuclear missile in your example

Next time time formulating am actual counter argument and explain yourself. That’s how debates work

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

 

[Blues Man]

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

Based on... what?

You do understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table - right?

No CNM lives in a country where they don't have a Bill of Rights and they can get locked up for saying the "wrong" thing

 

[M14 Shooter]

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

Based on... what?

You do understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table - right?

No CNM lives in a country where they don't have a Bill of Rights and they can get locked up for saying the "wrong" thing

Ah. A -free- country.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

Based on... what?

You do understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table - right?

No CNM lives in a country where they don't have a Bill of Rights and they can get locked up for saying the "wrong" thing

Russian, eh?

 

[2aguy]

An irrelevant number.

Around half of US homicides are committed with handguns. An interesting point that only the other half of US homicides are relevant.

great. so before we go changing things, how about some research instead of emo-grandstanding.

how many laws do we have?
why are they not working?
what laws would you suggest that would have stopped any known mass shooting in the last decade?

here is where the anti-gunners get all emo and scream YOU HATE KIDS or shit. up your game if you want to fix this. we got more than enough useless bitching out there.

Why would cnm do that.....he wants guns banned, all the rest is just noise....

 

[2aguy]

great. so before we go changing things, how about some research instead of emo-grandstanding.

Did you know around half of US homicides were committed with handguns? I found that out by researching it.

how many laws do we have?
why are they not working?
what laws would you suggest that would have stopped any known mass shooting in the last decade?

The way you frame the question is par for the course. If an action won't stop shootings it's to be ridiculed. The idea that actions can reduce shootings is dismissed as nonsensical. When the experience of other countries is put forward the exceptional USA excuse is trotted out immediately. Fair enough, it's not my country, I just giggle at the loons.

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

I understand you don't want to do that, rather you happily accept the current consequences. No worries.

If an action won't stop shootings it's to be ridiculed.

Wrong....the actions you want won't stop criminals from getting guns, or mass shooters, AND they target normal gun owners who commit no crimes with their gun, and yet increase the fees, penalties on those gun owners, as well as increasing their legal jeopardy if they fail to dot the "i"s....so it is worse than those gun laws not stopping criminals and mass shooters.

The idea that actions can reduce shootings is dismissed as nonsensical.

Wrong....the actions you suggest won't reduce mass shootings....the actions we suggest....keeping actual gun using criminals in jail, and not letting democrat politicians and judges reduce their sentences for repeat gun crimes would actually reduce gun crime. I even gave the example of Japan where they do exactly that....use a gun in a crime, and you get life in prison. Japan has a 99% conviction rate vs. our about 30% conviction rate.

That is how you get criminals to stop using guns. Not by banning them, or punishing normal gun owners.

 

[Olde Europe]

Hmmm...maybe it's my failure to couple population with geography that's at fault here. It is far harder to police the area that the US encompasses--than it is the relatively smaller area of Switzerland...

So, now you're saying that in less densely populated areas - where there is almost nothing other than dirt and cattle, those most infamous of crime hot-spots - the police need to drive greater distances, and that's why it is next to impossible to enforce laws in the U.S.?

Darn!