We need more guns!

It's been a big weekend for the gun folks. Mass shooting incidents in Missouri, Ohio, New York, & Alabama. 34 people shot, but fortunately one one killed. These shooters either suck at shooting or they aren't using the right equipment.

Series of US mass shootings brings weekend of death and mayhem

 

What a country.

Lithia men were to be neighbors. Then one shot the other, deputies say.
Lithia men were to be neighbors. Then one shot the other, deputies say. - Tampa Bay Times

 

The smallest victims: Why does America keep allowing toddlers to shoot themselves?

Despite America’s deep divide on guns, everyone seems willing to agree that no toddler should be able to find a loaded, unsecured weapon and fire it.

Unlike so many other types of gun violence that plague the U.S., this appears, on paper, to be a solvable problem. There is a broad consensus that people who own firearms ought to store them properly to limit children’s access to them — a rare patch of common ground between the gun industry and gun control advocates.

And yet, a person is injured or killed nearly every day in America because a child has unintentionally fired a gun, according to reports from 2015 to 2022 compiled by Everytown, an advocacy group for firearm safety. And children under 6 are among the most likely victims.

The crisis shows just how intractable even the most preventable forms of gun violence can be.

 

Idiot, irresponsible gun owners leaving their weapons laying around like toys. Then little Johnny either shoots himself or one of his siblings or friends. Tragic and unnecessary Treat like they are always loaded and secure the damned things Good grief.

 

The pro-life people oppose all measures which might prevent these situations from happening.

 

You're right that gun owners and gun controllers both believe guns should be kept out of reach of kids. The problem is even if you were to pass a law compelling safe storage of guns, how would you enforce it in any meaningful, preventative capacity?

 

Yeah, Yeah. Pleasant words.

How about actions though? For example mandatory training.

That would probably prevent some accidents, and it may eliminate some straw man purchasing, which would probably increase prices for illegal weapons....reducing amount of guns owned by criminals.

So easy. Blocked by Trumppublican party gun sycophants.

 

The only thing that can prevent this is more guns.



Two women were killed and five other people were hurt in a shooting at a barbecue in an upstate New York park, according to police.

Hundreds of people, including children, were in Rochester's Maplewood Park when rounds were fired from multiple weapons shortly after 6 p.m. Sunday, Rochester police said at a news conference.

2 women killed, 5 people hurt in shooting during barbecue at upstate New York park; 'cowards' at large

 

New study: parents who teach their children how to shoot guns are more likely to leave the gun somewhere that the child can access it. Apparently they think the training will prevent a tragic mis-use of the firearm, so there is no need to secure the weapon. They tend to leave the weapons unlocked and loaded.

Study shows parents who teach kids to shoot guns are less likely to store them safely

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/22/us/birmingham-alabama-shooting-five-points-south/index.html

 

^ The only thing that could have prevented this is more guns

T&P.

 

I'm of the opinion that military grade weapons should be banned from the American consumer, or at least federally registered with a significant tax (say $1000) on the purchase and an annual registration fee (say $500) to keep it (plus another $2000 to declare the weapon missing). That way, someone that has a legitimate reason to own an AR-15, like someone getting rid of feral pigs on large pieces of property, could still have the weapon they need, but most people would be discouraged by the cost. Other weapons should also have similar (but smaller) taxes and fees associated with them, depending on how dangerous they are. There is no reason that a middle class person should have an AR-15, unless they are using it regularly to control wild animals like feral pigs (and he would add the cost to his fees for doing the work). A wealthy person with an AR-15 is less likely to allow it to be used in a school shooting, for example, as their millions will be at risk from a lawsuit.

 

We can all just scroll back over the course of this thread to see all the predictable ammosexual talking points about preserving the status quo as they are apparently ok with the status quo. btw, when's the next one?

 

At least our leaders could discuss solutions and ideas on ways to curb future mass shooting of school children - maga won’t even do that. For families - openly educate gun owners, how to store them safely, simple gun locks, safety concerns with children and guns, discuss stats on accidentally shootings. No, that is too woke - instead, maga/nra embraces proliferation of assault weapons as a way to own the libs. But, Maga/nra won, our current gun culture is what they want. They celebrate it and the ar15. What we’re going thru is greatly impacted by their past actions - or inaction.

 

Your perception of gun owners and gun culture is not aligned with the actual reality. Most who own guns are pretty fanatical about safety, as we fully appreciate the consequences. To the point where folks with gun tube channels will get reamed for not showing clear to the audience before manipulating the gun by themselves in an empty studio. The NRA, for all of its faults (and most gun owners are not fans of the NRA at all - just for different reasons than you), has historically had a heck of a lot of education and training available about gun safety too, including responsible handling, storage, and ownership of firearms. That said, there are idiots in every community, and the gun community is no different. I don't believe there is any rational reason to believe the gun community has them at a disproportionate rate in comparison to other communities.

What's actually true is most gun owners desire and promote responsible ownership. That means taking steps to prevent theft and, should you have kids, keep your kids away from your guns. What we object to are unenforceable, ineffective, and/or poorly targeted laws that add government intrusion into our lives or infringe upon our rights. For instance, how can you actually enforce a safe storage law without violating the 4th amendment? How can you enforce universal background checks without a registry? And how will universal background checks help prevent mass shootings when almost every single one of the weapons used in (the non-gang related) mass shootings were purchased by people who passed a background check or were taken from people who passed a background check?

We also perceive that there isn't a genuine desire from those on the other side to approach the discussion with empathy for our positions, or to actually understand the things they desire to take away. Instead, attempts for actual discussion are often met with dismissal or some form of begging of the question. Just because *you* do not value a right does not mean it is not valuable. Most don't really care about "owning" anyone. They just want to be able to enjoy their lives, defend their families, and be left alone.

And FWIW, it's horribly disingenuous and offensive to say that nobody on the right wants to discuss how to reduce school shootings. None of us want that to happen and most of us want to do something about it. We just don't agree with the solutions from the left, and the ones we put forward (things like hardening schools, solving for the gun free zone illusion, etc) get dismissed.

 

Just stop.

Most people are responsible....but we still need legitimate regulations about, say, the taking of others' lives.

Back to guns though; 18 year-olds shouldn't be able to buy an AR-15 because.....most gun owners are responsible. There shouldn't be a close-to-total absence of training required because.....most gun owners are responsible. States shouldn't allow private sales without background checks because.....most gun owners are responsible.

It's absurd, in fact. We shouldn't properly regulate anybody on issues of serious public safety because....most people don't require it?

Just stop.

 

LOL. Huge apologies for not showing proper respect to the awesome ideas from the right;
-arming untrained school teachers and proliferating guns among school staff
-going to one door only in schools
-pretending to want to fund mental health initiatives.

Yes, thanks for those amazing....."solutions."

 

You're kind of making my point about attempts for discussion being met with dismissal or begging the question. That said, I'll make a good faith effort to actually engage you on the merits.

Uhh murder is illegal? Making an already illegal thing with the harshest punishment we have to give even more illegal will do nothing to stop people determined to do it anyways.

Not just most. The overwhelming majority. The age of adulthood is 18. At that age you can vote, enter into contracts, own property, and serve in the military. If you can do that, you should be able to enjoy all of the enumerated rights granted to you by the constitution. That said, I'd actually argue given what we know about the physiology of the brain now that there is good cause to raise the age of majority to some point in the mid 20s. If that raises the age of gun ownership, then so be it.

So you would like mass shooters to be better trained? Or you want to stop the epidemic of accidental shootings that were responsible for a whopping 486 injuries nationwide (1.2% of gun deaths) in 2019?

Training is not going to stop anyone intent on doing harm from doing harm. It won't prevent an idiot from being an idiot. It will add a barrier that will prevent those who can't afford it from being able to exercise a constitutional right.

We don't require training to vote or buy alcohol. Both of those are significant contributors to far more deaths in any given year if you consider drunk driving and the impacts of policy decisions.

Universal background checks is only enforceable through a registry. There's an awful lot of history that shows that registries are a very bad thing for gun owners and freedom.

Nope, not true at all. But the desire to do something doesn't justify passing bad law that doesn't address the problem and imposes a burden on the law abiding. Do you disagree with that statement?

Guns in the hands of the law abiding is not a bad thing. Concealed carry permit holders, for instance, actually commit crimes at lower rates than police. What if teachers were not required to carry guns, but were allowed to do so if they wanted to and received appropriate training? Most people have no problem with a school resource officer who might qualify on a flat range once or twice a year having a gun openly in school, but we now have multiple data points of uniformed officers running away from danger. Meanwhile, we have unarmed teachers who are willing to put themselves between harm and their students. Is there some reason aside from feeling some type of way about it that you would want to prevent them from being able to actually fight back?

You don't have to go to one door in schools to have secure schools. You just have to secure the entrances that you have. At this point, it's pretty hard to argue against the fact that those who desire to do harm in the manner you've described do so where there is the easiest opportunity to do as much damage with as little resistance as possible. What is the downside to making schools harder targets?

How about actually funding them? We need to do a better job of a) preventing people from becoming a danger to themselves or others and b) recognizing when that is the case and taking appropriate measures to keep them from doing harm while respecting their right to due process. We have laws right now that are hard to use and discourage treatment. We can and should do better as a country. Get people the help they need, don't stigmatize people for acute crises, and keep the chronic ones away from people they can harm.

Again, dismissing the other side outright is not really a way to have an actual principled discussion. The outcome of that stance is going to be the other side protects their position. I've given you the courtesy of making the assumption that despite the way you have engaged me, your desire to make things better is genuine and I do respect that. I hope you'll offer me the same courtesy, but if not, that is on you.

 

Les Frenchies just had ze shootout at Poitiers Coeurralle between two rival gangs with a total of 400-600 people in the crossfire. No one was killed, one person is in critical condition, and a few were wounded. It would seem that either the two drug-dealing gangs could not afford guns and/or ammunition, or Les Frenchies did something to preserve lives. I wonder what prevented more deaths? Are the French worse shots than Star Wars storm troopers? Is French clothing naturally bullet-proof? Are their bullets made of rolled-up crepes?

France at ‘tipping point’ after shoot-out involving ‘400 gang members’