OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[dice]

How does the hand gun cause people to be suicidal? I love how people point to inanimate objects and attribute behavioral issues to them. It would be like saying my toaster made me suicidal.

Guns don’t make people suicidal any more than they make people murderous. But they make it easier for someone who has those impulses to follow through and therefore more likely that they will. I understand the temptation to look at your own life and say, “hey, I’m not killing myself or anyone else,” but this is a public health issue - it’s not just about you or the people in your close circle.

So it's suicidal people committing suicide and this is a gun issue? Sounds like there are many ways to commit suicide with household items. Lot's of people take pills, it's quick, it's easy, it's painless. Are we going to take away prescription drugs?

i did not suggest that all guns be banned

what exactly are you reading?

[TheStig]

Guns don’t make people suicidal any more than they make people murderous. But they make it easier for someone who has those impulses to follow through and therefore more likely that they will. I understand the temptation to look at your own life and say, “hey, I’m not killing myself or anyone else,” but this is a public health issue - it’s not just about you or the people in your close circle.

So it's suicidal people committing suicide and this is a gun issue? Sounds like there are many ways to commit suicide with household items. Lot's of people take pills, it's quick, it's easy, it's painless. Are we going to take away prescription drugs?

i did not suggest that all guns be banned

what exactly are you reading?

I'm not sure where you got that from the above statements.

[dice]

So it's suicidal people committing suicide and this is a gun issue? Sounds like there are many ways to commit suicide with household items. Lot's of people take pills, it's quick, it's easy, it's painless. Are we going to take away prescription drugs?

i did not suggest that all guns be banned

what exactly are you reading?

I'm not sure where you got that from the above statements.

for god's sake. you asked me if drugs should be taken away because people overdose. that DIRECTLY implies that you think i want all guns taken away because i brought up higher suicide rates amongst gun owners. there is no other reason you would be asking me that question. you know it, i know it, and everybody else knows it

[TheStig]

i did not suggest that all guns be banned

what exactly are you reading?

I'm not sure where you got that from the above statements.

for god's sake. you asked me if drugs should be taken away because people overdose. that DIRECTLY implies that you think i want all guns taken away because i brought up higher suicide rates amongst gun owners. there is no other reason you would be asking me that question. you know it, i know it, and everybody else knows it

I think you were just thinking it all along. You got there really quick without me saying it.

[Jo Jo English]

I just went back through this entire thread, and I'm the only one that showed pictures of a weapon as a comparison, so I assume this is addressed to me.

What you just posted is a clear example of not even understanding what you want, and just spouting talking points. There is no bolt action rifle posted. Every one of those were the exact same weapon, just different models...

True to an extent. It was vaguely addressed to you. Vaguely. We all know this discussion goes back far longer than any post in this particular thread and we are all arguing points we have held far longer than this shooting. This goes back to a point I have held for a long time that gun rights activists will pick out a detail they find to be inaccurate and use it as justification to not address the 90% of the argument it has nothing to do with. But I digress...

I have heard gun advocates argue time-and-time again that a flaw in the logic of those who want further restrictions and control is that there are other rifles that are capable of inflicting the same amount of damage (or those that do worse), but they completely ignore magazine capacity and the rate of fire. I didn't quote/respond directly to your picture for a reason, but it did raise that old, tired argument that ignores just how quickly these maniacs are able to fire off rounds that obliterate flesh. (Far beyond weapons with lesser velocity, like handguns. Facts. Read some firsthand accounts from trauma surgeons and other health professionals. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting really opened my eyes after I read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2018/02/24/seeing-the-gun-debate-through-a-doctors-eyes/?sh=1b60669e3a16)

FWIW, I have shot guns. I don't hate guns. I have put more than a few rounds through a Rock River Arms LAR-15M. It can be fun. Hell, I had a great time doing it. Even if the ammo was more expensive than I would have liked. I've also been shooting at indoor ranges off-and-on since I was 12. I come from a family of hunters. I shot a Beretta 92F before I was in junior high. Turkey shoots in 6th grade. I truly don't hate guns. I have owned guns. I don't these days.

Criticize me all you want; I believe my logic is sound. Talking points, yadda, yadda, yadda. Certain guns cause more damage than others, especially at a distance. Some guns are capable of firing more rounds more quickly than others due to design of the weapon and its potential magazine capacity. Perhaps those are details we can look at to see what can be done to minimize the damage done by these spree killers. I don't apologize for that. Almost always, every second matters for victims in one of these massacres. I think that is what any rational society would do, and countless societies have done just that. I guess we are just special for not doing so, and the result is we are privy to a new mass shooting massacre video with our morning coffee more than most of us would like.

Also, I'm the one that said Bring Back the Bible and Bring Back Bullying. As I said then, I'm not a religious person, nor do I want people getting picked on. The point was that there seems to be a moral deficit running in this country, and as my grandmother used to say, "Some of ya'll need Jesus"...

I guess I don't have anything more to really add here. I agree with you that I wish that there was a way that we could install a firmer sense of respect for our fellow man and just general empathy all around. I don't think that believing in a higher power is what does that. Maybe you do, or at least place more value in that. I think for all the good it has done, and maybe is still capable of doing, it has done such damage when people use it to justify their awful actions.

Regarding bullying, on a very surface level, I understand what you are saying. We are all a little better off if we develop a thicker skin and don't respond so personally to every insult we get. I do get it. But I won't stop supporting a society that is trying to move towards being more inclusive to people who have been marginalized - to use the polite description - and give them a richer, more peaceful life experience. I think that is the better direction for society, I think history has proven that.

Besides, it seems like these days a big portion of the most hateful rhetoric, those folks screaming about how much they hate "safe spaces" and angry about being asked to respect others, is coming from the ones we have to worry about the most. I don't know about you, but I worry way less about the guy wearing a rainbow flag t-shirt than I do the guy wearing a "**** your feelings" t-shirt.

But hey, you have your beliefs, I have mine. We do see eye-to-eye on some issues, maybe more than either of us would easily acknowledge, but we have our ideals we have to defend. It is what it is. Peace.

[Stratmaster]

You see this is the kind of nonsense argument that has and is getting us nowhere here.

well reasoned responses like yours are what gets us nowhere. what part of my reality based argument are you allergic to, mr. "pro gun" (really weird term)?

handgun ownership VASTLY increases suicide risk. that is a stone cold fact. countless studies

How does the hand gun cause people to be suicidal? I love how people point to inanimate objects and attribute behavioral issues to them. It would be like saying my toaster made me suicidal.

No one said guns make people suicidal.

More people commit suicide using guns than all other methods combined.

No one said guns make people killers.

Roughly 73% of homicides are committed with guns.

No one attributed any behavioral issues to guns.

You either know that, and you are deflecting, or you lack the comprehension skills to have value in a discussion.

There seems to be a common thread in the statistics around deaths and guns. America has a gun violence problem. The worst gun violence problem in the world. What are your suggestions for reducing gun violence in this country?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

Are you saying that mental instability is only in the US? I am sure other countries have mental instability, but they do not even have the fraction of the amount of mass shootings we have. If you at least limit the instruments that these mental unstable people can have access to that will help save lives. Have lengthy background checks on individuals purchasing guns, raising a flag when an 18 year old purchases multiple rifles in a short period of time, etc are some reasonable things they can add. Causes for mental instability are many and vague. How are you going to address it? Some people say it is due to music, video games, social media, or movies. It is harder to put restrictions on those. Is the government going to force people to go see a psychiatrist to help with the mental instability? Maybe there should be a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun?

I can speak on mental health issue with some experience. We have a very very serious case in our family and boy oh boy is the mental health field in a tough spot. I personally feel that we indeed have way too much access to guns, but the mental health aspect is a huge problem and we absolutely don't have the resources to handle the influx of people (particularly preteens-20) that I have personally seen. Now far from this is all violent crime, but there is a subculture of the youth that actually glorify "mental illness" I see groups who are way too young looking to get admitted into inpatient facilities, some if not many are absolutely legit, but some do it so that they have an excuse to have any behavior. This is somewhat off topic but it is absolutely an issue.

Everything that Crimio did was a red flag.... There should have been intervention. The system is just so overtaxed as it is that people like this can easily slip through the cracks though. It is a real shame. Just like a few years ago when the guy drove the SUV through wood field mall it was more a failing of the system as people who still need help as he did are released because of limited resources. Fortunately in that case it wasn't deadly, but it took him trying to drive people down in a mall to really get the attention it needed. Crimio is posting video's insinuating school shootings, threatening to kill family members, attempting suicide etc... We need to be able to flag someone like this and at the very least stop them from getting guns. More importantly would be to actually get the person the help they need, but that is a longer term problem.

.

It seems the topic of mental illness is just being ignored and when theres another mass shooting it instantly starts up the gun argument. Why aren’t we talking about ways to increase resources for mental illness. Can we get more funding? Are people worried about higher taxes? Lets get to the root of the problem and fix it. Yes stricter gun laws ok ok. But what is going on in this country with the people?

Congress just passed legislation and the President signed it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

There seems to be two separate questions: 1) Should we change the laws about guns? and the second is 2) what is constitutional and what isn't. You can be for more gun regulation, but believe the constitution prohibits it. Or you can be for more regulation and believe that is constitutional. Or you can be against changes period because you don't think they are needed. Or you can be against changes AND also believe the constitution prohibits it.

I think polls have shown that a majority of people do want more regulation.

And to take that even further, a majority of GUN OWNERS want more regulation. Between 60 and 80% depending on the specific regulation.... except when it comes to banning semi automatic weapons or ammo. But even there, in the last study I read on the subject 40% of gun owners favor an assault weapon ban.

The NRA will fight every piece of legislation. But they only represent (IIRC) about 5% of gun owners.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[panthermark]

True to an extent. It was vaguely addressed to you. Vaguely. We all know this discussion goes back far longer than any post in this particular thread and we are all arguing points we have held far longer than this shooting. This goes back to a point I have held for a long time that gun rights activists will pick out a detail they find to be inaccurate and use it as justification to not address the 90% of the argument it has nothing to do with. But I digress...

I have heard gun advocates argue time-and-time again that a flaw in the logic of those who want further restrictions and control is that there are other rifles that are capable of inflicting the same amount of damage (or those that do worse), but they completely ignore magazine capacity and the rate of fire. I didn't quote/respond directly to your picture for a reason, but it did raise that old, tired argument that ignores just how quickly these maniacs are able to fire off rounds that obliterate flesh. (Far beyond weapons with lesser velocity, like handguns. Facts. Read some firsthand accounts from trauma surgeons and other health professionals. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting really opened my eyes after I read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2018/02/24/seeing-the-gun-debate-through-a-doctors-eyes/?sh=1b60669e3a16)

FWIW, I have shot guns. I don't hate guns. I have put more than a few rounds through a Rock River Arms LAR-15M. It can be fun. Hell, I had a great time doing it. Even if the ammo was more expensive than I would have liked. I've also been shooting at indoor ranges off-and-on since I was 12. I come from a family of hunters. I shot a Beretta 92F before I was in junior high. Turkey shoots in 6th grade. I truly don't hate guns. I have owned guns. I don't these days.

Criticize me all you want; I believe my logic is sound. Talking points, yadda, yadda, yadda. Certain guns cause more damage than others, especially at a distance. Some guns are capable of firing more rounds more quickly than others due to design of the weapon and its potential magazine capacity. Perhaps those are details we can look at to see what can be done to minimize the damage done by these spree killers. I don't apologize for that. Almost always, every second matters for victims in one of these massacres. I think that is what any rational society would do, and countless societies have done just that. I guess we are just special for not doing so, and the result is we are privy to a new mass shooting massacre video with our morning coffee more than most of us would like.

Gun owners are not forgetting about mag capacity rate of fire. I just don't think you understand terminal ballistics, weapon design and the modularity of the AR platform enough to really have the discussion you want to have.

Also, one issue is that you are focusing on the assault style weapons of "spree" killers, that are like 0.2% of annual gun deaths, while not mentioning much of anything about the killer himself. On top of that, the issues you are discussing have zero impact on the largest chunk of gun deaths (suicides), and almost no impact on the next chunk of problems, inner city teens IGNORING gun laws and shooting each other. They are not going to turn their illegal guns in because someone comes up with another law that they will ignore.

And if you are rearly familiar with weapons, you should absolutely know how ridiculous assault style weapon bans are because everything is cosmetic.
(They got rid of the flash hider and bayonet mount, and POOF, it is no longer and assault rifle)






No matter how it looks, ANY semi-automatic weapon is ALWAYS going to fire a round as fast as you can pull the trigger. And ANY weapon that is externally mag fed, will have a capacity of however many rounds the mag you happen to have holds. Be it a 5 or 10 round "hunting" mag, or a 100 round drum. If it can hold one mag, it can hold the other. I have 10 round, 20 round, 30 round and 60 round mags, along with mag extenders and mag limiters. They all fit my AR's.

If you are talking about caliber/firepower/damage that destroys flesh, the most common example we know is the AR-15 vs the Mini-14 when both chambered in .223/NATO 5.56.



Hell man, the Rugar Mini-14 is the gun of the A-team! It just depends on how it is dressed up.



With a scope and shorty mag, it looks like grandpa's hunting rifle.

Those guns (AR-15, Mini-14's) fire the EXACT same bullet at the EXACT same speed and do the EXACT same amount of damage. Both are semi automatic, mag fed weapons. Put a 5.56 round in an old school Remington 700 bolt action, and it will do the exact same amount of damage. That is a terminal ballistics issue based on the projectile design of M193 (NATO 5.56 55gr FMJ) when above a velocity of 2700 fps. Drop below 2500 fps, and you have a very terminal ballistics. It does not matter what gun it is fired out of.


The point here is that AWB's are useless for what you think you want. And what you are really asking for is some type of ban and confiscation on mag fed, semi-autos....which is such a non-starter that it is almost insulting, especially when you know that not a single criminal will turn in their weapons.
I'm honestly not sure why it is even being bandied about as a talking point, other than lack of firearm knowledge, and politicians pushing it for votes, while knowing it won't happen.


BTW, speaking of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, did you know that the MSD shooter used 10 round mags? He used the 10 round mags because larger mags would not fit in his bag.

Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html
I need to do some more digging, but I'm pretty sure he had 5 round limiters in the mags as well. So basically he had 5 round mags.
-----------
I'm going to tell you what I told people on Politico many, many, many years ago, when I went from a staunch anti assault weapon person to where I am now.

I stopped speaking as if I knew what I was talking, and I dove into the written laws on books, into the Supreme Court decision, into the history and the evolution of the platform. The modularity of the platform. The split receiver design, and what that does to laws written in the 30's. I dove into rifle ballistics, terminal ballistics and projectile construction. I even looked into (but didn't fully start) reloading, so I could better understand gun powders and load work-ups. I looked at the sales and the numbers, what prior bans did or did not accomplish, and I looked at the political landscape. I built them myself, starting with a stripped lower, and adding every detent and spring and part in both the upper and lower so that I could be knowledgeable about the topic.

My exact words at the time where this. "For good or bad, the AR-15 won, and you are just going to have to deal with it. Focus on the problems".
The #1 problem gun violence is suicide. Get the FACTS, not the political points.
The US might be number 1 in suicide deaths by firearms, but we not #1 in suicide rate by country.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country
We are tied with Botswana at 16.4 per 100,000.
That is right above Japan and Finland, which are tied at 15.3 (and two spots above Sweden).
South Korea on the other hand has a real problem....and extremely strict gun laws.

#2 is inner city violence. Fix that.

[dice]

True to an extent. It was vaguely addressed to you. Vaguely. We all know this discussion goes back far longer than any post in this particular thread and we are all arguing points we have held far longer than this shooting. This goes back to a point I have held for a long time that gun rights activists will pick out a detail they find to be inaccurate and use it as justification to not address the 90% of the argument it has nothing to do with. But I digress...

I have heard gun advocates argue time-and-time again that a flaw in the logic of those who want further restrictions and control is that there are other rifles that are capable of inflicting the same amount of damage (or those that do worse), but they completely ignore magazine capacity and the rate of fire. I didn't quote/respond directly to your picture for a reason, but it did raise that old, tired argument that ignores just how quickly these maniacs are able to fire off rounds that obliterate flesh. (Far beyond weapons with lesser velocity, like handguns. Facts. Read some firsthand accounts from trauma surgeons and other health professionals. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting really opened my eyes after I read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2018/02/24/seeing-the-gun-debate-through-a-doctors-eyes/?sh=1b60669e3a16)

FWIW, I have shot guns. I don't hate guns. I have put more than a few rounds through a Rock River Arms LAR-15M. It can be fun. Hell, I had a great time doing it. Even if the ammo was more expensive than I would have liked. I've also been shooting at indoor ranges off-and-on since I was 12. I come from a family of hunters. I shot a Beretta 92F before I was in junior high. Turkey shoots in 6th grade. I truly don't hate guns. I have owned guns. I don't these days.

Criticize me all you want; I believe my logic is sound. Talking points, yadda, yadda, yadda. Certain guns cause more damage than others, especially at a distance. Some guns are capable of firing more rounds more quickly than others due to design of the weapon and its potential magazine capacity. Perhaps those are details we can look at to see what can be done to minimize the damage done by these spree killers. I don't apologize for that. Almost always, every second matters for victims in one of these massacres. I think that is what any rational society would do, and countless societies have done just that. I guess we are just special for not doing so, and the result is we are privy to a new mass shooting massacre video with our morning coffee more than most of us would like.

Gun owners are not forgetting about mag capacity rate of fire. I just don't think you understand terminal ballistics, weapon design and the modularity of the AR platform enough to really have the discussion you want to have.

Also, one issue is that you are focusing on the assault style weapons of "spree" killers, that are like 0.2% of annual gun deaths, while not mentioning much of anything about the killer himself. On top of that, the issues you are discussing have zero impact on the largest chunk of gun deaths (suicides), and almost no impact on the next chunk of problems, inner city teens IGNORING gun laws and shooting each other. They are not going to turn their illegal guns in because someone comes up with another law that they will ignore.

And if you are rearly familiar with weapons, you should absolutely know how ridiculous assault style weapon bans are because everything is cosmetic.
(They got rid of the flash hider and bayonet mount, and POOF, it is no longer and assault rifle)






No matter how it looks, ANY semi-automatic weapon is ALWAYS going to fire a round as fast as you can pull the trigger. And ANY weapon that is externally mag fed, will have a capacity of however many rounds the mag you happen to have holds. Be it a 5 or 10 round "hunting" mag, or a 100 round drum. If it can hold one mag, it can hold the other. I have 10 round, 20 round, 30 round and 60 round mags, along with mag extenders and mag limiters. They all fit my AR's.

If you are talking about caliber/firepower/damage that destroys flesh, the most common example we know is the AR-15 vs the Mini-14 when both chambered in .223/NATO 5.56.



Hell man, the Rugar Mini-14 is the gun of the A-team! It just depends on how it is dressed up.



With a scope and shorty mag, it looks like grandpa's hunting rifle.

Those guns (AR-15, Mini-14's) fire the EXACT same bullet at the EXACT same speed and do the EXACT same amount of damage. Both are semi automatic, mag fed weapons. Put a 5.56 round in an old school Remington 700 bolt action, and it will do the exact same amount of damage. That is a terminal ballistics issue based on the projectile design of M193 (NATO 5.56 55gr FMJ) when above a velocity of 2700 fps. Drop below 2500 fps, and you have a very terminal ballistics. It does not matter what gun it is fired out of.


The point here is that AWB's are useless for what you think you want. And what you are really asking for is some type of ban and confiscation on mag fed, semi-autos....which is such a non-starter that it is almost insulting, especially when you know that not a single criminal will turn in their weapons.
I'm honestly not sure why it is even being bandied about as a talking point, other than lack of firearm knowledge, and politicians pushing it for votes, while knowing it won't happen.


BTW, speaking of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, did you know that the MSD shooter used 10 round mags? He used the 10 round mags because larger mags would not fit in his bag.

Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html
I need to do some more digging, but I'm pretty sure he had 5 round limiters in the mags as well. So basically he had 5 round mags.
-----------
I'm going to tell you what I told people on Politico many, many, many years ago, when I went from a staunch anti assault weapon person to where I am now.

I stopped speaking as if I knew what I was talking, and I dove into the written laws on books, into the Supreme Court decision, into the history and the evolution of the platform. The modularity of the platform. The split receiver design, and what that does to laws written in the 30's. I dove into rifle ballistics, terminal ballistics and projectile construction. I even looked into (but didn't fully start) reloading, so I could better understand gun powders and load work-ups. I looked at the sales and the numbers, what prior bans did or did not accomplish, and I looked at the political landscape. I built them myself, starting with a stripped lower, and adding every detent and spring and part in both the upper and lower so that I could be knowledgeable about the topic.

My exact words at the time where this. "For good or bad, the AR-15 won, and you are just going to have to deal with it. Focus on the problems".
The #1 problem gun violence is suicide. Get the FACTS, not the political points.
The US might be number 1 in suicide deaths by firearms, but we not #1 in suicide rate by country.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country
We are tied with Botswana at 16.4 per 100,000.
That is right above Japan and Finland, which are tied at 15.3 (and two spots above Sweden).
South Korea on the other hand has a real problem....and extremely strict gun laws.

#2 is inner city violence. Fix that.

we can't as americans walk and chew gum at the same time? why not deal with mental health, inner city violence, AND mass shootings?

and "the AR-15 won" is a comically defeatist attitude. countless nations have successfully rolled back gun rights when the were faced with mass killings. and their issues paled compared to ours

you try to downplay mass shootings, which are proliferating at an astonishing rate. how bad is bad enough to meaningfully deal with the situation?

and your AR-15 vs hunting rifle argument sucks too. you shouldn't need that many rapid fire rounds to hunt either. if you do, you outright suck at hunting

[panthermark]

we can't as americans walk and chew gum at the same time? why not deal with mental health, inner city violence, AND mass shootings?

and "the AR-15 won" is a comically defeatist attitude. countless nations have successfully rolled back gun rights when the were faced with mass killings. and their issues paled compared to ours

you try to downplay mass shootings, which are proliferating at an astonishing rate. how bad is bad enough to meaningfully deal with the situation?

and your AR-15 vs hunting rifle argument sucks too. you shouldn't need that many rapid fire rounds to hunt either. if you do, you outright suck at hunting

Because "mass shootings" in terms of the lone guy going crazy is a mental health issue, and is literally a miniscule sliver of gun deaths, yet the "approach" you want is basically YOUR idea of mass gun control under the guise of dealing with "mass shootings". It is bullspit. I know it and you know it. It is why every inner-city shooting is now called a "mass shooting", and suicides, inner-city shootings, and the true mass shooting are all dumped into one bucket.

I'm not downplaying mass shootings, but you are sure are uplaying it. We are 20 pages into this thread, how much talk on the shooter? Why is suicide and inner city violence growing as well? Prior to the surge of mass shootings, why was it never tackled? Why do the solutions being offered have so little impact on the first two major issues, but a draconian impact on the legal users of an issue that accounts for less than 1% of gun deaths?

And I'm telling you, the AR-15 isn't going anywhere. You can call it defeatist, and retreat back to an echo chamber, but when you come out, it will still be here. "Other nations" are irrelevant because they don't have a 2nd Amendment, period.

The fact that you are trying to somehow equate AR-15's, to poor hunting, shows that you literally don't know what you are talking about. As I had already pointed out, I have 10, 20, 30, and 60 rounds mags, along with mag limiter. Maybe you don't know that that means. I also have a Bob Sled, and I'm assuming you don't know what that means as well as I'm guessing you don't know much about Illinois hunting laws. But even outside of that, not everyone hunts just deer. Some folks defend their rural property (being livestock or agriculture) from varmints and predators such as coyotes, bobcats, racoons, gophers, prairie dogs, ground hogs, and rabbits. A big one (not so much in Illinois, YET) are invasive wild boars...and a herd might require a full mag, especially if one or more charges. But none of that matters because the 2nd isn't relegated to just deer hunting.
You can't enter this discussion if the source of your AR-15 knowledge is a political cartoon showing a guy holding an AR-15 and a deer with 30 holes in it.


Listen, I've been where you have been, and argued the same stuff you are trying to argue. You are not getting rid of a semi-automatic rifle that is the best selling centerfire rifle in America, has been available to the public since 1964, and is used by pretty much every branch of the city, state, and federal governments. By every possible measure, it is in common use, and easily the modern day equivalent of the everyday weapon someone would have had during the drafting of the Constitution.
No matter how much a wailed and gnashed my teeth, and demanded people explain to me why they "needed" an AR-15 to MY satisfaction, it did not change the underlying fact that they really didn't have to explain a damn thing to me. They had the Constitution, the Supreme Court (regardless of I thought it was correct or not), many of the laws, AND the weapon on their side. It took a bit of time for me to realize that they really didn't give a damn about my demands and opinions based on my own criteria and feelz about what I think they should be allowed to have...because they didn't have to. I didn't know any of the details of what I was talking about, and they knew it. It was all about MY FEELZ and what I regurgitated from CNN or Huffpost. I had no answer for suicide or inner city violence, or how versatile the weapon actually was, it was all "I don't think you need it....so we should ban it....because I said so."

Those "**** your feelings" shirts were directed at me, and I just didn't know it. Now, I have that same shirt.

The sad part is that I've repeatedly pointed out that multiple cases were GVR'd right after the Bruen decision, yet we are still talking about bans.

[Jo Jo English]

You actually own a "f### your feelings" shirt? I find that absolutely hilarious.

When I mentioned that earlier I didn't imagine anyone in here was actually eyeing one down in their closet as they typed their responses. I would say "sorry", but...

Anyway, you have a blessed day now.

[moorhosj]

It is why every inner-city shooting is now called a "mass shooting", and suicides, inner-city shootings, and the true mass shooting are all dumped into one.

Can you explain what you mean by “inner-city shooting” and how it differs from a “true mass shooting”?

[panthermark]

You actually own a "f### your feelings" shirt? I find that absolutely hilarious.

When I mentioned that earlier I didn't imagine anyone in here was actually eyeing one down in their closet as they typed their responses. I would say "sorry", but...

Anyway, you have a blessed day now.

I had ignored your original response because it could derail the thread, but since you took the time to go back and edit in another line, I guess I'll respond.

Sorry bro, but I really don't care what you think about it (thick skin helps)...no wink is needed. When you first mentioned it, I just chuckled to myself.

I've now explained multiple times how I used to look at this specific issue through the lens of my own feelz without any real hands on knowledge of what I was talking about, and I eventually had to get over myself.

If you get triggered by a random person wearing it for whatever reason they are wearing it, that is kinda on you, which is the whole point of the shirt.

[panthermark]

It is why every inner-city shooting is now called a "mass shooting", and suicides, inner-city shootings, and the true mass shooting are all dumped into one.

Can you explain what you mean by “inner-city shooting” and how it differs from a “true mass shooting”?

Sure, I bet you already know...but I'll play.

Hood mass shootings - Usually revolve around drugs, gangs, "beef", or respect. They are typically not meticulously planned out months in advance, and usually have a specific target. Basically, unless you are in the hood, or have beef with someone from the hood, you are not likely to be involved in hood shootings. It is usually stray bullets or cross fire that kill innocent bystanders, and it is almost always black on black crime.

"True mass shooting" - Nut job goes to a school, subway, grocery store, church, concert, theatre, whatever...to specifically kill a bunch of random people. Maybe it is over religion, or race, or he was bullied and didn't gate laid enough. Who knows. Sometimes the mass shootings are workplace shootings (and while they suck, are actually more predictable and usually involves someone getting fired). Usually, but not always, said nut job is a lonely, young white male. Shooter may or may not care if he lives. Basically, this is the one the scares everyone because it is so random.

[Jo Jo English]

I had ignored your original response because it could derail the thread, but since you took the time to go back and edit in another line, I guess I'll respond.

Sorry bro, but I really don't care what you think about it (thick skin helps)...no wink is needed. When you first mentioned it, I just chuckled to myself.

I've now explained multiple times how I used to look at this specific issue through the lens of my own feelz without any real hands on knowledge of what I was talking about, and I eventually had to get over myself.

If you get triggered by a random person wearing it for whatever reason they are wearing it, that is kinda on you, which is the whole point of the shirt.

I'm not the one that came back later to mention my "feelings" t-shirt while responding to another post because I got so bogged down in infographics that I forgot to do so initially. Is this where I add in a dismissive "bro" to show how much I don't care?

Should I buy a shirt to make sure everyone else is damn sure about this?

--Gotta edit to throw this in--

For someone that isn't letting emotion get the better of them, you sure were certain to edit this portion out of my earlier response to you...

"But hey, you have your beliefs, I have mine. We do see eye-to-eye on some issues, maybe more than either of us would easily acknowledge, but we have our ideals we have to defend. It is what it is. Peace."

I don't know man. Maybe we all can use a little self-reflection. You. Me. All of us.

[dice]

we can't as americans walk and chew gum at the same time? why not deal with mental health, inner city violence, AND mass shootings?

and "the AR-15 won" is a comically defeatist attitude. countless nations have successfully rolled back gun rights when the were faced with mass killings. and their issues paled compared to ours

you try to downplay mass shootings, which are proliferating at an astonishing rate. how bad is bad enough to meaningfully deal with the situation?

and your AR-15 vs hunting rifle argument sucks too. you shouldn't need that many rapid fire rounds to hunt either. if you do, you outright suck at hunting

Because "mass shootings" in terms of the lone guy going crazy is a mental health issue, and is literally a miniscule sliver of gun deaths, yet the "approach" you want is basically YOUR idea of mass gun control under the guise of dealing with "mass shootings". It is bullspit. I know it and you know it. It is why every inner-city shooting is now called a "mass shooting", and suicides, inner-city shootings, and the true mass shooting are all dumped into one bucket.

weapons of war have no place in the hands of civilians. you know it and i know it. stop tap dancing, bojangles

And I'm telling you, the AR-15 isn't going anywhere. You can call it defeatist, and retreat back to an echo chamber, but when you come out, it will still be here. "Other nations" are irrelevant because they don't have a 2nd Amendment, period.

the 2nd amendment has been grossly misinterpreted over the past few decades. and yes, that is an obstacle. so no period. ellipsis...

The fact that you are trying to somehow equate AR-15's, to poor hunting, shows that you literally don't know what you are talking about. As I had already pointed out, I have 10, 20, 30, and 60 rounds mags, along with mag limiter. Maybe you don't know that that means. I also have a Bob Sled, and I'm assuming you don't know what that means as well as I'm guessing you don't know much about Illinois hunting laws. But even outside of that, not everyone hunts just deer. Some folks defend their rural property (being livestock or agriculture) from varmints and predators such as coyotes, bobcats, racoons, gophers, prairie dogs, ground hogs, and rabbits. A big one (not so much in Illinois, YET) are invasive wild boars...and a herd might require a full mag, especially if one or more charges. But none of that matters because the 2nd isn't relegated to just deer hunting.
You can't enter this discussion if the source of your AR-15 knowledge is a political cartoon showing a guy holding an AR-15 and a deer with 30 holes in it.

you're defecting by filling the zone with completely meaningless information, bojangles. and it's a well worn, tired, LAZY argument: "well, people who want these weapons gone just don't understand." horse****. rapid fire weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. you know it, i know it and every goddamn nation that rightfully bans these things knows it. but i'm sure they don't know guns like you do

these weapons of war WILL be banned in the USA eventually. i just don't expect it to be in my lifetime

wild boars. that's a good one. gotta mow 'em down 5 at a time or else! you show me video of anyone ANYWHERE actually killing several invading animals at once to defend their property and maybe i'll take your nonsense more seriously. but i'm guessing that the reality is that anyone firing dozens of shots rapidly in an attempt to kill animals on their property is rightfully seen even by their gun-loving rural neighbors as the neighborhood gun nut. "aw christ, harold's at it again"

P.S.: nobody give's a rat's ass about your gun collection. it's boring as hell

[panthermark]

weapons of war have no place in the hands of civilians. you know it and i know it. stop tap dancing, bojangles

You forgot to add, "In my opinion"
Now, what is a weapon of war? A gun used in a war? Did you get that term from someone on TV?
Simple question. Is an AR-15 a semi-automatic only rifle or not. Yes or No?
Does the military use semi-automatic only M4/M-16's? Yes or No?
But that is a side question. 2nd Amendment wise, you opinion is both irrelevant and incorrect since historically civilians HAVE used "weapons of war".

To that point, there have been a LOT of "weapons of war" in civilian hands over the past century. Probably the most famous is the 1911 (.45 handgun), which went through out don't know how many wars (WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and people still use it)
The model 1903 (rifle) in 30-06 after WW1 was used by civilians.
The M1 Garand and M1 Carbine (rifles) were used by civilians after WW2. (You still see color guards twirling Garands in parades)
As I've said at least TWICE now, the AR-15 (the civilian semi-auto version) has been in public hands continually since 1964 (when it was first offered).
Should I go back to the Civil war as well?

the 2nd amendment has been grossly misinterpreted over the past few decades. and yes, that is an obstacle. so no period. ellipsis....

You forgot to add "In my opinion" again...which is very important, because the opinion of those who do decide the interpretation matter a whole lot more, and they have said differently.

you're defecting by filling the zone with completely meaningless information, bojangles. rapid fire weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. you know it and i know it

No deflecting, I laid out a bunch of facts about hunting, in the response to your comment, and you clearly didn't know what you were talking about.
Now, what the hell is a "rapid fire" weapon?
Wait, are you implying semi-auto is rapid fire? Do you know how long civilians have had semi automatic weapons? Well over 100 years.

And once again, you forgot to add, "In my opinion...".

-----------------
Dude, everything you just stated is 100% YOUR OPINION, based on your own feelings, with chunks of it factually incorrect.

[panthermark]

I had ignored your original response because it could derail the thread, but since you took the time to go back and edit in another line, I guess I'll respond.

Sorry bro, but I really don't care what you think about it (thick skin helps)...no wink is needed. When you first mentioned it, I just chuckled to myself.

I've now explained multiple times how I used to look at this specific issue through the lens of my own feelz without any real hands on knowledge of what I was talking about, and I eventually had to get over myself.

If you get triggered by a random person wearing it for whatever reason they are wearing it, that is kinda on you, which is the whole point of the shirt.

I'm not the one that came back later to mention my "feelings" t-shirt while responding to another post because I got so bogged down in infographics that I forgot to do so initially. Is this where I add in a dismissive "bro" to show how much I don't care?

Should I buy a shirt to make sure everyone else is damn sure about this?

--Gotta edit to throw this in--

For someone that isn't letting emotion get the better of them, you sure were certain to edit this portion out of my earlier response to you...

"But hey, you have your beliefs, I have mine. We do see eye-to-eye on some issues, maybe more than either of us would easily acknowledge, but we have our ideals we have to defend. It is what it is. Peace."

I don't know man. Maybe we all can use a little self-reflection. You. Me. All of us.

No thin skin here. As I said before, I originally ignored it until the edit.
Also, I didn't edit out your last part to avoid it. I basically agreed with it, so nothing to add, and I already had a wall of text.

[Mbrahv0528]

It is why every inner-city shooting is now called a "mass shooting", and suicides, inner-city shootings, and the true mass shooting are all dumped into one.

Can you explain what you mean by “inner-city shooting” and how it differs from a “true mass shooting”?

I think we all know what that talking point means and that it came from Fox News, let's be real here.

Sent from my SM-F711U using RealGM mobile app