Jump to content

Trump Jr. ‘likes’ tweets attacking Florida massacre survivor


OILERMAN

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mythos27 said:

When you have 0 experience with fire arms (guilty) you'd be surprised at the dumb shit people say. I've changed my stance quite a bit regarding guns when I realized that many people who want guns banned really have no idea what they're talking about regarding guns. Don't get me wrong there are some liberals whose knowledge of firearms rivals that of anyone on the right but by and large most don't really know what they're talking about and as someone whom this applies to, I try to be cautious when talking about it. I'm sure this video had a political slant to it but it still made a solid point:

 

It goes without saying that this video is very misleading. I'm also confused as to what the point is. "Common Sense" regulations often have to do with Universal Background Checks, more than any other regulation. You can also figure that it sometimes means limiting high capacity magazines and a ban on "assault style" weapons. 

 

However I think it's foolish to make the point that within the context of a mass shooting in highly populated areas that an AR-15 is just as similar to any other weapon due to firing rate and ammunition caliber. (Is the the only measure from gun enthusiasts? In this "educational" video I suspect that it's not). 

 

And I would think it fairly common knowledge that handguns are the most common weapon used in homicides and shootings. But I think we'd find that the mortality rate per incident is higher with the AR-15 than Handguns. And there's a reason for that. It's a weapon designed primarily for killing people in war time conflicts (Originally as the M16 in Vietnam). Many people were killed by the military with these weapons set to a Semi-Automatic function. Gun enthusiasts know damn well that the distinction between a fully automatic and semi-automatic weapon in the right hands is a fairly small distinction.

 

Look at the weapons on that table and determine which are used most frequently in war time conflict due to their ability to maximize lethality. That likely corresponds to what people mean when they say "assault weapons". To try and argue out of that due to technical specifications misses the point. 

 

FWIW, I don't desire a ban on guns, and I think bolt action rifles and shotguns are the most sensible type of gun for home protection and hunting. I have to admit that hunting with an AR-15 is new to me given the type of ammunition. 

Edited by Cyrus
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Still amazing that someone who did this was elected president. Holy shit Trump supporters are devoid of values. 

My main point is that sometimes the loudest voices for gun control often don't know a thing about guns. Slant or not, the video certainly shows the lack of knowledge many people have and illustrates w

The reason handguns aren't often used in mass shootings is they are only really effective out to about 50m and that's if you're a decent shot and have a solid gun like a 45.  We never even carried our

14 minutes ago, Cyrus said:

It goes without saying that this video is very misleading. I'm also confused as to what the point is. "Common Sense" regulations often have to do with Universal Background Checks, more than any other regulation. You can also figure that it sometimes means limiting high capacity magazines and a ban on "assault style" weapons. 

 

However I think it's foolish to make the point that within the context of a mass shooting in highly populated areas that an AR-15 is just as similar to any other weapon due to firing rate and ammunition caliber. (Is the the only measure from gun enthusiasts? In this "educational" video I suspect that it's not). 

 

And I would think it fairly common knowledge that handguns are the most common weapon used in homicides and shootings. But I think we'd find that the mortality rate per incident is higher with the AR-15 than Handguns. And there's a reason for that. It's a weapon designed primarily for killing people in war time conflicts (Originally as the M16 in Vietnam). Many people were killed by the military with these weapons set to a Semi-Automatic function. Gun enthusiasts know damn well that the distinction between a fully automatic and semi-automatic weapon in the right hands is a fairly small distinction.

 

Look at the weapons on that table and determine which are used most frequently in war time conflict due to their ability to maximize lethality. That likely corresponds to what people mean when they say "assault weapons". To try and argue out of that due to technical specifications misses the point. 

 

FWIW, I don't desire a ban on guns, and I think bolt action rifles and shotguns are the most sensible type of gun for home protection and hunting. I have to admit that hunting with an AR-15 is new to me given the type of ammunition. 

My main point is that sometimes the loudest voices for gun control often don't know a thing about guns. Slant or not, the video certainly shows the lack of knowledge many people have and illustrates why one should be educated on the issues before taking a stance either way.  I'm not saying the pro-gun right is 100% correct or that we don't need to handle the gun issue just more that many of us on the left have some blind spots we should address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason handguns aren't often used in mass shootings is they are only really effective out to about 50m and that's if you're a decent shot and have a solid gun like a 45.  We never even carried our 9mm berrettas because they were worthless for anything other than walking to chow and not needing to carry your rifle.

 

The M-4 on the other hand, shitty weapon that it is, can fire accurately out to about 200M even in the hands of a fairly untrained shooter and out to around 600M by someone who knows what they are doing.... All while carrying 30 rounds. (most hand-guns carry 6-12 without an extended magazine or extremely small caliber)

 

The semi-automatic thing is misleading as well.  Most of the M-4s in active service today are only semi-auto and three round burst and we rarely use 3 round burst.  It kills accuracy, causes jams, and burns through ammo rather quick.  We usually only carry about 7 mags so 210 rounds will go amazingly quick if you aren't smart, which is why we train to gain fire superiority as a force and not as an individual.

 

However, one person in a school of unarmed people with an AR-15 could do a lot of damage.  I would also say that a checkpoint you have to go through with an armed guard would be pretty damn effective at keeping these weapons off school grounds.

 

I don't think you need a maximum security prison, you just need to control how kids enter the building, maybe even make that outside the school itself and create a deterrent.  That measure alone, along with taking a look at who can get their hands on high velocity rifles with high capacity magazines and stepping up Universal Background Checks would go a LONG way towards reducing these sorts of incidents in the future.

 

By the way, I'm not talking about a ban.  I think if you raise the age limit of all guns to 21 and this sub class of weapons to 25, that would be enough if paired with better background checks and mental health measures.

 

Just my thoughts.  

Edited by Justafan
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

I agree with your comments.  Not sure why someone couldn't do almost as much damage with a couple pistols however.  These guys aren't usually shooting people half way across a football field.  In fact concealed hand guns (you could carry quite a few with full clips) would allow a shooter to position himself into an ideal location where he can get the greatest loss of life.  He could walk right by teachers on his way to areas that are the most populated and nobody would know the difference and most his kills would be literally point blank.

 

Case in point.  32 people were killed at Virginia Tech by a guy armed with only 9mm and 22-caliber handguns.    A "student" like the Virginia Tech student can kill a room full of people, pocket the handguns and run out with other students (who are obviously panicked) and nobody even knows he is the guy.  Thus I'm not sure I'd even use an AR-15 if I was evil enough to do something like that.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why people feel the need to politicize everything is part of the problem we have today. These kids are scared to be in school and they are doing the only thing they know how to do which is protest. Good on them. This country needs more activists to counter balance the Pacs and lobbyists. They damn sure don't have the money to take on the NRA. Trump jr is a frigging moron but the fruit never falls far from the tree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

Actually the problem is the people yelling the loudest don't have a clue how to fix the problem.  Yes, something needs to get done.  We should all understand that.  It is how to fix it where people get political. 

Now you have every nut case anti-2nd amendment is out in force and the vast majority of them couldn't tell a BB gun from a shot gun.  These people think AR-15s (of course AR stands for Assault Rifle to them) are semi-fully-automatic.  Most of them are afraid to touch or even look at a gun like the gun itself is evil.  They even think they are safer not having a gun for home defense.  Personally I don't care if teachers need AR-15s in their classroom  they are trained to use.  Now bear in mind the odds are still pretty darn low anyone is going to get shot in school but the media and these kooks are scaring the hell out of these kids.

 

And by the way NRA members, who have guns, are the least likely to shoot some liberals ass or some kid in school.  But we should demonize them?  Hell, idiots think the NRA is responsible for these shootings.  Pretty damn dumb.

 

 

I was with you till you took responsibility away from the NRA. They've played a very large part in how we've arrived at this crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

I was with you till you took responsibility away from the NRA. They've played a very large part in how we've arrived at this crisis.

How?

I don't believe that for a heartbeat.  The NRA has NEVER advocated for keeping or allowing guns in the hands of criminals or the insane.

They have pushed hard for a system of effective background checks that eliminates that threat.

 

Just because they've done so while advocating for respecting every American's right to due process and the presumption of innocence doesn't mean they don't want laws enforced.

You want the "no fly" list to determine who can buy a gun?  Okay, then provide a way, the legal means, to get off of it when mistakes are made.  The NRA will back your play.

Proponents of The Patriot Act, the most egregious theft of civil rights in modern history, don't want that. 

 

You want the insane to be prevented from buying a gun?  Fine, so do I.  But I want to make sure there's standards to be met and a legal process to be followed before that happens. 

I used to have a doctor that told me people were crazy to even have a gun in their house.  He had an irrational fear of guns.  That's not a reasonable standard, and using his opinion for evidence would override precedent under legal/judicial review.

How can you advocate for the removal of someone's constitutional right(s) without using an impartial assessment of that individual's mental/emotional competency, and then the justice system? 

 

It's so sad to me, that so many people's first response to a tragedy like this, is to clamp down on the rights of every law abiding citizen in this country.

It tells me that not only is there not enough education about what constitutes freedom and liberty and the mechanisms we use to preserve them, but that the notion of "critical thought" we hear so much about is bullshit.

The notion that taking guns away from the law abiding to combat this problem is in any way indicative of critical thought, is ludicrous on it's face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA has fought to protect Americans from the left's attack on the 2nd amendment.   Cities like Chicago were banning or making it hard to obtain guns, which clearly was against the constitution.   Furthermore whenever there is a tragedy, the left riles up it's base to call for restrictions on gun ownership.    If it wasn't for the NRA, lawmakers would cave to the left's loud mouth activists and pass restricted laws.   They may be shot down by the current Supreme Court, but we all know that could easily change the day the court becomes liberal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@TitanDuckFan @Soxcat @Little Earl

 

Fact: The NRA uses their influence to prevent gun violence research. That alone gives credence to my stance that they've played a hand in all this. 

https://www.ucsusa.org/suppressing-research-effects-gun-violence#.WpAO_YPwZEY

 

Fact: The NRA has actively and aggressively stood in the way of universal background checks which the American people overwhelmingly support. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/30/usa-today-exclusive-interview-nra-david-keene/1878809/

 

Fact: The NRA spends millions of dollars each year to defeat gun control measures and uses it's influence over it's members to defeat pro gun-control candidates.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/nra-spending-nevada-universal-background-checks-las-vegas/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/11/this-is-how-the-nra-politically-weaponized-its-membership/?utm_term=.580540137177

 

The NRA has stood in the way of nearly all regulations that the American people think would help alleviate some of this mess. Whether or not you agree that the regulations would help, is irrelevant. The fact is that the NRA has plenty of blood on it's hands. If they decide to become a part of the solution, things might be different but this won't happen because their base already views any attempt to implement gun regulations as a slippery slope to having their door kicked down by govt thugs and confiscation of their guns. They NRA has served them this bullshit for decades all while ducking any responsibility. FUCK THE NRA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mythos27 said:

@TitanDuckFan @Soxcat @Little Earl

 

Fact: The NRA uses their influence to prevent gun violence research. That alone gives credence to my stance that they've played a hand in all this. 

https://www.ucsusa.org/suppressing-research-effects-gun-violence#.WpAO_YPwZEY

 

The NRA has stood in the way of nearly all regulations that the American people think would help alleviate some of this mess. Whether or not you agree that the regulations would help, is irrelevant. The fact is that the NRA has plenty of blood on it's hands. If they decide to become a part of the solution, things might be different but this won't happen because their base already views any attempt to implement gun regulations as a slippery slope to having their door kicked down by govt thugs and confiscation of their guns. They NRA has served them this bullshit for decades all while ducking any responsibility. FUCK THE NRA!

First off, have you ever read the Dickey Amendment?  The one your story(ies) claim prevents research on gun violence?

It doesn't do that.  It simply says:

 

Quote

“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

And that fact is stated in the article you cite.

Should we not do research for the sake of knowledge and data alone? 

Should it only be done to advance a talking point?

There are still funds available for the research, just not for advocacy.

 

If doctors and political appointees at these institutions refuse to do research if they can't use it for the purpose of advancing their agenda, that's on them.  There's plenty of information that could be gleaned from the data generated, but they won't do it if they can't include advocacy?

How is that at ALL reflective of true scientific discovery?  Do the research and let someone else do the advocating.  But don't hide results and conclusions that disprove your agenda either.

Data should be data.  The unvarnished facts/truth.

What the NRA fought in that legislation was taxpayer money being used against taxpayers.  I have no problem with that.

But I'm sure many of you feel differently.  You'd be glad to see taxpayer money spent on advocacy for your agenda in the name of science, and you don't even know why that's wrong.

Edited by TitanDuckFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

First off, have you ever read the Dickey Amendment?  The one your story(ies) claim prevents research on gun violence?

https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research/

 

The former Republican congressman who pushed legislation nearly 20 years ago that effectively banned the federal government from funding research on gun violence is calling on Congress to reverse that law.

 

In a letter to the chair of House Democrats' task force on gun violence prevention, former Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas called for the government to fund research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to examine the causes of gun violence in the U.S. and expressed "regrets" for his part in stopping that research.

 

"It is my position that somehow or someway we should slowly but methodically fund such research until a solution is reached. Doing nothing is no longer an acceptable solution," Dickey wrote in a letter dated Tuesday.

 

Rep. Mike Thompson, chairman of the House Democrats' Gun Violence Prevention Task Force that was created in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, released the letter on Wednesday, hours after news broke of a shooting in San Bernardino, California, where at least 14 people were killed and another 17 injured.

 

Dickey has said in recent months that he regrets the legislative effort he led in 1996 effectively stopped the CDC from conducting research aimed at understanding and preventing gun violence in the U.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mythos27 said:

@TitanDuckFan @Soxcat @Little Earl

 

Fact: The NRA has actively and aggressively stood in the way of universal background checks which the American people overwhelmingly support. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/30/usa-today-exclusive-interview-nra-david-keene/1878809/

Fact: The database used for background checks is incomplete, and the NRA knows it.

Fact: Near zero percent follow-up is EVER done on BGCs that result in denials, the NRA knows that too.

Introducing this into the "transfer" of every firearm is asking for trouble, and we've already seen examples of that.

 

I live in a state where universal BCGs are the law.  As a result of the strict limitations they impose, they end up being selectively enforced, if only because most LEOs understand how unreasonable many of the stipulations are, and how easy it is to run afoul of them, with zero intent to circumvent the law, from either side.

http://www.whio.com/news/national/pastor-who-won-rifle-raffle-won-charged/bOI1FHsTDzQvCznX5MfpJO/

 

Furthermore, they do little or nothing to deter criminals.  Joe thug buying his glock out of the trunk of a chevy doesn't care about BGCs.

 

But this law makes loaning a hunting rifle to a friend during deer season, cumbersome.  That's what the NRA opposes.

Edited by TitanDuckFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research/

 

The former Republican congressman who pushed legislation nearly 20 years ago that effectively banned the federal government from funding research on gun violence is calling on Congress to reverse that law.

 

In a letter to the chair of House Democrats' task force on gun violence prevention, former Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas called for the government to fund research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to examine the causes of gun violence in the U.S. and expressed "regrets" for his part in stopping that research.

 

"It is my position that somehow or someway we should slowly but methodically fund such research until a solution is reached. Doing nothing is no longer an acceptable solution," Dickey wrote in a letter dated Tuesday.

 

Rep. Mike Thompson, chairman of the House Democrats' Gun Violence Prevention Task Force that was created in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, released the letter on Wednesday, hours after news broke of a shooting in San Bernardino, California, where at least 14 people were killed and another 17 injured.

 

Dickey has said in recent months that he regrets the legislative effort he led in 1996 effectively stopped the CDC from conducting research aimed at understanding and preventing gun violence in the U.S.

That's not the issue SK.

The funds can still be used for research.  These people have taken their ball and gone home because they can't advocate for one side.

That tells me they are more interested in the advocacy surrounding the issue, than they are the actual research.

It also tells me how politicized government sponsored "scientific research" has become, and how too many research projects are started with a preconceived outcome in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...