Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 11
In the Atlanta nutcase mass shooting...the press had no problem pushing the 'christian' faith - BAPTIST - all the time.

the nutcase mass shooter in CO? Gotta look in the fine print to find out he's a MUSLIM fanatic.....

Oh well....

doesn't fit the narrative, does it?

even stranger that since Joe Biden has taken office, there's been a whole string of mass shootings as if Biden stirred up everyone of the nutcases to go off their rockers at the same time....

All with legally bought guns, too....

I sure wish they would have shot the perp dead - really dead - 30 bullets dead....would save us six months of agony as they try to hold a trial, find 12 unbiased jurors....and then we hang him after ten years of appeals....


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
the nutcase mass shooter in CO? Gotta look in the fine print to find out he's a MUSLIM fanatic.....

He also duct-taped his computer screen to keep people from spying on him.

Paranoid schizophrenic- my guess.

There’s also something loose in the head of that guy in Atlanta, if you ask me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you jump to conclusions, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa was the first clue, just like Barack Hussein Obama

As for narratives, guy with mental problems goes out and buys gun(s) and shoots people, seems to hold

Unspoken narrative (as yet). Someone stirred up a chunk of the population to believe that someone stolen something from them that they should take back. Increased agitation and sense of futility and personal delusions, push those on the edge to act out. It may be coincidence, so that is why they are holding off for no.

But I do find it odd that he was not carried out in a body bag. Looks like a strategic leg shot, so we will have to endure trials and appeals to highlight the obvious, so it can be ignored.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"As for narratives, guy with mental problems goes out and buys gun(s) and shoots people, seems to hold"

True...but he bought a gun through the standard federal background system.

There is no mechanism to put into that system the 'state of mind' of the purchaser. If he is 'competent' at the time of purchase, not a rambling idiot threatening the world, he's going to pass the background check.

If he had sought medical help.....doctors are NOT free to disclose to the feds or ANYONE else their patient information.

So how do YOU propose to fix the system to weed out the two or three nut cases a year who go off on a binge like this? Without violating federal , state, or local privacy laws?

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So how do YOU propose to fix the system to weed out the two or three nut cases a year who go off on a binge like this?

2020 was a record year for deaths by gun. Somewhere near 44,000 people of which 65% were suicide. So you are looking at 28,600 suicides, 15,400 by gun related violence of which a few are incidents such as those in CO. The number of people killed in these incidents is surprisingly low in the bigger picture, but they make the headlines because of the randomness and close to home factor. Suicides seldom make the news unless a SWAT team is called in. Other gun related deaths such as gangs and people caught in their crossfire are shrugged off.

I agree that background checks are of little use in diagnosing mental issues. What is really needed is constant mental monitoring which is impractical and intrusive. More suicide outreach facilities and some effort on gang violence could possibly help. But I fear that any real change is going to cause the violation of some group rights.

How about "Only women can buy and carry guns". It has some sense. Women are most needing some protection. Women are least likely to commit suicide, especially by gun. Guys are responsible for most of the gun violence. And it is simple... Yes it is against someone's rights. No excuse to not take the wife because it is too dangerous.... if she was stupid enough to go.

The biggest threat to gun owners are gun owners. I don't know how bad it has to get for people to realize this. If you own a gun or you have access to a gun and you are male, you are five times more likely to die from gun violence than a guy without access. So carry for protection is mute. I hear that it is against my constitutional right, maybe, the constitution was not that clear and could be ruled one way or the other depending on the makeup of the court. But one thing is certain, the founders did not envision what we have today, the first revolver was still 50 years away

The obvious solution is to get rid of them. That has its pit falls on how do you do it and how do you stop them coming in illegally. But the overall effect will be down.

I do not own a gun or go anywhere near them although I have used one in the past for sport. If I had one I would shoot someone sooner or later. Could be the AH who cuts me off and gives me the finger or the jerk at the store who says "For your convenience we are no longer taking that credit card"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Suppose you allowed concerned citizens to add names to the no gun list? That should get such people on the list.

You would need an appeal process to get off the list. Say if placed there by angry ex-spouse. Or for harassment.

Could make background checks more effective. Family members often know the perp is troubled and a possible threat.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
" If I had one I would shoot someone sooner or later. Could be the AH who cuts me off and gives me the finger or the jerk at the store who says "For your convenience we are no longer taking that credit card""

Stabile responsible gun owners would never do that, reserving it's use fro life & death situations .
They WOULD reach for a gun if someone breaks into their home & threatens their family.For the rest of your days,You would have to live with not having that option; torturing yourself with ...'If only I could have..."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"But one thing is certain, the founders did not envision what we have today, the first revolver was still 50 years away"

The first car was 150 years away

The first airplane was 160 years away

The electric light bulb and electric chair were over 100 years away.

Lots of folks died by swords, arrows, knives....when the founders were around. Or poison.

Jack the Ripper didn't need a gun.

- -

"The biggest threat to gun owners are gun owners. I don't know how bad it has to get for people to realize this. If you own a gun or you have access to a gun and you are male, you are five times more likely to die from gun violence than a guy without access. "

If you live in the city, you have 'access' to a gun. 100 million people own a gun. If there was a real problem, you've have 10 million dying a year.....

Nearly every household has 'access' to a gun if they want to get a gun.

As to criminals, they don't buy 'legal guns' or go through the system and never will.

When you tell me there's no cocaine, heroin, meth, oxycodone, fetanyl, uppers, downers, and other illegal drugs out there.....you can tell me how you managed to do that, then we'll apply the same techniques for getting guns out of criminal hands and the few nutcases a year.

OK?

Meanwhile, in any city, a perp can buy a gun where he gets his/her drugs.

And....you just proved why any new background checks would not stop nutcases like in Atlanta or Boulder.....but merely add layers of inconvenience and intrusion into the lives of 100 million lawful gun owners.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
"Suppose you allowed concerned citizens to add names to the no gun list? That should get such people on the list."


Gun ninnies would use the telephone directory put EVERYONE in their town/city on that 'no gun' list. Little old ladies would spend their days hunting everyone town from tax records, car registrations, drivers licenses, etc.

Stupid idea. It's like letting citizens file arrest warrants for murder. You're guilty till you prove yourself innocent.

Now, If you let folks sue for 'damages' - like $100,000 for falsely putting folks on the no gun list......or maybe a million for taking away Second Amendment rights..... that might work. Plus 10 year jail sentences for 'malice'.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The first car was 150 years away. first airplane was 160 years away. the electric light bulb and electric chair were over 100 years away.

True, but none of them got an explicit mention in the constitution
The constitution says nothing about atomic bombs, but we figured out that it was not a good idea for individuals to own one.


Lots of folks died by swords, arrows, knives....
And they still do. But a gun is easier, more efficient and less personal
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nearly every household has 'access' to a gun if they want to get a gun.

And there is the problem and the difference. Most people do not want a gun and do not want to be around them. These people have five times less chance of dying by gun than their counterparts. Remember the VAST MAJORITY of gun deaths at the present time is SUICIDE and has been for some time.

Extrapolate all you want, but todays reality if you have ready access to a gun, you are more likely to off yourself with it. Especially if you are a white male. If you slice and dice by race, stable white guys shoot themselves. Minorities tend to shoot at anything other than themselves. Those are the two problems that need to be fixed
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You would have to live with not having that option; torturing yourself with ...'If only I could have..."

What if I he had not gone into that supermarket for a soda? What if I had packed his lunch! What if we had gone on vacation as we planned. What if I never made us move here.
There are many ways to torture yourself without a gun to the same result.
Mourn and move on, causality is an illusion.

I was walking down a trail in Colorado and looked across the valley to where I had walked the day before. At first glance there appeared to be a new ski slope through the woods, but one closer inspection trees were snapped and at the bottom of the slope there was a boulder as big as a house, that had broken from the rim rock and carved a path down the hillside. Wow I was lucky. Then I considered what made the boulder come free a that particular time an place. Freeze thaw, rodent diggings, maybe a bear walked on it, or mabe an ant zigged instead of zagging. Possibly combinations of all those factors, but I came to the conclusion that there was no single cause. The deeper you go the more the possibilities expand. Eventually you come to the conclusion that sh happens and you move on.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Nearly every household has 'access' to a gun if they want to get a gun.

And there is the problem and the difference. Most people do not want a gun and do not want to be around them. . .


How do you know that “most people do not want a gun and do not want to be around them”, did you take a poll of all the people in your state, huuuggh?

. . . These people have five times less chance of dying by gun than their counterparts. . . .

FWIW, I have legally owned assorted firearms for the last 53 or 52 years now. I have my father’s “Saturday Night Special” and my late uncle’s .41 colt DA in my “gun locker”. My father died of a heart attack in 1984 and my uncle died of cancer in 1969, neither by firearms. I am presently getting rid of my excess firearms by mostly selling them through a licensed dealer, although I have given a few rifles to my two youngest grandsons when they reached 18. Number 2 grandson, in California, would love to receive one of my semi-automatic rifles or pistols but, due to state laws, I cannot legally give him one, no.

. . . . Remember the VAST MAJORITY of gun deaths at the present time is SUICIDE and has been for some time. . .

So if you eliminate firearms and a person decides he/she wants to commit suicide, how would he/she do it? Another simple way is just get into a car, crank up the speed to 90 or 85 MPH and crash head on into a vehicle coming the other way. Of course that may take out the other driver and/or passengers in the other vehicle but so what? I would prefer for the suicide to be by firearm - not as messy and less collateral damage, IMHO.
;-)

C.J.V. - and DW wants my 20-gauge Parker double barreled shotgun, her
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
BobD:"And there is the problem and the difference. Most people do not want a gun and do not want to be around them. "

Please quote your source on this.

With at least 80 million 'households' having at least one gun, with over 300 million guns in private ownership in the USA...... that is one heck of a lot of people, assuming 1.5 people per household....and it is probably higher like 2 people per household.

Only 'city people' seem to think their police department will show up in 2 minutes when the perps are breaking down your door.

Actually, the police have NO OBLIGATION to even show up!


- - - ---
Some stats for you

Three-in-ten American adults say they currently own a gun, and another 11% say they don’t personally own a gun but live with someone who does. Among those who don’t currently own a gun, about half say they could see themselves owning one in the future.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-dem...

and that's folks who 'admit' they own a gun. I suspect at least 50% of folks don't tell surveys they own guns.......

If you look at gun sales, they are at record highs. Across the board. Everywhere.

- - - ---





" Remember the VAST MAJORITY of gun deaths at the present time is SUICIDE and has been for some time."

So? If you want to exit life.....most effective way and you take no one else with you.

- - ---



"Extrapolate all you want, but todays reality if you have ready access to a gun, you are more likely to off yourself with it."

So? When you get to be 95, bedridden, and got terminal cancer - you can suffer for a year in agony....or choose to go when you want. Who wants to be on 20 different medicines, have 24 hours a day care, can't eat anything without puking.....

- - ----

--

" Most people do not want a gun and do not want to be around them. "

Actually, the surveys say this is gun ninny BS.

- - ---


" Remember the VAST MAJORITY of gun deaths at the present time is SUICIDE and has been for some time."

So? would you be happy if the vast number of suicides was drug overdoses? That's high on the list.....and also murders.....

- - ---

"Extrapolate all you want, but todays reality if you have ready access to a gun, you are more likely to off yourself with it."

And if you don't? Take too many sleeping pills? A hot shot of heroin, cocaine and fetanyl?? Go drive at 100 mph and take out a mini-van of kids when you collide?

- - ---

so far, you are so far off base - trying to justify 'even more useless background checks'......that you are shooting yourself in your foot constantly. Pun intended.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Looks like a strategic leg shot...

What does the shooter get out of this tragic event as provided by the taxpayer?

Free medical care for the gun shot wound
Free room and board for the rest of his life
Free medical care the rest of his life
Free legal defense services including appeals up to the Supreme court if necessary
Free mental health counseling for the stress he must endure
Free barbiturate injection in 10 to 15 years

And what will the taxpayers provide the 10 victims as a result of this event: NOTHING.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The biggest threat to gun owners are gun owners. I don't know how bad it has to get for people to realize this. If you own a gun or you have access to a gun and you are male, you are five times more likely to die from gun violence than a guy without access. "

How does one pointing a gun at me know if I own a gun or not?

Its not gun ownership increasing the risk of being shot. Its being in certain geographic areas at certain times of the day in the company of certain kinds of individuals that increases the risk of being shot. Such higher risk individuals may indeed own a gun, but its not gun ownership causing this higher risk. Its a correlating, not a causal, factor.

What the gun owner does increase is the risk of accidental shootings, as obviously this would not be a risk if a gun were not owned. This is particularly true with young boys in the household, but is due primarily, I believe, to lack of training on gun handling.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How do you know that “most people do not want a gun and do not want to be around them”, did you take a poll of all the people in your state,

55% of Texans do not have a gun in the home while 45% do. 55%>45% = MOST
6.3% of Texans have a carry permit 93.7 do not. The actual carry is somewhat higher both criminals and many constitution protesters don't bother to apply. Constitutional protesters, which include politicians, believe that neither the federal government nor the state should infringe on their rights.
Rural states have a higher proportion of rifles, urban areas hand guns.
Police report that only 1% of gun related deaths are justifiable homicide. Don't know what to make of that.

Did I take a poll: No but my neighborhood did 3 years ago. They ran an anonymous poll on gun ownership as part of a neighborhood association awareness effort on the danger of guns to children. This is a fringe urban area with about 700 homes. 72% responded to the poll:
70% did not own a gun, 30% did : Of gun owners:
21% Had children and had their guns secure at all times
14% Had children and unsecured guns
54% Had no children and unsecured guns
11% Had no children but had secure storage.
The conclusion was, that even if you know your kids play pals well, it is ok to check to make sure that there are no unsecured firearms on premises. Better to be safe than sorry
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"The biggest threat to gun owners are gun owners. I don't know how bad it has to get for people to realize this. If you own a gun or you have access to a gun and you are male, you are five times more likely to die from gun violence than a guy without access. "

How does one pointing a gun at me know if I own a gun or not?

Its not gun ownership increasing the risk of being shot. Its being in certain geographic areas at certain times of the day in the company of certain kinds of individuals that increases the risk of being shot. Such higher risk individuals may indeed own a gun, but its not gun ownership causing this higher risk. Its a correlating, not a causal, factor.


I remember some years ago somebody did a study that collected a lot of data relating to people who died after being shot in their own homes... and then the only correlation they looked at was whether someone who lived in the home owned a gun and kept it there.

Unsurprisingly, there was a correlation, and promptly "See! Owning a gun is MORE dangerous than NOT owning one!"

Sadly (for them), they published all their data. And somebody did a proper regression.

What was the *strongest* correlation? "Regularly associating with known violent criminals."

Second strongest, after the strongest was factored out? "Being one of those known violent criminals."

Third? "Living in rental housing."

Having a firearm in the home was somewhere in the low to mid 20s on the list. Really not important.

Similarly, a study compared Seattle against Vancouver BC, and found that the latter, with strict gun control, had less violent crime. Obviously the strict gun control is the reason for less crime. Problem, again, is that someone else analyzed the data too - and found that for *each ethnic group* violent crime was worse in Vancouver. The difference was that Vancouver had a higher percentage of people in ethnicities that had the lowest crime rates in both cities, and Seattle had a higher percentage in ethnicities with higher crime rates.

If you analyze the data to try to show that guns are evil, you probably can tailor your analysis to reach that conclusion.

If you analyze the data to determine whether guns are evil... you might reach an accurate conclusion instead of the "proper" one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So if you eliminate firearms and a person decides he/she wants to commit suicide, how would he/she do it?

Stats on suicide show that the majority are spur of the moment actions**, especially with young people. So take away the guns and you will reduce suicide. The problem with suicide by gun, unlike slitting your wrist is that there is not changing your mind once you pull the trigger. If you really want to kill yourself you will find a way that does not involve taking other people with you

** Data from those who made the attempt and failed (obviously)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
so far, you are so far off base - trying to justify 'even more useless background checks
No I stated that background checks are useless as the problem is forward stability of the user.

Some stats for you
Yep your numbers are the same as mine 54% don't have vs 46% who do
My source : Texas State Government Issued License, demographics and CBS Poll Gun Ownership by state

When you get to be 95, bedridden, and got terminal cancer
Look at the numbers Highest proportion of suicides is adult white male >50 Can only be explained by cultural factors or Industrial Disease (Dire Straits)

Actually, the surveys say this is gun ninny BS
Show me the number. Not your extrapolation based on bias

So? would you be happy if the vast number of suicides was drug overdoses?
No. I would prefer that people had hope in their lives and they would not want to do such a thing.
Legalize medical assisted euthanasian for those in terminal pain. It happens illegally all the time in hospice. But if you are determined I suppose a drug overdose is the best, less to clean up and at least you go out on a high

So far, you are so far off base - ....that you are shooting yourself in your foot constantly. Pun intended.
On base, don't have a gun. How's the foot
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I do not own a gun or go anywhere near them although I have used one in the past for sport. If I had one I would shoot someone sooner or later. Could be the AH who cuts me off and gives me the finger or the jerk at the store who says "For your convenience we are no longer taking that credit card" -Bobsisnuts

------------

That is a deranged statement to make and if you feel that way about gun owners, then no wonder you are for eliminating the seconds amendment.

Do I have to po int out that there are 100 million gun owners in this country and to your way of thinking most are going to commit a homicide, it is just a matter of time. That is absolutely unhinged thinking.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I do not own a gun or go anywhere near them although I have used one in the past for sport. If I had one I would shoot someone sooner or later. Could be the AH who cuts me off and gives me the finger or the jerk at the store who says "For your convenience we are no longer taking that credit card" -Bobsisnuts

------------

That is a deranged statement to make and if you feel that way about gun owners, then no wonder you are for eliminating the seconds amendment.


Or it could be a statement solely about *himself*. He really believes he's that mentally abnormal, deranged and irrational. (Why, then, he thinks we should take his opinions seriously... is a mystery left for the reader to solve.)

I also have firmly decided to never own a firearm - for reasons that are specific to me, not applicable to the average person. It isn't my mental state, though, it's the fact that my hands shake when I'm *not* under stress, and more so when I am. I'm unlikely to need to use a firearm in a stress-free situation.

At the same time, I do not choose to live in a place where the law does not allow me to own a firearm unless I beg and plead for permission that can be denied because some official doesn't like my haircut.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Its not gun ownership increasing the risk of being shot.

Your points on causal factors fair, but the biggest stat in gun deaths is suicide which directly links back to ownership. When almost 2/3 of the deaths are self inflicted there is a problem. We tend to give emphasis to the other 1/3 because we see that as real violent crime, but it all rolls up into fatalities by gun.

There are really three distinct problems.

1) Rural areas which tend to have higher suicide proportions
2) Urban areas which tend to have higher homicide proportions
3) Poor states that tend to have a higher proportion of both

https://maps.everytownresearch.org/everystat/database
Alaska is an outlier for obvious reasons. IMO you have to address all three to make meaningful progress

The overview of gun violence in America give some interesting stats on demographics and stats which support my overall claim that you are five times more likely to die by gun violence if you ow a gun, but they slice and dice it further

https://everytownresearch.org/report/gun-violence-in-america...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is a deranged statement to make and if you feel that way about gun owners

Nope I never said that about gun owners, and I don't know how you managed to construe that. I said it about me. And ONLY ME
I realize that I am not the type of person who should have a gun. Same as I am not the type of person that should not have a souped up sports car, let loose on a crowded ski slope or given a bottle of any alcohol. Put it down to poor impulse control, but at least I know my boundaries
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You can in the spur of the moment take a bottle of pills.

You can in the spur of the moment hop in your car & drive 100mph into a tree.

You can in the spur of the moment dive off a cliff or from a tall building.
FYI- don't try to off yourself this way if you're Superman.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
" also have firmly decided to never own a firearm - for reasons that are specific to me, not applicable to the average person. It isn't my mental state, though, it's the fact that my hands shake when I'm *not* under stress, and more so when I am"


This is what shotguns are great for.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Let’s ban knives, screwdrivers, hammers, rocks-all of these are weapons that have killed people. People kill with their fists as well...mental instability caused by drugs, alcohol, mental illness is whatever causes murder with whatever the murderer can find.

Kind of like that murderer who killed those women at the massage parlor....he said he was a sex addict and he had gotten treatment for it, so he wouldn’t kill anyone who would provided his sexual urges. His thinking was warped...if I kill them, them I won’t act on these urges.

Banning guns thinking that there will be no murders is naive. People who are going to kill will kill with whatever is handy.

Lucky Dog, female gun owner
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Or it could be a statement solely about *himself*. He really believes he's that mentally abnormal, deranged and irrational.

Ah you got it, its all about me

Mentally abnormal.. isn't everyone?

Deranged... I thought this was the Deranged People Board and it seemed that I was in good company. Consider what Aristotle had to say on the matter (smart guy and only slightly deranged). Suppose, then, that all men were sick or deranged, save one or two of them who were healthy and of right mind. It would then be the latter two who would be thought to be sick and deranged and the former not!

Irrational: No way I am represented by a quotient
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You can in the spur of the moment take a bottle of pills.
Then you could change your mind and down some ipecac or call 911

You can in the spur of the moment hop in your car & drive 100mph into a tree.
Yes and in that process you may change your mind and say: bad idea

You can in the spur of the moment dive off a cliff or from a tall building.
Now this is like shooting yourself. No turning back once you pull the trigger, turn the wheel or jump.

The point being that those who survived often regretted their spur of the moment decision. Those who didn't have regrets probably bought a gun for the next attempt
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Let’s ban knives, screwdrivers, hammers, rocks-all of these are weapons that have killed people. People kill with their fists as well...mental instability caused by drugs, alcohol, mental illness is whatever causes murder with whatever the murderer can find.


I have no doubt that if you banned guns that death using other objects would go up. The question is, would the overall homicide rate remain the same?

Repeat that thought say knives. Its harder to ban knives because they have a useful purpose other than stabbing people. What would happen to the overall homicide rate?

I believe that the overall homicide rate would come down if you had fewer guns. Homicide by other means would go up, but not to the same extent. If you banned knives, I believe that the homicide rate would remain about the same.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I have no doubt that if you banned guns that death using other objects would go up. "

If you banned guns, deaths by collisions with deer would escalate to 10X the current rate, which is pretty bad in a lot of northern states.

"According to State Farm, U.S. drivers on average have a 1 in 116 chance of a collision with an animal. There were over 1.9 million animal collision insurance claims in the U.S. between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020. These claims were most likely in West Virginia, with one in 37 drivers making an insurance claim based on this kind of accident. In Hawaii, the odds are 1 in 649, making it the lowest risk state for animal collisions. The large majority of animal collisions are with deer. For the year July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 there were estimated to be 1.5 million deer claims industry-wide, according to State Farm"

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-deer-veh....

---

Hunters cull the herd of deer by a signficant amount each year, reducing the herd, reducing starvation, and reducing collisions with cars.

The number of bucks harvested was 85,340, compared to 75,236 last year. For antlerless deer, the 2020 total was 103,372, compared to 2019's total of 85,533

https://www.wpr.org/deer-harvest-nearly-16-percent-during-20....

--

There are places in NY on LI where deer hunting was forbidden. Your probability of a deer collision there is probably about 1 in 50 a year.

I've been hit by deer twice in the past 15 years. Once in MO and once in MI....fortunately only $1500 damage the first time, and $1200 damage the second time.

I have two friends who totaled cars in deer collisions.

You ban guns, hunting, you better have Plan C to avoid both deer starvation and a 10x increase in deer collisions and slaughter on the highways.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"I am not the type of person that should not have a souped up sports car, let loose on a crowded ski slope or given a bottle of any alcohol. Put it down to poor impulse control, but at least I know my boundaries"

Great, but don't be forcing your gun ninny concepts on the rest of us.

So far, you have YET to propose one "gun law" that would have prevented the incidents in Columbine, Atlanta, Orlando, Blacksburg, Boulder.

Your background checks - useless since they all passed gun background checks.

Oh, and don't forget 'mass bombings' in OK City that killed HUNDREDS, did 2.5 billion dollars in damage.....

Or the Boston Marathon 'pressure cooker' bomb, right?

A deranged person or terrorist (which Biden is letting in by the hundreds at the southern border with no screening) doesn't need a 'rifle' to kill hundreds.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So far, you have YET to propose one "gun law" that would have prevented the incidents in Columbine, Atlanta, Orlando, Blacksburg, Boulder.

I don't profess to have the answer either, but I also believe it is important to try and find something that might spare some of these lives.

First, I am a FOID card holder and have zero problems with gun ownership. While I do not own one personally, I do on occasion go to the range with friends to shoot. When people speak of gun laws or gun reform, too many people immediately jump to someone trying to take away your 2nd Amendment rights. From my perspective, that is not the case but I can understand the leap.

With all of that said, I would hope that everyone here believes that mass shootings as well as any death by gun are bad. I am in agreement that banning guns will not solve the problem. In addition, bad people that want a gun will often still find a way to get a gun. However, unless I am mistaken, most of the mass shootings have been by people that bought weapons legally. While it is true that many of the deaths in places like Chicago are via illegally owned weapons, I think a place to start is on reducing the crime from people that own guns legally.

As I said at the beginning, I do not know the answer but rather than digging my head in the sand and yelling about my 2A rights, I think we should be working towards solutions that might save one or more lives.

What about mandatory insurance when buying a gun? Just like having mandatory insurance to drive a car. Sure, some people will skirt the law but could it help? Possibly.

How about eliminating private gun sales? Here in TN one can buy a gun from another personal seller without any background check required. I believe many states also allow private sellers at gun shows to sell weapons. Would this help? I believe it may.

Technology...how about fingerprint-type technology in the grip where the weapon can only be fired by the registered owner? This would help reduce accidental shootings in cases where a child finds mom or dads gun, and would also curb theft of weapons. There are problems however, as my example of going to a range with friends means we could not share a gun to shoot.

How about a national gun registration database? Not all states require, or have the same level of requirements, for registering weapons. Maybe even have an annual recertification of the guns that one owns to ensure that ownership is maintained or transferred to a new owner legally.

I can appreciate that any of the above, or other ideas, are likely going to make the process more tiresome for legal gun owners with more hoops to jump through and will not completely eradicate gun violence. But could it be a start? If the time comes when I do choose to own my own gun, I would be happy to do so if it might mean even one life being saved. Again, as I look at this topic, I do not believe anyone is promoting the idea of banning people from owning guns. Even looking at guns like the AR-15, while I don't personally see a need to own one, I am not opposed to others doing so if we have some better processes around securing ownership. For me, renting one from the range is more than sufficient.

I have not touched on the topics surrounding mental evaluations, as I know that is a very tricky topic given privacy regulations. Nor have I touched on the topic of illegal guns / gun ownership, as I view that as a different beast with other socioeconomic components. I agree that guns do not kill people any more than cars kill people, knives kill people, or anything else. I will say though that a gun in the wrong hands has the opportunity to kill more people in a shorter time than knives or other weapons.

To the gun advocates in the group, what suggestions do you have? My hope is that you don't say there is nothing to do and there is no problem. Let's not whatabout the topic to other weapons or causes of death. What can this country do to curb gun violence / death from the hands of legal gun owners?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Great, but don't be forcing your gun ninny concepts on the rest of us.

So far, you have YET to propose one "gun law" that would have prevented the incidents in Columbine, Atlanta, Orlando, Blacksburg, Boulder.
Yes I did, get rid of them all. Tough, problematics, but it would have worked

Your background checks - useless since they all passed gun background checks.
Never advocated them. Sid from the start that they were useless..... LINK PLEASE

Oh, and don't forget 'mass bombings' in OK City that killed HUNDREDS, did 2.5 billion dollars in damage..... What is that to do with guns. I am on the Irrational Fools Board

Or the Boston Marathon 'pressure cooker' bomb, right?
Yada Yada Ya

A deranged person or terrorist (which Biden is letting in by the hundreds at the southern border with no screening) doesn't need a 'rifle' to kill hundreds.
Not hundred, we last left off at MILLIONS AND MILLIONS Teeming in over the border like a swarm of locust, eating an drinking everything in their path. Now it sounds like they are all trained Llap Goch assassins which effectively renders your a gun totally useless.

I have an excuse, I am deranged. What's yours crepehanger?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I have not touched on the topics surrounding mental evaluations, as I know that is a very tricky topic given privacy regulations. Nor have I touched on the topic of illegal guns / gun ownership, as I view that as a different beast with other socioeconomic components. - desemmler

------------------

So you are ruling out the two areas that have the only chance of actually addressing the problem. Creating more hoops for otherwise law abiding gun owners to jump through is just feel good legislation that accomplishes nothing to affect the problem in a positive way.

And I say "positive way" because some of the proposals do have impact but in a negative way by making it harder or impossible for regular citizens to defend themselves and their families from criminals who won't obey whatever gun laws are passed anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you are ruling out the two areas that have the only chance of actually addressing the problem. Creating more hoops for otherwise law abiding gun owners to jump through is just feel good legislation that accomplishes nothing to affect the problem in a positive way

Do you have any evidence of that, or is that just your opinion?

I ask because the following link demonstrates that the vast majority of mass shootings are by people that have legally obtained their weapon(s). Now we can certainly delve into the mental evaluations of gun owners, but I am fairly certain that most will shun that as a violation of privacy. Personally, I would definitely support a need for mental evaluation or clearance as part of gun ownership and a regular recertification as time goes by. However, I know many will not support that.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in...

And I say "positive way" because some of the proposals do have impact but in a negative way by making it harder or impossible for regular citizens to defend themselves and their families from criminals who won't obey whatever gun laws are passed anyway.

In my opinion, this is the red herring that gun advocates like to lean on. When is the last time any gun owner on this board had to use their weapon to defend themselves or their families? My guess is that the answer is close to never. Owning the gun makes you "feel" safe.

In the case of the latest shooting, the armed police officer was killed by the gunman. Obviously his weapon did little to keep him safe. Maybe the man arrested at a Publix this week was only trying to grocery shop while feeling that he could defend himself if necessary with the 10+ weapons he had on him.

So, I have heard your objections but little in the way of suggestions.

If you don't believe there is a problem, I feel sorry for you. If you do believe there is a problem and you want to ignore it with nothing but "thoughts and prayers" for the victims, I feel sorry for you. But please stop clinging to the defense that you "need" weapons to defend yourself when I am fairly certain that the majority of gun owners have never used their weapon to actually defend themselves from anything.

Do you have any suggestions? Or just objections?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Creating more hoops for otherwise law abiding gun owners to jump through is just feel good legislation that accomplishes nothing to affect the problem in a positive way.

Hey, you seem to think the same approach works for voting, so how can it be bad with guns?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How about we go back in time to before gunpowder and start swinging swords and dirks?
Just think of the fantastic shape people will become from all that arm waving?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How about we go back in time to before gunpowder and start swinging swords and dirks?

How far back. Sparta would be good, get you into shape by tossing you in the wilderness and if you passed you're trained to be a warrior. I can see you now, totally ripped, liberally marinated with olive oil at the side of Gerard Butler. Off to fight the invading hordes of Xerces at the pass of Thermopylae.

Or part of a well trained Roman Legion of the Ninth. March from Rome to York like a walk in the park. Only to vanish without trace like Malaysian Air 370

But I think you would be best in the Middle Ages. Ravaged one plagues after another without lockdown. Smitten by one ailment after another, but who needs a vaccine. Serious injury a death sentence. If you survived you would be ripped and fighting fit and tend to be a little blase about death as you approach old age at 30. And why not, you had the church who had the power to give your soul eternal salvation or damnation. Confession of sins is way overrated when the quickest to salvation was to die heroically in battle, especially against heathens.

Release the Kraken. Sorry this was just a drill. Put the Kraken back in its cage. Gulp
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Personally, I would definitely support a need for mental evaluation or clearance as part of gun ownership and a regular recertification as time goes by."

How about we require it for driving a car? Buying alcohol? flying a private airplane? Driving an ATV? operating a power boat?

At what point do you stop, and you really think, with people buying ONE MILLION plus guns a year, that you have the resources to 'evaluate' on some yet to be determined 'clearance form' to be able to 'own' a gun.

And there you just expanded it to 100 million people who own guns. Yeah, at least half of them never see a doctor even once every five years and now, suddenly, you need tens of thousands of folks doing 'mental evaluations' to what standard?

Really - you are proposing yet another useless bunch of 'regulations' that accomplishes nothing. Anyone wanting a gun for criminal purposes can likely lay their hands on a gun. Criminals have no trouble doing that tens of thousands a year.

When you tell me you have solved the 'drug problem', eliminated all dealing of cocaine, heroin, meth, then I might believe that you can solve the criminal gun problem.

In all recent cases, most likely your perps would have succeeded in passing 'mental exams' as they wouldn't have been that thorough.

Now, since you likely drive a 3 ton vehicle, capable of mass slaughter, when will you go for your 'mental evaluation' to have a drivers license? Heck, you might go ballistic and plow into a crowd of protestors tomorrow!

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
feedmejunk:"Hey, you seem to think the same approach works for voting"

To buy a gun, you need to have POSITIVE ID, then go through a FEDERAL system that verifies identity and determines whether you can buy a gun (ie, not a felon, nor judged incompetent by a legal court). No picture drivers license - no gun purchase. Simple.

To vote, you just show up, or fill out a form that someone handed you, says mark all the Ds (if not already marked) , sign an X at the bottom, and drop in the ballot box - whether an eligible voter or not. ID? Joke, joke.....most places it seems, no ID required - heck, you just fill out the form for the 'vote harvesters' and an additional 10,000 folks will be kept in the back room in case needed in close elections - often with names from the grave yard..... who seem to keep voting 20 years after they died... don't have to be a registered 'voter' to vote - you can do that at the same time after you just ran the border.....

I think you have an excellent idea. Every voter should be verified through a state database after presenting valid PICTURE ID to find out if they are a CITIZEN , not a FELON, and are a registered voter in the place they are voting.

Congratulations. We finally agree on something!

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
In my opinion, this is the red herring that gun advocates like to lean on. When is the last time any gun owner on this board had to use their weapon to defend themselves or their families? My guess is that the answer is close to never. - dsemmler

---------------

The 2A guarantees the individual right to own a firearm so no reason needs to be given.

However, to provide some perspective on DGU in the United States, here are the statistics.

https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/firearms/defens...

Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S.

All of the law-abiding citizens featured in this database successfully defended their liberties, lives, or livelihoods with the lawful use of a firearm. These cases are not based on hearsay, but on verifiable reports found through public sources.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

... more at link


And worth noting is a rhetorical question, "How many crimes were not attempted because the would be criminal decided it was too risky because the intended victim might be armed.

What do you say to the 500,000 to 3,000,000 citizens each year who defend themselves, "Go ahead and let the criminal have his way with you and hope that he doesn't kill you in the process."

Just because you think guns are icky and would never own one does not give you the right to prevent me from owning one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
At what point do you stop, and you really think, with people buying ONE MILLION plus guns a year, that you have the resources to 'evaluate' on some yet to be determined 'clearance form' to be able to 'own' a gun. - t

----------------

And sooner or later as the mental health criteria are fine tuned by our good bureaucrats, expressing conservative ideas or advocating for liberty would be considered signs of mental aberration disqualifying the person from owning a gun or perhaps even a bow and arrow.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To buy a gun, you need to have POSITIVE ID

Ya doing full summersaults here bud. Few posts back you were saying how easy it was for anybody to get a gun. We find lots of people with unlicensed guns, but ineligible voters is proving to be quite tough. The handful that have been found so far seem to be mainly republicans. But that has not stopped republican legislators from trying to block peoples constitutional rights, in clearly partisan moves.

But I have been noting your comments, to wit. I think it would be a good idea if the Biden administration provides each of those millions and millions who are streaming in over the southern border the option of free gun each. It would come with licensing and be be conditional on passing training and mental evaluation. The purpose of this would be to prepare them for life in this country and the ability to protect themselves if needed. I'm sure that you would agree that it is within their second amendment rights, which are not negated just because they are poor and pending citizenship. As a compromise those who take the gun won't be eligible for food stamps and they will be expected to hunt deer in instead.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

I believe the you previously said that you could not trust the numbers that people report on gun ownership because it was an undercount. This is true
Similarly gun owners are apt to overstate defensive usage. I think this is far more prevalent. The gun owners I know all have stories of how they defended themselves. I think this is part invention and exaggeration but also a good amount of perception. If you go out prepared for trouble you will tend to see situation in those terms.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
BobD:"="We find lots of people with unlicensed guns,"

There is no such thing as an 'licensed gun' except in a few places like NYC - murder central - where the gun laws mean nothing other than law abiding citizens are defenseless against robbers, rapists, murders, home invasions, etc.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To buy a gun, you need to have POSITIVE ID, then go through a FEDERAL system that verifies identity and determines whether you can buy a gun (ie, not a felon, nor judged incompetent by a legal court). No picture drivers license - no gun purchase. Simple.

This is false; I can buy a gun legally from a private seller here in TN with zero background check.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just because you think guns are icky and would never own one does not give you the right to prevent me from owning one.

First and foremost, you are making statements that are not supported by anything I have said. I do not find guns "icky" nor have I said I would never own one. As I originally stated, I am a FOID card holder and do go shooting. While I do not presently own a gun, I may in the future.

Also, I am not trying to prevent anyone from owning one--unless they are deemed unfit to do so. It is this latter part that I am spit-balling ideas on how this country can address in the hopes that lives of innocent people can be spared.

Lastly, thank you for sharing that database. I was not aware that the number was that high, although the database only lists ~1500 incidents over the last 3 years yet there are 500k to 3M per year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is false; I can buy a gun legally from a private seller here in TN with zero background check. - dsemmler

-----------------

Yes you can. So can a gangbanger.

If the law is changed, which one of you will adhere to the new requirement?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If the law is changed, which one of you will adhere to the new requirement? "

As of now, only a federally licensed guy dealer can access the 'background' check system.

You'd start down a whole new road of 'privacy' if 'anyone' for 'any reason' could submit a 'background check' for 'anyone else' at any time.


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You'd start down a whole new road of 'privacy' if 'anyone' for 'any reason' could submit a 'background check' for 'anyone else' at any time.


t


-----------------

The way I hear this infringement would be implemented would be both buyer and seller and the weapon would go to an FFL for the background check for which the FFL would collect his usual fee of course.
Print the post Back To Top