Mass Shooting & Gun Violence |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 50K
  • Politics 
gtyellowjacket said:
Its not denying families the ability to protect themselves from anyone unless you are on the run from the kgb. You prevented a home invasion with a gun. Could you have done it with a revolver or a shotgun with internal mag?

Also, you are right that they aren't going to sell but they should in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I didn’t do anything as I wasn’t home at the time. In our case the mere presence of the gun caused the intruder to flee, so the type of gun wouldn’t have mattered. However, if there is more than one invader or if the criminal is using a standard semi-auto, being outgunned by them is going to put the victim at a significant disadvantage.

There is a reason 99% of beat cops no longer carry revolvers but carry semi-automatic handguns now. Also, the shotguns that used to be in the trunk of the police cruisers have been replaced with rifles.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I didn’t do anything as I wasn’t home at the time. In our case the mere presence of the gun caused the intruder to flee, so the type of gun wouldn’t have mattered. However, if there is more than one invader or if the criminal is using a standard semi-auto, being outgunned by them is going to put the victim at a significant disadvantage.

There is a reason 99% of beat cops no longer carry revolvers but carry semi-automatic handguns now. Also, the shotguns that used to be in the trunk of the police cruisers have been replaced with rifles.
Click to expand...
If a gun isn't available for purchase and the vast majority of the existing ones have been turned in or modified, it would be extremely unlikely that a criminal would have it. Criminals don't routinely carry automatic weapons or grenade launchers despite the desire.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
One more thing on gun control: the Democrats need to be careful what they wish for. We are in unprecedented territory now with Trump and his minions. It is not unthinkable that in the near future bands of his supporters could be targeting non MAGATs and might even have the support of some segments of the government in doing so. Do you really want the only ones with guns to be the Trumpets?
Click to expand...

If this is allowed to continue (Project 2025 fascist takeover of America) they will eventually come after guns. Every Fascist regime does.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I didn’t do anything as I wasn’t home at the time. In our case the mere presence of the gun caused the intruder to flee, so the type of gun wouldn’t have mattered.
Click to expand...
How do you know it was the gun who made the intruder flee?

When I was teaching, I had a student ask me how he should deal with a conviction he had for home intrusion when applying to be admitted to the bar. He had gotten drunk and accidentally wandered into the wrong house and crashed on the sofa. The residents yelled at him and told him they had a gun, at which point he realized the problem and left. The residents had called the cops and they found him as they arrived. He pleaded to a misdemeanor, which was suspended pending rehab for a drinking problem.

An isolated example? That's what I thought. But then ANOTHER student approached me with the same issue. His was easier -- it was in a barn so much less threatening. But still -- I was shocked. So I looked into it. Apparently, it had been so common that the municipality had to relax the criminal penalties associated with non-violent drunken invasion because the prosecutors' office was overwhelmed with that offense and it was crowding out prosecutions for more dangerous crimes. I suppose the municipality didn't **HAVE TO** reduce the penalty; they could have relied on prosecutors' discretion but that raises lots of issues with racial justice and equal treatment.

I'd bet that a lot of those homeowners thought their guns had protected them from injury, when in reality it was just drunken college or law school kids being idiots. This is why we use statistics to analyze problems. Because anecdotes like yours rarely come with knowledge of what would have happened in a different situation, making them analytically meaningless.
 
Carolina Fever said:
I would be interested to see if the guy really had CTE or he was just someone who was mad he didn't become a NFL player, and felt like he was a loser with where he was in life currently.
Click to expand...
1. He couldn't have known he had CTE. That's only a diagnosis that can be made post-mortem, as far as I know.
2. He might have had other mental problems, which he interpreted as being CTE. Perhaps schizophrenia or some form of paranoia.
3. It's possible he had CTE but I think CTE is exceedingly rare for people who stopped playing football in HS. I could be wrong about that.
4. It's also possible that he decided to kill himself, but wanted to take out somebody bad with him -- and maybe he had a friend with a CTE like condition. Or just going by media reports. Maybe his favorite player was Aaron Hernandez -- something like that.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
One more thing on gun control: the Democrats need to be careful what they wish for. We are in unprecedented territory now with Trump and his minions. It is not unthinkable that in the near future bands of his supporters could be targeting non MAGATs and might even have the support of some segments of the government in doing so. Do you really want the only ones with guns to be the Trumpets?
Click to expand...
And several post of yours before this one you accused others of gaslighting?

Classic!!!!
 
gtyellowjacket said:
If a gun isn't available for purchase and the vast majority of the existing ones have been turned in or modified, it would be extremely unlikely that a criminal would have it. Criminals don't routinely carry automatic weapons or grenade launchers despite the desire.
Click to expand...

There are tens of millions, if not more, of handguns currently in circulation. Criminals are already banned from owning or using them and yet they still have no difficulty with either. Taking them away from law-abiding citizens will only give the criminals the advantage. Not worth it.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
There are tens of millions, if not more, of handguns currently in circulation. Criminals are already banned from owning or using them and yet they still have no difficulty with either. Taking them away from law-abiding citizens will only give the criminals the advantage. Not worth it.
Click to expand...
That really hasn't been the experience of people in countries that have tightened gun control. Heck, that hasn't been the experience in the United States when we have tightened gun control in the past.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
That really hasn't been the experience of people in countries that have tightened gun control. Heck, that hasn't been the experience in the United States when we have tightened gun control in the past.
Click to expand...
The United States is not like most other countries. No other country has had more guns than people and then tried to take 90% of those guns away. It simply wouldn’t happen here, nor should it. You want to reduce gun crime substantially? Enforce the laws that are already on the books. Disarm criminals before disarming law-abiding citizens.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
If a gun isn't available for purchase and the vast majority of the existing ones have been turned in or modified, it would be extremely unlikely that a criminal would have it. Criminals don't routinely carry automatic weapons or grenade launchers despite the desire.
Click to expand...
"IF". The left always wants to argue this issue in the "IF" realm. Start looking at the issue from a realist pov.

1. Guns will always be for purchase because its a constitutional right
2. There are now close to 400 million guns in the US. You can't force people to "turn in" their guns so an ample supply will always exist

Now considering those two constants, what argument can you make?
 
superrific said:
1. He couldn't have known he had CTE. That's only a diagnosis that can be made post-mortem, as far as I know.
2. He might have had other mental problems, which he interpreted as being CTE. Perhaps schizophrenia or some form of paranoia.
3. It's possible he had CTE but I think CTE is exceedingly rare for people who stopped playing football in HS. I could be wrong about that.
4. It's also possible that he decided to kill himself, but wanted to take out somebody bad with him -- and maybe he had a friend with a CTE like condition. Or just going by media reports. Maybe his favorite player was Aaron Hernandez -- something like that.
Click to expand...
1. yup.
2. Definitely.
3. No one really knows the rate of CTE for high school because so few cases are autopsied. Most kids who commit suicide don't get their brains sent to Boston U.
4. I'd go with No. 2. He was mentally ill, and that mental illness caused him to go down the CTE rabbit hole.
 
Callatoroy said:
"IF". The left always wants to argue this issue in the "IF" realm. Start looking at the issue from a realist pov.

1. Guns will always be for purchase because its a constitutional right
2. There are now close to 400 million guns in the US. You can't force people to "turn in" their guns so an ample supply will always exist

Now considering those two constants, what argument can you make?
Click to expand...
It being constitutional right is debatable. It is right now because the supreme Court says it is but who knows what happens in the future.

What isn't debatable is that we are currently able to regulate based on type. We highly regulate automatic weapons. Whose to say that we can't extend similar regulations to semi-auto. Well the Supreme Court could say it but they haven't said it yet.
 
dukeman92 said:
If this is allowed to continue (Project 2025 fascist takeover of America) they will eventually come after guns. Every Fascist regime does.
Click to expand...
This isn't really accurate. It's NRA cherry picking of a few laws that has kind of stuck as propaganda. The Nazis loosened gun restrictions put in place by the Weimar Republic making it easier to get guns, as long as you weren't Jewish or gay or communist. Civilians had plenty of guns in Nazi Germany.

Fascist Italy did not restrict gun ownership for the most part but did require registration. There were very few restrictions on who could buy or own guns even through WW2 and into the 1950s.

Spain was really the only Fascist country that enacted fairly strict gun control for civilians but they did allow guns for hunting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top