- Messages
- 1,718
And so this is what you brought over here for us? Akin to when my cat brings me a festering dead bird and drops it on our doormat?
You never fail to disappoint.
Last edited:
Mass Shooting & Gun Violence |
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 1K
- Views: 56K
- Politics
You never fail to disappoint.
ZenMode
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,458
Well... apparently someone beat me to it, since these pics were already posted here.
- Messages
- 1,718
Yeah but the transphobia was your own unique contribution.
- Messages
- 3,347
In this hypothetical, am I allowed to assume the power to amend the 2A or not?
If so, then amend the 2A to effectively end private gun ownership in the US.
If not, then create significant restrictions on the amount of guns any individual can own and the capabilities of the guns allowed on the market. No adult may own more than 5 total guns, no minor may own more than 2. All guns must be registered with the local government which rolls up to state and national registries. Criminal and civil liability for the use of guns in either crimes or unintentional harm to others is attached to the registered owner of the gun. All gun users must pass a significantly robust gun user licensing class before using guns and gun user license must be renewed every 5 years. Gun use without a valid user license is a felony with significant potential prison time. Magazine sizes are limited to 5 bullets and must include a mechanism that includes an outside tool (such as a screw or bolt) to attach the magazine to the weapon. All aftermarket products that increase the ability of the gun to be fired more easily or quickly are banned (with a small exception for ADA compliance that would be noted as part of the user license). There would be a transition period of a couple of years where gun owners could get licensed, sell or turn in excess weapons, and retrofit current weapons to the necessary restrictions. After that, violations of these laws would largely be felonies with significant jail time attached. Obviously, some details would have to be worked out and some adjustments made on pragmatic grounds as the changes are carried out, but that would be a great start.
I’m for most of that as long as the gun licensing class is free and offered frequently so that there are no difficulties attending it. Also, hard no on the 5 bullet limit. That would essentially disarm law-abiding citizens and would do nothing to disarm criminals who already own those weapons illegally. The average citizen is not a Delta Force operator who can be expected to land nothing but headshots on a moving target while under fire.
- Messages
- 3,347
The average criminal is also not out there acquiring guns or gun accessories that aren't available on the open market; if you reduce the magazine capacity legally available then most criminals are also going to be using much smaller magazine sizes.
We have to figure out a way that the average gun owned/carried by the average person isn't a weapon of mass casualties. Restricting magazine capacity would almost certainly have to be a part of that effort.
Funny how this doesn't stop Republicans from trying to legislate ourselves to 100% security in almost every other arena of our lives these days...
Not a chance. There are more guns than people out there. There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation that can accept more than 5 bullets. Those guns are not going anywhere. Essentially making it a requirement that single mom can outshoot a Navy SEAL while doing nothing to criminals is a nonstarter.
Carolina Fever
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,481
That's not what it's about. It's about making it harder to carry out and to give people a better chance of surviving. You can't just throw up your hands and say bad things happen and we can't keep it all from happening, so let's not try anything at all to keep it from happening so often, and to give people a better chance to survive if the shooter didn't us an assault rifle and high capacity magazines. Unless you just care more about guns and feeling like Rambo with them.
Carolina Fever
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,481
Multiple sources confirm that the percentage of mass shooters who have been trans is very low, less than 1%. Mass shooters are overwhelmingly cisgender males.
Based on data from multiple sources:
- The Gun Violence Archive estimated that only 0.11% of known suspects in mass shootings over a recent decade were transgender.
- The Violence Project, using a narrower definition of mass public killings, has counted as few as one transgender perpetrator in a database of nearly 200 mass shootings dating back to 1966. This means about 0.5% of the total in their data.
- A 2023 report from the U.S. Secret Service on mass attacks between 2016 and 2020 found that three of 180 attackers (2%) were transgender. Only one of those attacks occurred at a K-12 school.
Statistics also show that transgender people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
- Messages
- 1,718
The shooter was a O9A perpetually online radicalized right wing lunatic.
Being trans is not why they shot people up.
How many times has a home invasion or robbery or whatever of a law-abiding, gun carrying citizen resulting in that citizen needing more than 5 bullets to neutralize the threat? How many gun battles have there been between these parties were more than 5 bullets were needed? Cite examples, or data, or shut the fuck up.
And just so you're aware, if you find one example, it doesn't mean shit when we're looking at the big picture here. You know, trying to lower the body count. If a 5 round limit saves one life per year, is it worth it to you? Cause you'd have to cite at least one example of a 5 round limit causing one death. Can you do it??
And what limit would you be OK with? 8? 12? 16?
Maybe some of these shootings involving 30 round magazines where 50, 100, or more rounds were fired wouldn't have killed as many people. Orlando, Aurora, Tucson, Sandy Hook. But oh, some people would have still died, but fuck those kids, lets not try to lower the body count, cause that's the type of dumbass logic conservatives use.
Just brilliant, thanks for the discussion.
- Messages
- 3,347
What in the world are you blathering about?
First, as I said, given the restrictions on gun (and accessory) ownership, a number of those guns and a lot of accessories are coming out of circulation.
Second, you act like "criminals" are somehow a special designation where neither laws nor logic apply to them. If the vast majority of illegal accessories are taken out of circulation, then your average criminal won't have access to them as the average criminal only has access to what they can reasonably acquire via purchase or theft. It's the same way that in our current society that fully auto weapons are largely illegal and therefore your average criminal isn't carrying one. Yes, there will be a transition period, but once most the newly-illegal accessories are taken out of circulation, then your average criminal won't have them (just like your average citizen).
In that, there's no reason to believe that your a regular citizen has to "outshoot a Navy SEAL" in order to be reasonably safe under these new laws.
The idea that these changes to the laws would "do nothing to criminals" is the kind of BS that infects all of your arguments. As I stated, there's no real use in having this discussion with you because your arguments will largely be logical fallacies and nonsense...and I appreciate you providing a wonderful example of the exact kind of post I was referencing.
Hell, I’d ban semi-automatic weapons.
Revolvers and bolt action rifles, only. Pump action shotguns that can hold 4-5 shells maximum. You can still hunt, target shoot, and “protect” yourself.
ZenMode
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,458
It seems like most of the recent , true mass shooters have been trans.
I say "true" because mass shooting data includes some gang-related drive-by shootings.
- Messages
- 1,139
- Messages
- 958
