Despite the fawning coverage, the March had low numbers

[Goober McTuber]

Well OK. But the response you quoted here had nothing to do with Screwy.
I know all these threads, quotes, and re-quotes can get confusing. But try and get it straight, it would make it much easier to take you seriously.

Fuck you.[/quote]

The internet can be very difficult.

[Dinsdale]

clip

clips

10-round clip limit

Nothing says "gun knowledge" like using the word "clip."

Let me help you out, since you're an idiot -- you could have a 1000 round clip, and it won't fill the magazine beyond its capacity.

A "clip" is a device which is used to load rounds into a fixed magazine. The M1 Garand comes to mind, as does the SKS. I'm sure there's others out there, but I can't think of any. And I've never herd of one that holds more than 10 rounds.

It looks like this, dipshit:

[Dinsdale]

They seem to be getting more and more frequent.

Unless you look at the actual FBI statistics, which show they're on the decline over the last 20 years. Online outrage is certainly on the increase, though. And there's some activists out there making up their own stats.

QUICK... how many school shootings with more than two deaths (not including the shooter) has there been since 1996 (22+ years)?

The answer would be 14.

Which is still 14 too many.

[Goober McTuber]

Never mind. We're fucked.

[Goober McTuber]

They seem to be getting more and more frequent.

Unless you look at the actual FBI statistics, which show they're on the decline over the last 20 years. Online outrage is certainly on the increase, though. And there's some activists out there making up their own stats.

QUICK... how many school shootings with more than two deaths (not including the shooter) has there been since 1996 (22+ years)?

The answer would be 14.

Which is still 14 too many.

I notice that you chose to filter mass shootings that only include 2 or more deaths. In the time period you chose, there have been roughly 235 school shootings. Granted, some may have involved a specific targeted individual, and it may have even been an adult. But a bunch of them included only 1 death or even only a number of wounded (children). I guess they don't count.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ted_States

[Goober McTuber]

Finally, what would the universal and comprehensive background check deliver that nearly each and every one of these mass shooters had not already passed before committing the crime? Metaphorically, your solution is worse than applying a Band-Aid to a gunshot— you are sticking the Band-Aid on a part of the body not injured! Both are useless, but the latter fix is stupid as well.

NEW YORK – Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund today released new research showing that, controlling for population, states that require background checks for all handgun sales experienced 52 percent fewer mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 than states that do not require background checks for all handgun sales. The research employs the FBI’s widely-used definition of mass shooting in which four or more people are murdered with guns.

Among the findings included in Everytown’s latest mass shootings analysis:

Between January 2009 and July 2015 there were 133 mass shootings.

There were 37 mass shootings in states where background checks were required for all handgun sales and 96 mass shootings in states where background checks are not required.

Nearly 40 percent of the 133 incidents were perpetrated by assailants who were prohibited by federal law from possessing guns.

States that require background checks on all handgun sales experienced 63 percent fewer mass shootings committed by people prohibited from possessing firearms and 64 percent fewer domestic violence mass shootings.

“This is just the latest piece of evidence that Americans are safer from gun violence in states where a handgun buyer must pass a criminal background check before buying the firearm,” said Everytown for Gun Safety Research Director Ted Alcorn. “We already know that closing the loophole that allows guns to be sold without background checks online and at gun shows is essential for reducing gun violence. In addition to seeing fewer mass shootings, the states that have closed this loophole see 46 percent fewer women shot and killed by intimate partners and 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed with handguns.”

Previous Everytown research has shown that domestic violence plays an important role in the majority of mass shootings. Fifty-seven percent of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 were incidents in which the shooter killed a current or former partner or family member. More detailed information about Everytown’s research on background checks can be found at http://everytownresearch.org.

Eighteen states have closed the loophole that allows guns to be sold without background checks online and at gun shows and two states – Nevada and Maine – will vote on ballot initiatives to close this loophole in November 2016.

[Goober McTuber]

What does a ten round magazine do for you that an eleven round magazine does not? And if it is so effective, why not a nine or eight round magazine? Why bother with the farcical sop to reasonable and common sensical reforms and simply demand single shot firearms? After all, that is the logical end to your argument without sinking into reductio ad absurdum.

We set numerical legal limits all the time. Fish catch limits. Game limits. Number of DUI limits. Speed limits. They're not arbitrary. They evolve over time (unlike you). Don't be an idiot.

[Left Seater]

I notice that you chose to filter mass shootings that only include 2 or more deaths.

Want to take another run at that statement. Kicked your own ass pretty solidly there.

[Goober McTuber]

I notice that you chose to filter mass shootings that only include 2 or more deaths.

Want to take another run at that statement. Kicked your own ass pretty solidly there.

My bad. School shootings. Which is what my link referenced. Right within the link url. You proved nothing.

[Dinsdale]

My bad. School shootings. Which is what my link referenced. Right within the link url.

Which includes adults shooting each other, after hours, near school grounds. And they managed to throw one of the DC Snipers' victims in there, as well. And idiot kids having an accidental discharge hit them in the leg. And on and on.

And thus the problem with this discussion -- the Grabbers just can't stop either lying, or grossly misrepresenting "facts." If that side of the debate simply refuses to be honest, it makes it difficult.

My 14 number still stands.

[Goober McTuber]

My bad. School shootings. Which is what my link referenced. Right within the link url.

Which includes adults shooting each other, after hours, near school grounds. And they managed to throw one of the DC Snipers' victims in there, as well. And idiot kids having an accidental discharge hit them in the leg. And on and on.

And thus the problem with this discussion -- the Grabbers just can't stop either lying, or grossly misrepresenting "facts." If that side of the debate simply refuses to be honest, it makes it difficult.

My 14 number still stands.

Of course it does. You defined your own analytical criteria. It's your made up fucking number.

[Dinsdale]

It's your made up fucking number.

Wait -- the guy who cited "stats" that claim two adults in a shootout near a school, and a DC Sniper Victim near a school are "school shootings" sayswhat?

That's a definite KYOA.

And I made up nothing. Stated cold, hard, FACTS. You should try it sometime.

[Left Seater]

I notice that you chose to filter mass shootings that only include 2 or more deaths.

Want to take another run at that statement. Kicked your own ass pretty solidly there.

My bad. School shootings. Which is what my link referenced. Right within the link url. You proved nothing.

Other than words and definitions aren’t your friend.

[Rooster]

Speaking of clips, and allowing for what Goobs believes is a synonym for a magazine, since when does anyone decide for someone else who is most likely in a completely different set of circumstances, how many rounds they should be able to load into a firearm? What is that to you or anyone else who may choose to limit yourself to 10 rounds of ammunition?

[Rooster]

Did either of the two officers have more than a 10-round clip? They fired a total of 20 shots. You are flailing badly.

While I don’t have any specific information on what handguns those particular police are issued, a common handgun for police, a Glock 17, uses a standard magazine which holds 15 rounds. That they fired 20 rounds is not indicative of how many rounds any of them used, particularly if there were multiple officers involved. 10 round magazines would be an unusual size or caliber for police officers.

[Rooster]

The purpose of owning a gun is to protect ourselves from the police.

Sin,
Seater

Ultimately, this is true, seeing as the police are agents for the State. The 2A is a safeguard against governmental tyranny, be that the small “s” state or the capital “S” of the national government. Both are— and have been —more than capable of trampling citizens’ rights if not kept in check.

[Rooster]

Advocating for repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a gift the NRA doesn't deserve

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has raised a ruckus with a call to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It pains me to disagree with a lion of the court, but I think a repeal effort would be deeply misguided. It's politically unwise and legally unnecessary.

Advocating for repeal, in essence, advocates for National Rifle Assn. leader Wayne LaPierre's vision of the Constitution. But the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee unlimited gun rights, and it never has. The Constitution is not a bar to sane gun legislation. A broken political system and a failure of will in Congress and statehouses are the culprits, not the words scratched on parchment two and a half centuries ago.

Of course, Stevens is more than just a pundit weighing in on gun control. He wrote a key dissent in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller less than a decade ago. That 2008 case was the first time the court recognized an individual right to gun ownership for purposes other than service in a "well regulated militia." In Stevens' view, however, the majority had "utterly failed to establish [such a right] as a matter of history or text."

Stevens said as much again in his op ed, and he is certainly correct on the provision's history. It was designed to protect the ability of state militias and their citizen soldiers to stand up against what the Framers feared might be a tyrannical central government. All white men were required to serve in the militia, and to own a gun. The intent was to protect an individual right to gun ownership in order to fulfill the duty to serve in the militia. (James Madison's original proposal also had a conscientious objector clause for those who did not wish to fight for the state.)

Today's America — especially with its proliferation of guns and gun violence — would be unrecognizable to Madison and his compatriots. All through early U.S. history, gun rights and responsibilities went together. In Boston at the time of the 2nd Amendment, for example, it was illegal to keep a loaded weapon in the home (they tended to blow up and start fires). In 1825, the University of Virginia board of visitors voted that no student "shall keep or use weapons or arms of any kind" on campus. Who were these gun grabbers? Madison, again, and Thomas Jefferson, to name two.

The idea that the 2nd Amendment protects an unlimited individual right to gun possession is "a fraud on the American public," conservative former chief justice Warren Burger told a TV interviewer in 1990. But that's hardly conservative conventional wisdom today So why not repeal the amendment?

Start with constitutional doctrine. The Heller decision established an individual right to gun ownership, but it also made clear that it was a limited right, and that gun laws would still pass constitutional muster. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion focused on colonial history to bolster the individual right, but it said that "dangerous and unusual weapons" could be banned and a host of other gun rules would pass muster.

What has actually happened in the decade since Scalia and Stevens thundered at each other? Dozens of lower federal courts have carefully considered gun laws. Sometimes they limit government action. But overwhelmingly they have upheld safety regulations, even bans on semiautomatic assault weapons enacted by New York and Connecticut after the Newtown, Conn., massacre of schoolchildren. The Supreme Court justices have declined to take another 2nd Amendment case, thus allowing this consensus to take root.

If the Constitution makes it unnecessary to erase the amendment, politics makes it unwise, even self-defeating. There's a reason the NRA calls itself the country's "oldest civil rights organization." Far better to be seen as championing the Bill of Rights than defending guns, ammunition and mayhem. Even among those who support strong gun safety laws, there are many who would feel queasy about deleting one of the first 10 amendments. The reality is that the United States has gun rights because millions of Americans believe in those rights.

Stevens' op ed is right on this: It's time to think big about the gun issue. The remarkable demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of people, led by high school students, show a pent-up demand for action to regulate firearms. It's as if an entire generation shook off the compromises and acquiescence of their elders. As with the #metoo movement or the drive for marriage equality, sometimes social mores can shift sharply and quickly. What has held the country back is not the Constitution or court rulings, but legislatures in thrall to the intense minority of gun rights absolutists. Now a new group of passionate advocates has emerged. Let's see if they rebalance the political world.

A call to repeal the 2nd Amendment is a gift the NRA doesn't deserve. It gives cover to the false notion that gun control advocates want to "take our guns." We should fight, instead, for the true reading of the Constitution: We can have freedom and safety at the same time.

Michael Waldman is the author of "The Second Amendment: A Biography." He is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

Two things: First, what the author wrote was thought provoking, but he ultimately failed when he wrote his conclusions as being facts. Secondly, I would welcome an open and honest debate about the 2A and what it means in terms of our present day circumstances, but the idea that gun control legislation ]i]isn’t[/i] about a total and complete restriction of firearms is blatantly false, as evidenced by those on the side of gun control. The mask slips on occasion, like it did with the young lady I referenced who said if given an inch, the gun grabbers will take a mile, and shows their true goal— an American version of what Australia did with their citizens’ firearms, a zero tolerance for gunpowder weaponry.

In the end it boils down to there being some people who want to meddle in other people’s business regardless of different life circumstances, living locations, and existential threats against their persons. Instead of discussing small solutions tailored to a specific problem such as mental health or terrorism, a general ban is proposed, thus negating a fundamental right that is spelled out in our country’s founding document, the Constitution.

Former Justice Stevens has his opinions to be sure, but the reality is his was the minority opinion. So unless you are willing to recognize the legitimacy of the minority opinion in such topics as abortion for instance, the law is the law is the law. And the law falls on the side of gun owners’ rights.

[Rooster]

Here is a question for those on this board who advocate for gun control restrictions: How many founding fathers during the debates concerning the construction of our Constitution argued for restrictions on gun ownership?

[Screw_Michigan]

Here is a question for those on this board who advocate for gun control restrictions: How many founding fathers during the debates concerning the construction of our Constitution argued for restrictions on gun ownership?

Nobody gives the slightest flying fuck. But your flailing and handwringing is entertaining, so keep it up.

[Diego in Seattle]

I passed a sign along the highway that said I had to limit my speed.

They'll be coming for our cars next!

[Derron]

I passed a sign along the highway that said I had to limit my speed.

They'll be coming for our cars next!

They should be. There are over 40,000 people killed in car wrecks every year in the US. Few more than guns kill.

What is the difference between a gun and a car in this case?

[Mikey]

What is the difference between a gun and a car in this case?

You can’t be serious.

[Goober McTuber]

My bad. School shootings. Which is what my link referenced. Right within the link url.

Which includes adults shooting each other, after hours, near school grounds. And they managed to throw one of the DC Snipers' victims in there, as well. And idiot kids having an accidental discharge hit them in the leg. And on and on.

And thus the problem with this discussion -- the Grabbers just can't stop either lying, or grossly misrepresenting "facts." If that side of the debate simply refuses to be honest, it makes it difficult.

My 14 number still stands.

I notice that you chose to filter mass shootings that only include 2 or more deaths. In the time period you chose, there have been roughly 235 school shootings. Granted, some may have involved a specific targeted individual, and it may have even been an adult. But a bunch of them included only 1 death or even only a number of wounded (children). I guess they don't count.

Misrepresenting what? The true number sits somewhere between 14 and 235.

[Rooster]

I passed a sign along the highway that said I had to limit my speed.

They'll be coming for our cars next!

Perhaps they should.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 661cd9acf6

[Derron]

What is the difference between a gun and a car in this case?

You can’t be serious.

Why would you ban guns then?

Cars are used as weapons....probably a few assault charges were picked up across the US today for operating a motor vehicle and causing injury. Nobody wants to take cars away from people even though they cause far more deaths than guns.

You don't 'take everybody's cars away because a few shit bags kill people with them do you ?? You don't even want to take select classes of cars away from people ??

[Dinsdale]

The research employs the FBI’s widely-used definition of mass shooting in which four or more people are murdered with guns.

BTW, if we use that definition, the number that occurred in schools since 1996 (22+) years is...

7.

[Left Seater]

You don't 'take everybody's cars away because a few shit bags kill people with them do you ?? You don't even want to take select classes of cars away from people ??

No one is saying ban all cars. Well not yet anyway. But sensible vehicle control makes sense. Large SUVs can totally destroy fine folks responsibly driving their Prius and Smart cars. It just isn’t fair in an accident when one vehicle weighs so much more. I mean why do people really need vehicles that seat 7 or 8 when there are public buses? Plus all that global warming spewing from large SUVs is totally disgusting.

[Left Seater]

I also saw tonight that the kids at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas HS now have to use clear backpacks. They also line up airport style for security checks. Turns out the kids don’t like the new backpacks or security process. A good number have taken to twitter to bitch and some have called it a violation of their rights.

Well isn’t that a bitch. You want to trample on my rights but get all worked up if you are slightly inconvenienced.

[Goober McTuber]

You want to trample on my rights

Awww, poor little snowflake.

[Left Seater]

Interesting take. Why do you hate the Constitution?

[Goober McTuber]

Interesting take. Why do you hate the Constitution?

You keep saying that. For the last time, I don't hate the Constitution. No one is going to take our guns away, Chicken Little.

[Left Seater]

Interesting take. Why do you hate the Constitution?

You keep saying that. For the last time, I don't hate the Constitution. No one is going to take our guns away, Chicken Little.

I agree, but tell that to the kids from MSD and their adult handlers.

[Goober McTuber]

Interesting take. Why do you hate the Constitution?

You keep saying that. For the last time, I don't hate the Constitution. No one is going to take our guns away, Chicken Little.

I agree, but tell that to the kids from MSD and their adult handlers.

You mean like Emma? Who specifically said they weren't out to ban all guns.

[Goober McTuber]

Double trouble.

[Joe in PB]

The Democratic agenda certainly is the banning of all firearms. Take a look at Hunington Beach California where there is a new initiative to ban all semi-automatic firearms.

Like politicians who say they don't want to raise taxes, anything involving firearms take with a grain of salt.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Joe in PB]

Double trouble.

Like a car with two engines, this appears to be more monstrosity than anything else. Certainly it will not be legal in California along with your average AR-15s.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Goober McTuber]

The Democratic agenda certainly is the banning of all firearms.

Absolute Chicken Little bullshit. You and Fat Seater need to find a safe place and just hold onto each other. It might be the agenda of some Democrats, but certainly not the party as a whole. It would be political suicide. I would vote for Trump versus anyone promoting such an agenda.

[Joe in PB]

California along with Massachusetts are the pinicles of the Democratic party, take a real look at the fascism the party forces down our throats to get an understanding of the parties national aspirations.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Goober McTuber]

They are not going to take away our guns. You're not really this stupid. Are you?

[Joe in PB]

I never in a million years thought California would encourage illegal immigration, but there it is in black & white.

One of the worse things citizens can do is take any political party and there agendas lightly. If democrats use children under the age of 18 to further an agenda, and endorse illegal immigration to garner more votes, they'll pretty much do whatever they want if they have a majority in congress.

IMO, both parties do what is best for their party instead of what is best for the country & cannot be trusted.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk