How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

Says the person who wants to regulate inanimate objects instead of addressing core issues which are the real cause of those self same shootings. As is evidenced by all those countries you like to tout as being "mass shooter free" yet are now banning knives left and right. Get your priorities straight then we'll talk.

 

My point is the gun lobby seems to get stronger with every mass shooting; declaring "gun bans" before they can even get out the door.
I'm not sure your second point is absolute, but you do have point that would be a hurdle for any National Gun law. So! It's time to get to work at the State level.

 

But the 80 killed and hundreds injured did NOT, correct?

People can also dive out of the way and run from a gun too can they not? I saw a bunch running from the school at Columbine and Parkland etc. Look at the videos.

What is the most that a lone gunman has killed at one time?

I do not see your point. There is not an objective means to declare that guns are easier to kill with than a vehicle. With a determined person, both can be devastatingly lethal. There is really nothing there to legitimately argue.

 

I don't know about "always". I know about NOW.

Easy: you can't shoot a gun if you don't have a gun. Done!

Read the part in BOLD on the OP. The assumption is that some potential mass shooters are too stupide to fix them. And assumption that is not necessary once there are no parts to fix them WITH.

Stupid argument. Looks like you get silly when you run out of arguments. That's when I know I can stop wasting my time.

Thanks for playing...

 

Regulating human beings is called "Fascism".

You mean Republican stupidity? I don't know how to make dumb people smart.

What a wonderful way to make my point. YES! When we get to the point that mass killers need to use knives, we will have advanced 99% of the way. Lucky them!

 

The hundreds injured DID!!!!

YES!!!! Finally! You went around and around until you had to answer YOUR OWN question "Why does length of time matter?"

My job is done!

 

Well, thank you! WE need to give a crap and start working together on ALL of our problems, including gun violence.

NO, most agree something needs to be done. What you propose is ... po ..as you say.

Gun manufacturing is highly regulated and rarely responsible if at all for gun violence. Local laws regulate gun sales and dealers loose their license if they don't follow the law.

Well let's look at it:

The Constitution was written at a time before standing armies and "Militia's" were relied on to defend nations. It was also a time when, if you wandered a block from town you could, and likely as not, be attacked by wild animals or bandits. It was a time when owning a firearm was as common and necessary as owning a watch (or someway to keep tract of time) is today. The founders assumed people owned guns. They feared tyranny, they depended on the populous to defend our nation against it. Hence the clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What makes you think, within that framework, gun confiscation or banning, is Constitutional?

I'm not saying gun legislation is UN-Constitutional, as far as background and mental competency is concerned but Constitutionally it is one of the powers owned by the States. Taking guns or banning them probably DOES require a Constitutional Amendment that will never happen.

 

the problem is teachers have a hard time kicking bad students out of school

 

Sixty, with a semi-auto; twelve, with two bolt action rifles.

NO ONE has intentionally taken as many lives with a vehicle as a rifle.

 

First and foremost, Scalia did not create legislation. SCOTUS is incapable of that. Per the Constitution ONLY Congress has that ability.

As far as Heller goes, all that it did is incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the rest of the States. Just like all other Rights have been. Originally it JUST applied to the federal government. You can see that guns are a Right held by The People in court cases LONG before Heller came around.

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) every conviction was overturned because it was ruled that the Federal Government could not violate the individual Right to Bear Arms. However it ONLY applied to the Federal government. States could ignore the 2nd Amendment still because the courts did not incorporate it.

In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) the court again held that the Federal Government could not violate the individuals 2nd Amendment Right. It still did not incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the States however. However it was the first court case in which SCOTUS acknowledged that even the States were limited in the restrictions that they could do.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was a commerce clause case however in it SCOTUS ruled the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as unconstitutional and further restricted the Federal Government on violating the individual Right to Bare Arms.

In several court cases the Right to Bear arms was upheld by the Courts. Yes, it was originally JUST applicable to the Federal Government. (which should further indicate just how off you are about many of your proposals). But then again, originally the BoR's only applied to the Federal Government period. Every single Right listed in the BoR's had to be incorporated by SCOTUS before States started to uphold those Rights listed. Unless they already had it listed in their own State Constitutions. So again, all that Heller did was incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the States. Just like every other Right had been.

You can piss and moan about Heller all that you want. But Historical Fact is not on your side. Nor anyone else's side that tries to claim that it wasn't until Heller that people had an Individual Right to Bear Arms.

 

Power to ya. Open a thread. THIS one is about guns.

No! Most agree that things like banning assault rifles, requiring a gun license to purchase guns, increase the minimum age to buy a gun, red flag laws, ... Not only most people, a majority of Republicans agree... and a majority of gun owners.

Then there is no need for a law to protect them like the PLCAA.

Correct. The founders assumed that people owned guns. They assumed also that people owned pants. So they felt no need whatsoever to protect some "right" to own EITHER in a Constitutional Amendment. So they didn't.

WTF? Where did you see anything about "confiscation"? Did you read the OP? It's right there in point 2. Read the OP!!!!

Come back when you have!

 

Very naïve. SCOTUS most definitely is capable of that. And it does it all the time. Especially THIS partisan Supreme Court.

If you want to discuss the 2nd A, do it in the appropriate thread and forum. Start here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

 

But the 80 did not correct? I am not so sure that I would call someone ran over and survived as someone that dodged out of the way. If anything they are akin to a gun shot survivor, which definitely happens.

Has there ever been as many as 80 killed by a lone gunman? 80 is a huge number. To my knowledge, that driver did not have any specialized training, OR body armor. That sounds fairly easy to me.

Your claim of it being an irrelevant point clearly does not hold up. Killing with a gun is not clearly easier as you claimed.

Hmm. But that doesnt answer why you think that a car attack takes longer. That is why I asked that question. I can assure you the vehicle attack that killed 80 took a FAR shorter time than the 40-60 minutes being reported for this latest attack.

I guess I sort of understand your desire to bogusly declare victory and try to exit stage right on this topic, but the fact remains, you do not have objective evidence that backs up your claim that it is harder for a layman to get a body count with a vehicle versus with a gun. I have some objective evidence that says just the opposite based on the fact that the single-vehicle attack has the highest body count. I dont necessarily point to that as proof positive ( because I am fair minded), but it is certainly more proof than you have for your claim. The most compelling argument you have put forward it to say "isnt it obvious?" Which is not truly an argument at all.

FYI, I delved a little further into the attack on France looking for how long it took. I was mistaken. It was 86 killed and 458 injured. My bad. Geez, that could actually be like an entire high school injured and almost 1/4 of them dead if applied to a school. We have not seen that type of devastation with any lone gunman attacks have we?

 

This is less than with a vehicle was my point.

Look up the truck attack in Nice France. 86 dead. 458 injured. I am pretty sure that Vegas shooter was trained a great deal more (and invested tens of thousands of dollars) than the truck attacker also.

Nice attack: What we know about the Bastille Day killings - BBC News

My larger point is that a person hellbent on destruction has countless ways of achieving that aim. If we could wave a magic wand and guns no longer existed, we would still have the same problem with nutjobs wanting to have a mass murder-suicide, and guns are not necessarily even the most effective or easiest means of doing so.

 

The rant is cute and all but why is this a bigger issue in Red states with loose gun regulations than in Blue states with higher regulation?

Annual Gun Deaths per 100k people

Lowest:

1) Hawaii - 2.5
2) New York - 3.7
3) Massachusetts - 3.7
4) ⁠Rhode Island - 3.9
5) Connecticut - 5.1
6) New Jersey - 5.3
7) California - 7.9
Minnesota - 8.2

Highest:
50) Alaska - 24.5
49) Alabama - 22.9
4 Montana - 22.5
47) Louisiana - 21.7
46) Mississippi - 21.5
45) Missouri - 21.5
44) Arkansas - 20.3
43) Wyoming - 18.8

Source
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state

Granted this includes suicide deaths and if red states want to allow their populations to thin themselves I think we should allow them — states rights and all that jazz — but these types of mass shootings increased after the assault rifle ban ended.

The con idea that more guns equals less crime just doesn’t hold any factual foundation.

 

You're the one trying to assert something in THIS thread. Blame yourself. I address what you said. Deal with it. In THIS thread. I'm not jumping around just so you can take things even more out of context than you normally do.

And no, SCOTUS is not capable of making legislation. No matter how much you try to assert otherwise. They can strike down legislation. They cannot make legislation. And my list of case history shows that they did not make legislation.

And the only reason you think THIS Supreme Court is "partisan" is because it doesn't rule on things the way you want them to.

 

My reply pertained to guns.

Then you should have no trouble getting such laws passed in your State, this Supreme Court won't ever support such legislation at the National level.

I'm sure you'll have no trouble getting it rescinded.

I think you should take that all the way to the Supreme Court. A much more liberal court already said you're wrong; btw.

No need to get nasty. I'm on your side, BTW, just not as radical.

 

Well... if you are ever interested in learning about the topic, you have the link.

Thanks for playing...

 

In MY state? I live in Florida, for heaven's sake! A state ran by a fascist who is more worried about children hearing the word "gay" than in them getting shot and killed.

And, in any case, passing it in my state would do very little good unless we established border controls with Georgia and Alabama.

 

Yet out of the last 120 mass shootings in the US between 1982 and 2022, 78 of them are in Democrat controlled states. California alone with the majority of 23.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

More than half of all mass shootings have happened since 2000
16 of the 20 most deadly mass shootings have happened in the last 20 years
8 of those in the last 5 years
In the 70s we had 5-7 deaths per year
In this decade alone we have 51 deaths per year

While the number of gun homicides overall have decreased in recent years, the number of mass shootings continues to rise.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-01/mass-shooting-data-odessa-midland-increase

Most of these killers tend to be 18, 19 years old.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...act-checking-chris-murphy-ages-mass-shooters/

Which is supportive on my post. More entitled brats with no ability to live in the reality of the real world due to coddling, helicopter parents, and hands off, don't spank mentality are producing more mass shootings.

 

No, they do not. Your proposal is one of the farthest leftist we have.

You would like to hold drug manufacturers responsible if you decide to over dose on your own medications just like you want to hold gun manufacturers responsible for you shooting someone. Thats an extreme sense of entitlement. Everyone else is responsible for your own behavior. Doesn't work that way in adult world.

Yes it is and its understood perfectly.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Except for the part that says keep. lol
Your entire interpretation fails on that one word alone.

 

You do not possess any authority to specify what is relevant or not.

If you don't know than I'm not going to bother telling you and giving you anymore stupid ideas. But just the smallest amount of actual research would expose that information to you.

Well, since there are roughly 10,000 homicides in this country every year, that comes out to about 300, or less than one in a million. And they're not all children, though to my knowledge those statistics are not tracked. We'll never get homicides down to zero, while it's fine to strive for perfection, it's also wise to realize it's not going to happen.

Sorry, but math is a real thing. They should have taught you that in school, but maybe they were too busy instructing you about gender identity stuff that isn't important.

BTW, if saving lives is your actual agenda, then working on something that is all but completely irrelevant, you might want to spend some time figuring out why black men from the ages of 15-35 commit so many more homicides than their total numbers in society would imply. Because it's not only a lot of those 10,000 annual murders, I dare say it's probably most. Now, if you want to discount that because, hey, it's usually gang bangers killing other gang bangers, so they're really doing us a favor, I suppose you could, but the truth is they're not usually using what you define as an "assault weapon", so you don't care, as it just doesn't fit your agenda.

 

One would expect larger populations to have higher rates of shootings which is why per capita data is a much more intellectually honest metric to use.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ost-and-fewest-school-shootings-idUSKCN1SE2EX

I love when individuals delete positions of others posts because they don’t want to discuss the facts. It should showcase to any independent observer what the real agenda is here.

 

I certainly do. Just like you have "authority" to prove me wrong if you can. But then you'd have to elaborate on the argument BEYOND what is already debunked on the OP.

Telling me WHAT? I haven't asked you anything.

19 of them killed Tuesday WERE children. And I could care less about statistics. I care about saving lives.

Ah! The white supremacist's favorite red herring to use when they run out of arguments.

Thanks anyway...