Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Patooka]

Hunting ducks is allowed if you use the right weapon. Hunting children is not allowed with any weapon, including bow and arrow and other non-firearms.

Seeing as you want to turn this into an obtuse argument about semantics, I'll point out that hunting children with AR-15s was very much allowed in Uvalde. The reason I know this is that it fucking happened.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Black people. That isn't a secret.

Speaking of black people, did anyone notice that conservative didn't say anything about arming black cashiers and black customers after Buffalo?

They would have actually had to of cared about a shooting that killed black people as part of a hate crime.

 

[Derec]

Speaking of black people, did anyone notice that conservative didn't say anything about arming black cashiers and black customers after Buffalo?

Should black cashiers only be protected against evil honkeys? When killed by fellow blacks (a much more frequent occurrence) the national media and people on the Internet are not talking about it for months.
Where have you been suggesting arming cashiers when this happened?
Police identify woman killed in Georgia supermarket shooting

 

[Derec]

They would have actually had to of cared about a shooting that killed black people as part of a hate crime.

"To of cared about"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hunting ducks is allowed if you use the right weapon. Hunting children is not allowed with any weapon, including bow and arrow and other non-firearms.

Seeing as you want to turn this into an obtuse argument about semantics, I'll point out that hunting children with AR-15s was very much allowed in Uvalde. The reason I know this is that it fucking happened.

It isn't semantics. Ducks aren't protected by law in legislation that says you can kill them with guns. It was a sloppy attempt at an argument by a featherweight.


Now, a viable argument is that guns designed to kill ducks are limited with ammo capacity, where as guns designed to kill people actively have no limit for capacity and any attempt to create one is blocked by the GOP. And that is fucked up.

 

[Derec]

Seeing as you want to turn this into an obtuse argument about semantics,

Rashida made the obtuse argument. You and Tom doubled down on obtuseness.

I was merely debunking the idiocy of that line of "reasoning".

I'll point out that hunting children with AR-15s was very much allowed in Uvalde. The reason I know this is that it fucking happened.

Many things happen that are not allowed. That is a silly argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was legal for Ramos to hunt children at the time he bought the weapons.

No, it wasn't.

Correct. However, it was legal to sell such weapons to a person who intended to use them to massacre children.

 

[Derec]

Yes, she has really come a long way in not going anywhere. How she manages to stay in power escapes me.

Partisan primaries and safe districts. A scourge on US democracy from both sides of the aisle.

Her attempted parallel is problematic and entirely needless. It is really simple, people with criminal intent shouldn't be allowed to buy guns.

The problem is, we do not have precogs. We cannot divine criminal intent like that.

I'm personally sick to death how arms dealers... I'm sorry, gun shops, are completely and utterly without any liability when selling weapons to a person that then murders a bunch of people.

If a gun seller followed all applicable laws I do not see why they should have any liability.
Now I do advocate stricter laws about things like background checks (no loopholes!) but I do not think sellers should be punished for following all laws. Car dealers should not have liability if a car they sold is used in a crime either.
Do you think car dealership should have been held liable when a #BLMer rammed through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, WI?
5 people are dead and 40 injured after a driver speeds through a Wisconsin parade

If we ended that ridiculous waiver of liability, arms dealers would be a lot more careful who they sell to.

On the contrary, I would restrict the scope of liability on everything. Strict liability doctrine is idiotic and only benefits rich lawyers, which is why it was devised in the first place.
Take the latest ruling against Geico. A woman was awarded more than $5 million because she claimed she got infected with HPV while having sex in a car. Only in America!

 

[Derec]

Correct. However, it was legal to sell such weapons to a person who intended to use them to massacre children.

The dealer had no way of knowing Ramos had such intent.
It is also legal to sell knives. That does not mean WalMart or Target should be liable for what some stabist does with a knife he bought there.

 

[Jarhyn]

It was legal for Ramos to hunt children at the time he bought the weapons.

No, it wasn't.

Correct. However, it was legal to sell such weapons to a person who intended to use them to massacre children.

How in the world will all those poor downtrodden villains fulfill their dreams to be able to massacre children, then, if it cannot be legal for a villain to purchase such weapons?-Sincerely, "Totally Not a Villain"

 

[Derec]

Can we please at least try to prevent a large percentage of massacres? I mean, stopping one massacre that'd scar the lives of 10 or 20 families directly and dozens more indirectly... I mean isn't that worth doing? Are we seriously going to say no because of paranoia?

Do you seriously think unavailability of so-called "assault weapons" would have prevented a massacre like Uvalde? That Salvador Ramos would be thinking "oh well, I can't get my hands on an AR15, so I'll just chill at home"? Or would he much more likely have decided to go through with it using weapons he could get, like handguns?

As we have seen from the Virginia Tech shooter, handguns are quite effective in causing mass casualties.
And even in the massacres that involved semi-auto rifles, many shooters used other types of weapons as well, such as handguns, pump action rifles and shotguns. You should not count such shooters in semi-auto column only.

So I am quite skeptical that banning so-called "assault weapons" would make any meaningful difference.

 

[Derec]

I am convinced. Ban both.

I do not think we should ban either, but I am quite in favor of stricter laws governing the purchase and keeping of such weapons.
Like removing loopholes from background checks.

It is funny how the left wants to outright ban certain weapons from law-abiding citizens but at the same time wants to make it easier for criminals to go around with illegal guns without being stopped by police.
Remember when this guy was honored by the NFL as part of them sucking up to #BlackLivesMatter?

 

[Elixir]

I'm personally sick to death how arms dealers... I'm sorry, gun shops, are completely and utterly without any liability when selling weapons to a person that then murders a bunch of people.

If we ended that ridiculous waiver of liability, arms dealers would be a lot more careful who they sell to.
[/QUOTE]

^THAT

The entire fucking supply chain is exempt from liability, from the manufacturers to the murderers, from the laundered Russian influence-buying "donor" cash to the teen who just wants to go out with a bang... it all works together.
Such a thing of beauty.

 

[Toni]

That's right. And the Uvalde killer, instead of walking into a gun-store on his 18th birthday and walking out with an AR-15 and a crate of ammunition, might have recalled his Eagle Scout skills and built himself a bow-and-arrow set.

Or he could have gotten himself a handgun or two.

Vast majority of gun homicides are perpetrated by handguns, not rifles of any kind. And scary "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles.
Even when we limit ourselves to "mass shootings", handguns predominate.
View attachment 38937

Yes, but the vast overwhelming majority of school shootings involve weapons such as were recently used in Uvalde.

There are more than one kind of mass shooting. Those that appear to be gang related are different in their cause abd in their victims than school shootings or church/house of worship shootings, or night club shootings etc.

What all of those shootings have in common is easy access to semiautomatic weapons. Most are carried out by young males.

 

[Toni]

I am convinced. Ban both.

I do not think we should ban either, but I am quite in favor of stricter laws governing the purchase and keeping of such weapons.
Like removing loopholes from background checks.

It is funny how the left wants to outright ban certain weapons from law-abiding citizens but at the same time wants to make it easier for criminals to go around with illegal guns without being stopped by police.
Remember when this guy was honored by the NFL as part of them sucking up to #BlackLivesMatter?

The Uvlade shooter was a law abiding citizen—right up until he wasn’t.

If families and schools and police are unable to determine who might be a danger to others if someone has access to semiautomatic weapons, it seems ridiculous to expect gun dealers to be able to make that determination.

Far better to have a mandatory background check, mandatory waiting period of at least 72 hrs—after the background check! And to limit the number of weapons and ammo any individual can purchase within a 12 month period ( rolling). I’d favor banning most assault weapons outright. Raise my taxes if needed for the buy back but get them off the streets.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can we please at least try to prevent a large percentage of massacres? I mean, stopping one massacre that'd scar the lives of 10 or 20 families directly and dozens more indirectly... I mean isn't that worth doing? Are we seriously going to say no because of paranoia?

Do you seriously think unavailability of so-called "assault weapons" would have prevented a massacre like Uvalde? That Salvador Ramos would be thinking "oh well, I can't get my hands on an AR15, so I'll just chill at home"? Or would he much more likely have decided to go through with it using weapons he could get, like handguns?

As we have seen from the Virginia Tech shooter, handguns are quite effective in causing mass casualties.
And even in the massacres that involved semi-auto rifles, many shooters used other types of weapons as well, such as handguns, pump action rifles and shotguns. You should not count such shooters in semi-auto column only.

So I am quite skeptical that banning so-called "assault weapons" would make any meaningful difference.

Speed limits don’t stop all traffic deaths.

Seat belts don’t stop all crash related injuries.

Hard hats and safety protocols don’t stop all construction worker deaths.

Are we supposed to become paralyzed because there are no perfect solutions?

Traffic control doesn’t doesn’t prevent all traffic construction related deaths.

Are we not to even try and stop people from accessing needlessly violent weapons to massacre 8 year olds?

Preventing just one school massacre would be a raving success. Sparing families of unspeakable loss, of dozens of students unfathomable trauma, of hundreds of students survivor guilt. And the cost, limited access to semi-auto rifles and large magazines?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's look at the deadliest massacres in the US.

9 massacres involved the deaths of 20 or more people. 6 involved semi-automatic rifles. That'd be 2/3's.

And if we look at the mass murders of 10 or more people since 2010, 11 of those 16 tragedies involved semi-automatic rifles. That'd be greater than 2/3's.

Can we please at least try to prevent a large percentage of massacres? I mean, stopping one massacre that'd scar the lives of 10 or 20 families directly and dozens more indirectly... I mean isn't that worth doing? Are we seriously going to say no because of paranoia?

And why should we suppose that would be the result? Remove the best tool for the job and the result is the use of a lesser tool, not stopping things entirely.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The entire fucking supply chain is exempt from liability, from the manufacturers to the murderers, from the laundered Russian influence-buying "donor" cash to the teen who just wants to go out with a bang... it all works together.
Such a thing of beauty.

And how about liability for car makers for all the auto accidents?

 

[Hermit]

I am convinced. Ban both.

I do not think we should ban either, but I am quite in favor of stricter laws governing the purchase and keeping of such weapons.
Like removing loopholes from background checks.

It is funny how the left wants to outright ban certain weapons from law-abiding citizens but at the same time wants to make it easier for criminals to go around with illegal guns without being stopped by police.
Remember when this guy was honored by the NFL as part of them sucking up to #BlackLivesMatter?

Again:

Same point Philip van Cleave, gun rights advocate and the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, made during an interview with John Oliver. He buttressed his defence of gun rights with an analogy to swimming pools, which was quite apt.

 

[Swammerdami]

Vast majority of gun homicides are perpetrated by handguns, not rifles of any kind. And scary "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles.
Even when we limit ourselves to "mass shootings", handguns predominate.

I have never understood this "reasoning": Handguns kill more people than long guns, so there's no point in banning assault rifles.

Do semi-automatic pistols kill more than revolvers? Then we should never ban wheel guns.

Suppose that there are fewer killings in February than in any other month. Does that mean murder should be legal in February?

I'll save Derec a rejoinder by reminding gun-obsessed of the Slippery Slope! Slippery Slope! Slippery Slope!!!!

The D's want to make a tiny dent in the murder rate by upping the assault weapon age to 21, but this is of course just posturing: such a measure cannot pass in Amerikka. But if the incoming QOPAnon class has a spasm of sanity might the age be pushed to 19? Slippery Slope!! Perhaps Amerikkans should pre-empt that now by removing ALL age restrictions on gun purchases.