Mass Shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church/School in Minneapolis

[RileyG]

Being Christian in name is not the same as being Christian in heart.

Jesus said nothing about guns...and he certainly didn't condone people being violent towards one another....what does that have to do with the thread? At all?

Children are dead in the name of violence.

ugh

Will the violence ever end?

Breaks my heart.

 

[Postvieww]

Change must occur. Change must occur. Change must occur.

I am saying that as someone who will never own a gun and will never use one.

This is about LIFE. NOT politics.

You are sooo right @Bradskii

What is the specific change you propose that will work? I agree every life is important but emotional speeches will not solve anything.

 

[Postvieww]

Jesus said nothing about guns...and he certainly didn't condone people being violent towards one another....what does that have to do with the thread? At all?

Children are dead in the name of violence.

ugh

Will the violence ever end?

Breaks my heart.

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

 

[Desk trauma]

Change must occur. Change must occur. Change must occur.

This keeps happening and no serious change takes place. Just because it’s awful doesn’t mean it has to stop.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sounds like your objections to my argument are more personal than anything else. People who argue in favor of gun control pretty much always do it based on their emotions. That's why they always lose.

Hundreds of dead children and you accuse me of being emotional? What in heaven's name does it take for you to feel something about this carnage? All you are concerned about are your rights.

These threads disgust me.

That's why we desperately need to find a compromise that will satisfy the concerns of both parties.

If I may be a broken record...

Gun law in the Czech Republic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I feel like this is the way

The Czech Republic has some pretty robust gun rights for purposes of self-defense, and they also can boast some of the lowest murder rates in Europe. That has to be the "best of both worlds" outcome for anyone looking at it objectively, correct?

They have a homicide rate of 0.7 (on par with the Nordic countries), Prague is one of the safest capital cities in the EU, and people like myself can still carry a firearm for self-defense.


Obviously what we have right now isn't working... our homicide rates stand out among other developed countries.

However, I'm also very sympathetic to the concept of "I, as a law abiding citizen, shouldn't ever have to be left a position of being at a disadvantage to a criminal who either wishes to hurt me, or take my stuff, and kowtow to them and tuck my tail and hand over my wallet"


If anyone would outright reject the Czech Republic model (given their legal framework, and their impressive results), then I have to think this isn't an "outcome based" debate, and is more rooted in "can't let the other side be right about anything or give them an inch".


If the only two proposals being presented are
"I should be able to buy a Tommy Gun at Walmart with no more difficulty involved than buying a gallon of milk"
vs.
"Nobody should be able to have a gun for any reason besides hunting"

Then I don't think either of those two positions are actually taking it seriously... and are likely just appealing to whatever stats and incidents that allows them to bolters their personal position.

 

[Valletta]

Yes. We are real emotional about wanting children to not get shot.

No other country in the world has the gun violence peoblem you have (unless you're counting the 3rd world...which....maybe be appropriate I guesss).

Indeed, the violence in large liberal cities is out of control. Their policies are not working, and more regulations along such disastrous lines seems crazy to those with common sense. What they seek is control of the people, an authoritarian government, whether it be what you drive or the stove you can cook on or the pronouns you use. All of this, including more gun control laws and regulations, is supposedly for your own good. That is the propaganda.

 

[Desk trauma]

Indeed, the violence in large liberal cities is out of control. Their policies are not working, and more regulations along such disastrous lines seems crazy to those with common sense. What they seek is control of the people, an authoritarian government, whether it be what you drive or the stove you can cook or the pronouns you use. All of this, including more gun control laws and regulations, is supposedly for your own good. That is the propaganda.

Got a gas stove reference I’m there, nice.

 

[rjs330]

Well...he was in reality a man. So, no.

Well thats what the left says, so since they agree hes a woman then he is one right? We have a woman mass shooters.

 

[Aldebaran]

The police were already on the scene and responded to the threat within 20 seconds and yet the shooter was still able to kill 9 people and wound 27 others.

News reports say the shooting lasted 2 minutes. What were the police doing the other 1 minute and 40 seconds?
Also, it was 2 people killed, not 9.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” -- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

​

That doesn't answer the question I asked you about why we don't just hire more police since they are so effective.

 

[rjs330]

Under ideal conditions and with a lot of practice, that's possible, but your average mass shooter isn't going to be able to do that during an adrenaline-induced chaotic situation. The banning of high-capacity magazines really comes down to common sense. Which shooter is going to be able to do the most harm in the most efficient manner? A shooter with a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a 100-round magazine or one with ten 10-round magazines? Your own numbers provide the answer. Even if the shooter is well trained, there will be an added 20 seconds added to the shooting time. But for a less experienced shooter under pressure, it will take them even longer. 5, 6, 7, or 8+ seconds? Even if they can switch magazines out in 5 seconds, which is unlikely, it adds close to one minute of downtime between shots being fired. This gives people time to react to the shooter between each pause, whether it be to run, hide, or make an attempt to disarm the shooter. It also increases the chances of the shooter making a mistake, especially an inexperienced shooter under pressure.

So? You are playing the odds here. You are HOPING the shooter cant do it. The fact is many can. 20 seconds is no time at all with someone determined to kill. People run and hide. Mass shooters will.buy more guns or more mags and the killing goes on. This utter nonsense is a foolish belief that somehow tons of kids will be saved by banning auto rifles. Its FOOLISH. if you want to truly save as many kids as you can you have to ban guns. All of them. You cant save a few and call it a win. Those parents who lose the kids to those who kill them with a lower count mag on a pistol wont care. They still lost a kid to a gun. Be honest. The only way to stop gun violence it to ban all guns.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hundreds of dead children and you accuse me of being emotional? What in heaven's name does it take for you to feel something about this carnage? All you are concerned about are your rights.

These threads disgust me.

It's 2 children, not hundreds.
No need to exaggerate.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm a gun owner, and like most gun owners, I want to see stronger gun laws.

Only when a gun owner thinks his own gun rights won't be affected.

 

[rjs330]

There's no need to repeal the 2nd amendment to pass gun laws that can reduce firearm deaths in the US.

You have to prove that these will actually reduce firearm deaths. And to what extent. How many deaths from firearms is an acdeptable reduction?

 

[Aldebaran]

THIS ISN'T POLITICS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN!

Children are being shot to death! Why on earth are you on about politics when people simply want this carnage to end? What's political about demanding that the government shows some guts in trying to prevent innocent children getting their heads blown off? You are not even simply standing by and doing nothing. You are actively arguing against change!

I think some grieving parent needs to drag people like you along to the morgue so you can see the horrifying damage bullets have done to their 5 year old. How dare you try to push this as some political stunt.

Try to calm down. This is the political section of the forum. Political things are what's going to be discussed here.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes. We are real emotional about wanting children to not get shot.

No other country in the world has the gun violence peoblem you have (unless you're counting the 3rd world...which....maybe be appropriate I guesss).

Nobody in the world also has a subsection of the population making the arguments you do to keep the status quo.

2nd ammendment supporters are the outlier amongst developed nations.

And rhe argument is always so stupid
"Gun laws won't stop violence"

Listen up. Nothing will.

What is going to reduce e gun Violence? Gun laws will. There is even evidence that it can happen in the USà

Here's a directory to the gun laws already in existence in all 50 states. Kind of puts to rest the idea that guns are unregulated: State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms (35th Edition) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Let me know when you finish reading them all.

 

[JosephZ]

They have a homicide rate of 0.7 (on par with the Nordic countries), Prague is one of the safest capital cities in the EU, and people like myself can still carry a firearm for self-defense.

I looked into the Czech gun laws after your previous post, and I think they would go a long way in preventing gun violence in the US if they were applied here. What I really like is the requirement for a written test, practical test, medical/mental health checks, and a clean criminal record before a gun can be owned. The written tests vary by the type of license, but they are apparently difficult to pass, having a 40 to 50% failure rate. There is also a six-month waiting period before someone can retake the test, which I also like.

If anyone would outright reject the Czech Republic model (given their legal framework, and their impressive results), then I have to think this isn't an "outcome based" debate, and is more rooted in "can't let the other side be right about anything or give them an inch".

I would be extremely happy with the Czech model in conjunction with a ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

 

[rjs330]

That's why we desperately need to find a compromise that will satisfy the concerns of both parties.

If I may be a broken record...

Gun law in the Czech Republic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I feel like this is the way

The Czech Republic has some pretty robust gun rights for purposes of self-defense, and they also can boast some of the lowest murder rates in Europe. That has to be the "best of both worlds" outcome for anyone looking at it objectively, correct?

They have a homicide rate of 0.7 (on par with the Nordic countries), Prague is one of the safest capital cities in the EU, and people like myself can still carry a firearm for self-defense.


Obviously what we have right now isn't working... our homicide rates stand out among other developed countries.

However, I'm also very sympathetic to the concept of "I, as a law abiding citizen, shouldn't ever have to be left a position of being at a disadvantage to a criminal who either wishes to hurt me, or take my stuff, and kowtow to them and tuck my tail and hand over my wallet"


If anyone would outright reject the Czech Republic model (given their legal framework, and their impressive results), then I have to think this isn't an "outcome based" debate, and is more rooted in "can't let the other side be right about anything or give them an inch".


If the only two proposals being presented are
"I should be able to buy a Tommy Gun at Walmart with no more difficulty involved than buying a gallon of milk"
vs.
"Nobody should be able to have a gun for any reason besides hunting"

Then I don't think either of those two positions are actually taking it seriously... and are likely just appealing to whatever stats and incidents that allows them to bolters their personal position.

The Czech laws seem to be reasonable ones. Anyone can own a gun if they are licensed. I would be concerned in this country that the left would really restrict these licenses. Only allowing certain people to carry them becauae they ha e to prove a specific reason to carry like being under threat or some such thing. Or not being allowed to carry because you are a right wing conservative or MAGA.

If we could actually get an agreement that ANYONE can carry as long as they can pass a proficiency exam and aren't diagnosed with a mental illness or have a criminal conviction I might consider this a good idea.

 

[JosephZ]

That doesn't answer the question I asked you about why we don't just hire more police since they are so effective.

The police can't always be depended on when every second matters. Sometimes the response time to arrive at the scene can take several minutes; a few may hide like the resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and other times they might stand around and do nothing like what we saw in Uvalde. The example at the link I shared was the best-case scenario. Police were literally on the scene and able to respond within seconds, and dozens of people still ended up being shot. Had the shooter been armed with a gun with a ten-round magazine or even multiple ten-round magazines, rather than an assault-style weapon with a 100-round magazine, the number of casualties would have been much lower.

News reports say the shooting lasted 2 minutes. What were the police doing the other 1 minute and 40 seconds?
Also, it was 2 people killed, not 9.

The linked story that you responded to was a shooting that took place in Dayton, not this most recent shooting.

Certain types of guns are part of the problem.

Dayton Shooting Lasted Just 32 Seconds and Left 9 Dead.​

It was just 32 seconds from the first shot to the last shot. In that time, a 24-year-old gunman with an AR-15-style assault rifle and a 100-round drum magazine was able to kill nine people and wound 27 others on a crowded street in Dayton, Ohio early Sunday.

In that time, six Dayton police officers were able to respond and open fire, killing the shooter as he tried to enter a packed bar.

 

[JosephZ]

Only when a gun owner thinks his own gun rights won't be affected.

I doubt there would be any gun owners approving of certain gun control measures if they felt they would be affecting their rights.

Here's a directory to the gun laws already in existence in all 50 states. Kind of puts to rest the idea that guns are unregulated: State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms (35th Edition) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Let me know when you finish reading them all.

Of course guns are already regulated; nobody's saying otherwise. The problem is that they vary so much from one state to another. If stronger gun laws like those found in California were to be applied at the federal level, gun violence would drop dramatically nationwide.

 

[JosephZ]

You have to prove that these will actually reduce firearm deaths. And to what extent. How many deaths from firearms is an acdeptable reduction?

California is a good example of how well stronger gun laws work.

In the 1990s, California had the third highest gun homicide rate – over 50% above the national average – and its gun death rate was substantially higher than the rest of the country. As the state added more gun safety protections, more lives were saved and the trendlines reversed. From 1993 to 2017, California’s firearm mortality rate declined by 55 percent—almost four times the decrease in the rest of the nation. Many of California’s most important firearm laws went into effect in the early 1990s. As California continued to enact strong firearm laws, its firearm death rate continued to decline.”

It's not just California: