Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
IIRC, it's defined as an incident with >4 victims.Please explain to me what your definition of a mass shooting is.
It certainly does. And it means that any Tom, Dick, or Harry could show up at my hunting camp or where I have shot when hunting, or at my property when I am shooting coyotes or just sighting in a gun.My proposal has no governmental control over legal owners.
My state has universal background checks and I wouldn't want to change that.I could even pair it with less background checking.
Ok that means I couldn't possibly name them all.IIRC, it's defined as an incident with >4 victims.
So how would regulating how many weapons an individual can own have stopped those mass shootings?That there's been more than a thousand mass shootings in that time period.
yet, we only really hear about it when it is MANY more than four and usually in what would be considered completely random attacks, so in that sense they really do not happen every day if they did we would not hear about it.Using the FBI's definition of it. There's been 1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days in America.
yet, we only really hear about it when it is MANY more than four and usually in what would be considered completely random attacks, so in that sense they really do not happen every day if they did we would not hear about it.
Also, how many of those shootings were COMPLETELY random?Ok that means I couldn't possibly name them all.
How many guns are used in at least 99% of those mass shootings? ONE So what would be the point in regulating how many weapons an individual can own?
That was my point. True mass shootings are reported because they do not happen every day. When we get to the point that shootings like Las Vegas are not reported then I may say we have a major problem, but right now I am not sure how many of those "mass shootings" are random and that makes a difference.Well, I think they're still reported locally. But they don't all get national attention, probably on account of how they happen so frequently in America they're not even newsworthy anymore. Which is a dang shame.
That's a very good point too. Very, very few of them were, such as the Vegas, Orlando, etc. Most of them were people who knew each other or were involved in some other criminal act, such as a home invasion, robbery, etc.Also, how many of those shootings were COMPLETELY random?
Who suggested that as necessary regulation?Ok that means I couldn't possibly name them all.
How many guns are used in at least 99% of those mass shootings? ONE So what would be the point in regulating how many weapons an individual can own?
It is a shame you use derogatory buzz words. Protecting your family and culture is a natural right that is being diminished by thoughtless buzz words intended to insult. Is this how a follower of Christ should talk? I think not.If you are white supremacist this is kind of bad news, otherwise nation’s fates should be deemed by actions they take not by what colour or what religion they happen to be.
and that makes a difference because if people are motivated by something they are more likely to find other ways to do it. Do not get me wrong mass shootings are really bad, but the ones like Las Vagas are not nearly as common as your every day or every week shootings and that is where the major problem is the people who have a motive to kill and would do it one way or the other.That's a very good point too. Very, very few of them were, such as the Vegas, Orlando, etc. Most of them were people who knew each other or were involved in some other criminal act, such as a home invasion, robbery, etc.
Do you have evidence to support this claim? You should not assume that people will substitute with other weapons. A gun makes killing much easier than, say, a knife.
You are somewhat correct.
"To legally possess a suppressor, I must receive special permission from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). I am required to pay a special $200 tax to receive that permission. I am required to fill out extensive paperwork (far longer and more intrusive than what is required to purchase an actual firearm) and provide BATFE with a photograph and two sets of fingerprints.
I am required to inform my chief local law enforcement officer that I am in possession of a National Firearms Act (NFA) item. I am required to keep all of my paperwork with the NFA item wherever it goes. And I must get permission from BATFE to cross state lines with that NFA item. Right now, that approval process takes upward of a year. So if I were to walk into a federal gun dealer who is licensed to sell NFA items today, I’d be lucky if I could take possession of a simple suppressor before 2018."
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/09...encers-work-here-are-some-facts-to-help-them/
If people are investigated because they have bought some number of weapons that is the same thing as regulating ownership. If you don't want the FBI invading every part of your personal life you will only buy so many weapons.Who suggested that as necessary regulation?
I propose that we require all guns be manufactured with various piezoelectric radio transmitters.
Maybe they would make them so that with a little ingenuity one could attach another transmitter that would pick up landline phone conversations and baby monitors like my daughter's headset and mic did years ago. Then we could listen in and really stick our noses into other people's business.How long do you think it would take people to alter
or remove such transmitters? What if they didn't?
Can you imagine the radio noise around gun ranges?
That was my point. True mass shootings are reported because they do not happen every day. When we get to the point that shootings like Las Vegas are not reported then I may say we have a major problem, but right now I am not sure how many of those "mass shootings" are random and that makes a difference.
How would they be stopped by keeping track of how many weapons people buy?What a convoluted point you're making then. True mass shootings happen nearly every single week in America, that ought to be more than enough to make a difference. I reckon the loved ones of the victims of the thousands of mass shootings think there's been more than plenty of them for this to already be a major problem.
All you are doing is making gun usage difficult for the law abiding.I propose that we require all guns be manufactured with
various piezoelectric radio transmitters. This would
be a variety of "nuggets" formed into the barrel and
stock that will emit radio frequency bursts resulting
from shock, vibration, or impact.
This should be required within 5 years. The requirement
would result in development of the needed technology.
This would allow anyone to identify the location of gunfire.
Hotel owners and anti-sniper personnel.
This would affect the lone legal shooter as well as street
guns (unless imported illegally). But likely street guns
would not be illegal imports.
So only illegal imports would be unable to locate unless
the shooter wrapped the gun in a seperate blocking blanket.
Still lethal, but much more trouble.
These could emit serial numbers for each gun, but I'd
be willing to negotiate on that.
We could relax background checks on legal purchases
in exchange for tracking where shots were fired.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?