"Law abiding, trained, concerned personnel" encompasses more than law enforcement. I have seen proposals to use armed citizen volunteers. How do you expect to determine if your average 60 something retired accountant is qualified or not since it is pretty much impossible to determine who is not qualified?

How is it impossible? How do you think police and security are hired for everything else? I don’t see how this would be impossible or incredibly difficult. If they can run a background check anytime I buy a gun or get a new job, they can do it for this too. It’s not “impossible” to figure out if a person has any criminal history, or is not trained in security work. This is done every single day, many times. Whether the person is a volunteer, a member of the police force, or a paid employee, I fail to see how this is difficult. If it is difficult, I fail to see how thousands and thousands of other venues across the United States manage to secure trained, law abiding security. This makes no sense.

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994 when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

So guns for everyone no matter what? That’s sad and a joke.

Stop making logical arguments. This seems neither the time nor the place.

For a moment, a few posts ago, I thought you were being reasoned.

Then you come up with this silly strawman. Of course that isn't what I said or meant and now I have become bored with trying to converse with you.

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It’s not hard to do. I’ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I’ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I’ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won’t read what I’ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest ‘got ya’ yet.

So do you disagree with Ronald Reagan's statement?

So how do we stop the situation where a kid can buy a legal rifle and shoot you a school a few days later? Genuinely interested. A good guy with a gun isn’t doing it.

I disagree. Shootings were dropping before the bill, dropped during the bill, and continued down after its sunset and it expired. The statistics are cherry picked and the appeal to popularity is, of course, fallacious. It is, though, quite a stretch, ignoring the rest of your clown show attempt at the dumbest gotcha of this thread, to consider the statement to be Reagan’s, who was losing his mind at this time. It has three signatures, none of whom actually wrote it, and of the 3 Reagan was the only one losing his mind. It’s not really his statement, though Reagan rarely found gun control he didn’t love.

It’s a safe bet that I’ll disagree with most Reagan measures. I do not hold other political views you seem to be operating under the assumption that I do, which you would know if you read the thread. Recurring theme here.

Your appeal to authority is to a man losing his mind. Classic. The jokes about how it takes the braindead to support these measures write themselves.

Going to answer my questions from the last post or just keep firing blanks and ignore each of your misfires?

What do you want me say about Reagan's mental state? According to his son, he had Alzheimer's during his first term. Regardless of when he had it, I think the letter he helped pen regarding reducing assault weapons was spot on.

A previous argument for gun control I presented in this thread was about Australia having vastly reduced gun violence with gun reform. But you "refuted" that argument with your own "research" saying that reforms have not reduced gun violence. Basically, you will just believe what you want, regardless of fact. Statistical analysis shows Australia's gun reforms have been effective, regardless of what you have concluded.

I mean it would probably add to the comedy to get a justification for an appeal to authority to a person losing their mind, made by a person who thinks I ignore facts (which seem to mean left wing op eds to you). Of course you can’t do that, because it’s absurdly stupid. If you don’t have time to actually partake in a thread, then don’t. Trying to end run it by not reading anything tends to back one into comically bad corners.

Yes, I understand you are upset that there have been just as many mass shootings after the Australian ban as in an equal number of years before the ban. I am aware you like op-ed’s and not the actual dataset. I even told you back then that I would expect some bans in other nations not steeped in guns would have resulted in reductions. You chose to pick one to debate whose dataset shows literally 0 change.

Still waiting for an actual argument from a participant in this thread that passes the Aristotelian. We have a guy who is here out of a personal vendetta and flipped a 180 on his views to troll, this gentleman who openly professes he won’t read the thread and appeals to the mentally addled, and someone whose argument is that hiring a security guard is effective impossible. There must be an anti gunner who can put forth a logical argument. The current batch are making a better argument against gun control than the people actually against gun control.

You are 100% wrong about Australia, and the fact that you believe your own BS is disturbing. Good luck

There were 14 before, 14 after. Facts. Good luck.

By kid I am guessing you are a older guy like me and mean someone under 30 as actual kids can not buy guns. Sadly there is no way without screwing over good honest gun owners IMHO. As long as the "kid" has none of the many problems that already block purchasing a gun.

It only fails to make sense when you accept individual arguments on a stand-alone basis and don't need for them to hang together as a coherent whole.

There are two propositions here:

1. It is nearly impossible to identify individuals that represent risks.
2. It is trivially easy to identify individuals that don't represent risks.

Surely you can see the contradiction here.

If a child gains access and uses a steak knife, baseball bat, automobile, tire iron, frying pan, drill, saws all or a 2x4 etc…. and commits multiple homicides, is the homeowner is on the hook for leaving them unlocked?

What if a child takes a 5 gallon can of gasoline from an open garage and burns down an apartment building killing everyone inside……? Homeowner is on the hook for that too? What if the same child stole his grandmothers magnifying glass to use as the ignition source? Grandma is in trouble too?

Firearms are not a problem. They are a symptom of problems not being identified and used as leverage to try and disarm the country.

Firearms are a protection against tyranny.

+1.
Gun laws generally keep guns away from law abiding folks. Anyone in America that wants a gun can get one, if they so desire. Guns don't kill, people do.

I am with ya on that one, Ben...especially these days. Differing opinions are now taken by some as a personal insult.

It fails to make sense because it is so easily proven false.

Every major venue in the United States manages to find qualified security. Most universities have entire police departments that mainly exist to fine people for traffic and harass students for minor victimless crime. It is not difficult to put a security guard or officer in an elementary school - there are already tons of them on our colleges. Why is every other venue able to do this, except for K-12 schools?

It is not very difficult to find security or police personnel who are very unlikely too shoot up a school. Has this ever even happened? What risk do you think these security professionals bring to a K-12 school? What do you think a policeman in a K-12 school is going to do?

I am not really big on this idea, and not even really a supporter, but this is not a rational argument. It is provably false as every other large gathering space is able to do this perfectly fine, every single day, in all 50 states.

A gunman killed 3 people at an Indiana mall before he was shot dead by an armed bystander
"But I'm going to tell you, the real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop this shooter almost as soon as he began," Ison said
A 22-year-old from nearby Bartholomew County who was legally carrying a firearm at the mall shot and killed the gunman, Ison said at a news conference.

Pretty good composure for a 22 yr old, imo. My hat's off to him!
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/17/11119...t-indiana-mall

It seems like nobody wants to hear this shit, but we need the draft back. An 18 year old still does not have a finished brain. The military helps it function properly in the long run. The service makes men out of boys. But God forbid we can't do that to the young men of today. They are babies and brought up spoiled and useless. God help this country, it's going down the drain.

Right after Indiana went Constitutional. Good for this man, concealed pistol vs. a rifle and he won quickly, saving many lives. Saving lives is what we care about, right? Kind of seems like a good thing this gentleman had a gun too.

I would love to hear how, specifically, my generation would be in a better mental and healthier place on the whole if all of us had been forced to go shoot at a bunch of Iraqi's and Afghani's that never did anything to us.

I wonder what spicy take will come next.

I'd say that's one hell of a rampage.

But a kid with a can of gasoline and a match could kill more than even the worst mass shooting, in the right building.

One would think so but it seems some are more concerned about teachers/school board members carrying instead. :(

Oh. It looks like they are indeed more concerned about the hero carrying his gun than the shooter breaking the mall rule asking people not to carry. I am shocked. It's almost like they get upset whenever a citizen stops a massacre.... hmm.

The guy should go to jail for breaking the rules. Who cares that he saved many many lives.

Blue font is sarcasm for those that don't know.:D

What was the bad guy using to do bad things in the first place? A knife?

What would that matter?:confused:

We know why ;)

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Whenever there is a good news story like this one about guns, the left and their funded propaganda sites immediately put a spin on it or deflect in some form or another to keep the narrative and their agenda going.

It is rarely if ever propaganda. News show bad things because that is what brings in viewers. Viewers bring in advertisers that pay the bills. Nobody wants to watch someone help out another person. If that is what they showed they would quickly be off the air with no viewers. The trick is finding the news channel that shows the bad things you agree with and why we all have our favorite "bad" news channel.

+1. Follow the $. It's the same reason social media algorithms promote "controversial" content. It's what makes people most engaged. And as long as the cash is flowing in, promoting violence, hate and misinformation is not a big deal to them.

'It's worth it if it saves just one life', that's the motto they use, right?

Looks like the hero didn't have a concealed carry permit and was carrying under the brand new constitutional carry law in Indiana. Reportedly he had a 9mm Glock and fired 10 rounds (nowhere seems to say which model, presumably a 26, 43X or 48), at 40-50 yards. His girlfriend is a nursing student and applied tourniquets to at least one victim before LE arrived. He was cuffed and released once they saw the security tape, and immediately lawyered up. That is some very good shooting. Good for him for doing it all right and saving a lot of people.

Comments and social media seem more annoyed he ignored a sign that does not have enforcement of law than that the gunman did the same thing and murdered some innocent people. The cardinal sin among all is, almost always, not pushing the narrative. If it was about saving lives, all sides would be equally happy this gentleman took immediate action and saved lives.

If you don't think the likes of CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and Rolling Stone Magazine, to name a few, are not propaganda based then I can't help you.
[B]prop·a·gan·da
Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-c...addows-viewers

Fox is propaganda. MSNBC is propaganda. CNN is propaganda. They all clearly distort facts to push particular narratives desirable to their political faction. It’s absolutely propaganda, by the dictionary.

We all look at things differently. Almost every one in every circumstance is spewing propaganda by that definition including EVERY post in this thread.

For me "used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view" is propaganda.

Yes ALL news outlets exaggerate to get more viewers or sell more copies of their publication including your favorite.

Dale there is no way in any "off topic" thread could you help me. In any other section I would be more than happy to help you or have you help me.

https://notthebee.com/article/new-in...JkzQ&fs=e&s=cl

Exactly on the second bold. It will never cease to amaze me how some people think otherwise. SJW's who lack critical thinking skills are everywhere today it seems. :(

Single Jewish Women? Strange Juvenile Wallabies?

I believe he means "Social Justice Warrior".

Ah, thanks Bob. Now to figure out what that has to do with the discussion...

LOL

That I can't help you with. :)

Saying that a person with a gun stopped a person with a gun from killing more people than he otherwise would have isn’t a ringing endorsement on guns to some people. Either way, an isolated incident does not alone support a broader argument. It’s a bit like saying global warming isn’t happening because it’s snowing today. That’s probably for another thread where there will be deniers.

But yeah, thankfully this gent was there with his gun in this case.

Not much different than thinking that stricter and more gun laws are going to keep bad people from getting guns.

Trust me, that is no guarantee in the slightest. It’s an ideal and hopefully an achievable one. It may not be. My view - unsupported by clinical data - is that right now it seems too easy to quickly acquire weapons able to kill several people. Background checks aren’t completed, etc. Perhaps the needle should move back slightly.

The problem is not a single one of the suggestions for more gun laws will do even the smallest thing to stop criminals from getting guns. What they would do is punish law abiding citizens.

How is that possible? Some of the more recent shootings were folks that purchased weapons a day or two before their mass shooting. So restrictions may have done not just the smallest thing but the greatest thing in those situations.

an isolated incident does not alone support a broader argument.

Wouldn't a mass shooting since they are very rare be an isolated incident? How about a gun legally purched just before a crime? Isn't that another rare isolated incident? They seem to be isolated incidents you are using to promote more gun laws.

Oh no, that turns us to aggregate numbers. Come on man, you know this country has many, many, many mass shootings. That’s the whole reason this debate rages on. You can do better.

I would say they are almost non existant compared to other murders. They just get the news coverage.

EDIT to add: There are an average of 316 people shot in America every day. How many months/years would it take in mass shootings to reach that number? So yes I believe using mass shooting to promote more gun laws is beyond silly.

When someone purchases a gun, there isn't a question like "Do you plan to use this to murder a bunch of people?" And if there was such a question, it wouldn't be answered truthfully.

Here's an example of gun restrictions using the latest example. The mall had a "No guns on these premises" policy. The murderer of course broke that policy. Most law abiding folks obeyed it. Fortunately, there was one guy who ignored it (probably realizing how da** stupid those signs are) and saved countless lives.

Can you ever understand that murderers aren't going to obey laws, while law abiding people, by definition, generally do?

So we shouldn’t try to restrict guns because there are so many shootings with guns? That’s an only in America moment.

Can you understand that easy access to guns generally promotes both good and bad people from getting them? The Vegas shooter had how many guns? What does anyone in this country need so many. Let’s add a dose of reasonableness to our vehement desire to be good guys with guns.

LOL, YOU are the one using mass shooting as your excuse. I am just pointing out how silly the excuse you are using is.

Mass shootings are my concern. I readily admit that. I don’t see how the prevalence of non-mass shooting gun violence cuts against “my side.” To the contrary, I would think it supports “my side.”

They are so few and far between with so few people involved compared to other shootings it makes zero sense to focus on them. or maybe I couldn't care less about this subject and like reading silly to me responses.;):D

Do you think your average gang member buys his guns legally, following the rules and restrictions?

Aggregate is good.

The CDC (hardly a conservative, pro-gun group! Very much the opposite, in fact) concluded there are are between 500,000-3,000,000 defensive gun uses per year in an anti-gun study that was part of the Obama administrations attacks on the 2nd as part of an executive order.

Using a firearm for lawful defense (which very rarely results in an actual discharge; most criminals are looking for easy pickings and not a fight, unlike exceptionally rare mass shooters that rarely seem to plan on survival; criminals tend to stop as soon as they realize they are facing an armed victim or bystander) is fairly common.

Obviously the very specific circumstances of this very unusual incident under most recent discussion are rare (so are the incidents brought up by the other stand; exceptional incidents that receive coverage are, well, exceptional); but using a firearm, in lawful self-defense is common. For every such case, there are many many more where a law-abiding person is possessing or carrying a firearm for defense and never has to use it at all. For every one of these, there are other recreational, sport and other legal shooters. Legal uses of a firearm vastly outweigh illegal uses of a firearm (many, many of the illegal uses of a firearm are paperwork crimes, not what people think of at first). And yet, millions of us are to be criminalized and the Constitution ignored if the regulators and banners ever get their way, with no real impact on homicides just like the last X number of regulations and bans.

While I understand why many want to regulate, ban, or reverse time into the 18th century, I have never understood many of the things that seem to rankle them most. Like quantity of guns owned. A person has two hands, and dual wielding is some video game absurdity. A long gun and a pistol are about all a person could use effectively in a single incident; having a collection doesn't up the lethality. If anything it reduces it, carrying tons of extra weight and swapping guns takes far more time than just using what they have in hand. One can't really carry more than a few hundred rounds effectively. An active shooter doesn't need and can't use a large number of guns (I am aware of 0 incidents - the Vegas shooter used very little from his stash) or a hoard of ammunition (I am aware of only 1 such incident in US history, the Vegas shooter). Many of the existing laws are rooted in this belief from post 855 that makes no sense whatsoever, even if one adopts the belief that guns are inherently evil and those who have them must be suppressed by the State as gospel.

They most certainly do not.

Your average gang member does not impose a threat on someone living in rural Iowa though. That’s just a fact of geography.

I know I shouldn’t engage, but it’s too funny sometimes. Why would the life of a person in rural Idaho be worth more than a persons life in Chicago?

Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.

Finally, you admit the additional gun restrictions you advocate won't affect the criminals.

We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

For example, a depressed, troubled, but generally law abiding 18 year old can buy an assault rifle. Why not raise the age limit to decrease the chances of an 18 year old bringing an assault rifle to school?

Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.

The hero in the mall was just 22 years old. Just curious, how do you correlate depressed and troubled with age?

It is incredibly obvious that the 'bad guy' in these discussions and scenarios is the person murdering innocent people . It's very, very, very simple. The good guy is the person taking action to stop the massacre of innocent people.

If one cannot identify who at the mall was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', well...

EDIT: For the 5,000th time they cannot legally purchase an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is an actual object with an actual meaning.

What? I am just saying that troubled/depressed kids exist. But because they are law abiding, they can buy an assault rifle (without a considerable waiting period). This does not seem wise to me.

And I'm not asking the age limit to be 22, so I am not really sure how your comment is relevant.

5,001: They factually cannot buy an assault rifle. They and the seller will go to federal prison for a very, very long time.

A lot of people consider the AR-15 a weapon of war. If it's not technically an assault rifle, then my apologies. Either way, I really don't understand why an 18 year old can buy one.

I want some guns to be a little harder to get. It’s not just school mass shootings. The Vegas shooter. Whatever he had would seem like there doesn’t need to be such easy access to such things. There are far more situations where they seem to do bad things versus good things. And it’s not my fault that yet again I think one of his weapons of choice was an AR-15.

If you said to me, we need these weapons to prevent a tyrannical leader from taking over the country/army in violation of democratic processes, I would not think that was crazy. The problem is that battle has already been lost. You are already restricted from owning the weapons needed to fight an actual army. AR-15s are not going to do well against a fighter jet. What we are fighting about is window dressing to that issue. Sadly it’s window dressing that result in a mass shooting in this country far too often with little perceived benefit.

Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.:D

There is not a single military force in the entire world using an AR-15 like civilians in the US may purchase. Semi-auto .223's are not used by any military. They never have been. That some find this false branding helpful to their argument does not make it true. This one is just plain factually wrong, yet again.

This one element so difficult in these debates. All of the knowledge is on one side, it's like arguing evolution with a creationist; they just do not know what they are talking about and are factually wrong over and over.

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

You guys are truly hilarious.

Being able to buy an AR-15 on your 18th birthday is not that funny though.

Apparently it would be easier, just the most basic of points on the subject, they refuse to learn, even though it sinks their argument from the get go. 'Indisputable Mechanical Facts About The Basic Function Of The Most Common Guns 101' is evidently a difficult course.

Hahaha. Agree - it’s like trying to teach older white men about social progress.