After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Can you provide any justification for banning pistol grips?

If the only reason for banning pistol grips is the joy that people get out of violating people's rights, then that is the reason that they try to do it.

 

It is the nature of facts and reality to not change from post to post.

Why is one death more important than the other? Are murder victims "more dead" than people who are killed accidentally?

 

I dont really know anything about pistol grips and I skipped over that part of the argument because I dont think thats where the focus should be. So no I won't try to justify that, but I'm assuming after pages of argument some justification was made somewhere so you could probably go back and reread that more carefully

But it doesnt have to be pistol grips. It could be literally anything and you still wouldnt listen or see the justification.
I've seen some perfectly reasonable suggestions made and been immediately shot down by people like you, even though they wouldnt interfere with a sane and law abiding citizen's right to own a gun in the least

And thats because you and people like you arent approaching this in a logical way. Nothing anyone suggests will ever be good enough, all you're going to hear is "ban all the geerrnns" even though thats not at all what's being said

To clarify, not *you* specifically so dont take that as a personal attack, I'm referring more to anyone who isnt willing to consider any sort of gun control or even attempt a compromise

 

Okay, let's be logical. How many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle are you aware of? Do folding stocks make it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere to do a mass shooting, and how many mass shootings are you aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting? Also, how does a flash suppressor help a mass shooter? I mean, there's no one they would need to be trying to hide their intentions from at that point, right? So why is it logical to accept such illogical thinking when it comes to what should be banned?

Also, given that semiautomatic rifles have been used in 3 of the hundreds of school shootings since 1984, and 18 of the most deadly mass shootings to date (12 of which involved shotguns and pistols along with the semiautomatic rifles), why is the focus on the least used weapon? How logical is that?

And would you consider 3.5 firearm homicides per 100,000 people per year (that's one death every three and a half months) to be statistically significant enough to start a campaign against guns that hold more than six rounds? Does that seem logical?

 

No. The only reason why people try to ban pistol grips is the joy that they get from violating people's rights.

That is incorrect. I am perfectly capable of seeing justification. It's just that when people are out to violate civil rights for fun, what they propose has no justification.

Every single time I've heard terms like "reasonable" or "common sense", what was being proposed was an outrageous civil rights violation.

We're being perfectly logical. We just are not allowing people to violate our civil rights for fun.

Well it is pretty clear that that is their actual goal. Gun control advocates pretend that they aren't out to ban guns, but that is deception on their part.

But regardless, a civil right violation that falls short of a total gun ban is still completely unacceptable.

Civil rights are not something to be compromised about.

Civil rights violations are wrong period.

 

See, this. This is why you're not logical. You're acting out of paranoia and suspicion. Why are you even here, why would anyone bother to engage with you when you dont really care what they have to say because you think they're being deceptive anyways. Why dont you just stick to an echo chamber if you arent actually listening to the points being made

I honestly dont like the way you quote and reply to every little point rather than typing in paragraphs so didnt really read the rest , soery. Thats just personal preference but to me it isnt appealing to read posts written that way

And @storch , only including school shootings and completely disregarding mass shootings in other public places is illogical and disingenuous. Thats been pointed out to you numerous times and you continue to do it.

I really dont know the other stuff you're talking about and feel no need to answer because i've never really advocated banning gun accessories. You're asking me to argue someone else's argument.
Also, the figure you keep quoting, 3 in 100,000...i've done a fair bit of research and the figure does vary a bit depending on the source but i've never seen it that low...but either way, yes I think it is significant because it is preventable. And I dare you to tell someone who has lost a loved one in a completely preventable shooting that it was insignificant.
Loss of life due to terrorism on US soil is also really statistically insignificant too but I doubt you would argue that we shouldnt do anything about terrorism

 

You're not paying enough attention. I said: ". . . given that semiautomatic rifles have been used in 3 of the hundreds of school shootings since 1984, and 18 of the most deadly mass shootings to date (12 of which involved shotguns and pistols along with the semiautomatic rifles), why is the focus on the least used weapon?"

Again with the not paying attention. I said: "And would you consider 3.5 firearm homicides per 100,000 people per year . . ."

And you brought up terrorism. So tell me how banning guns that hold more than six rounds is going to . . . oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that you don't agree with banning cosmetic features and guns that hold more than six rounds.

 

18 of the deadliest mass shootings is pretty significant

I brought up terrorism to make a point about responding to threats in an appropriate way despite not being statistically significant, I thought that was obvious.

 

And which shooting are you claiming was completely preventable?

 

No. First of all, it is experience, not paranoia and suspicion. I know that is their ultimate goal because they have proven that it is their ultimate goal.

Second, I am not refusing to listen to anyone. I am listening to and fairly addressing every point that people make.

Not acknowledging facts that I post doesn't make those facts any less true.

Not if the gun banners are promoting hysteria about school shootings and the post is in response to that hysteria.

Well you did step in when I pointed out that these people only want to violate people's rights for fun.

If you want to step in and defend these people's position, it is reasonable for him to ask you about that position.

You have that exactly backwards. Murders are not preventable. If someone decides to murder someone, they will do so.

Accidents however are entirely preventable. If we were to ban private cars on public roads, deaths from car accidents would go way down.

 

Eighteen of the deadliest mass shootings is significant enough to do what?

You said: "Loss of life due to terrorism on US soil is also really statistically insignificant too but I doubt you would argue that we shouldnt do anything about terrorism."

What do you suggest?

 

Aurora
Sandy Hook
Townville (you wouldnt have heard of it)
Just some examples

First one involves a clinically insane person under the care of a psychiatrist able to purchase multiple guns and massive amounts of ammo in a small period of time

Last two involve parents not securing their guns properly despite living in a house with minors. I'm a huge advocate of strengthening and enforcing how guns are secured around minors

 

And because of these incidents, you want what done? What would have prevented them?

Would you like it if when some kid goes on the internet and says, "Hey, I'm Nikolas Cruz, look at all the guns I have, and hey, I want to be a professional school shooter," that the FBI, having been informed, would actually do something about that? Cuz ya know, that's what I'd like.

 

You're not listening storch, suggestions have been brought up again and again and again that could potentially prevent those shootings. In multiple threads. By multiple people. Are you seriously asking what could prevent someone with a serious mental illness under the care of a psychiatrist from buying multiple guns and stockpiling ammo? You havent seen a single suggestion in all these threads that would apply to that situation?

With that I'm out, debating this is pointless because you guys have proven you're not really listening.

 

Oh I've heard them alright. One wants to ban grenade launchers, another wants to ban flash suppressors and folding stocks, and all for no good reason. Another wants to have all guns that hold more than six rounds confiscated. Yeah, I've heard them. They just make very little sense.

And again with the not paying attention. Where did I ask what could prevent someone with a serious mental illness under the care of a psychiatrist from buying multiple guns and stockpiling ammo? You have a habit of misrepresenting people.

 

I've no objections to safe storage requirements so long as they aren't so draconian that they make gun ownership unaffordable by ordinary people.

 

I concur. There is something going on here, but civil discourse isn't it.

 

Definitely time for this thread to die lol. This is nothing but absurdist humor at this point

 

Mel

I agree but it is obvious that filling the thread with crap is the gun lobby’s ploy to stifle any real debate.

It’s so boring and pathetic that I’ve moved no from should there be gun control which is obvious to why some people are seemingly so desperate to curtail it and what could be done to counteract that rather irrational stance.

To me it is all about education, people need from a young age to be taught to recognise propaganda and irrational argument and that Social Darwinist ideas are not only false but dangerous.

Now this is going to be seen as threats by those with social Darwinist based ideas and tendencies and by the irrational as an attack on ‘their’ tribe, and so I’m sure this statement is going to get the playground retort of ‘no that’s you that is’ but I prefer to work toward a future with more hope and co-operation in it than fear and division.