We lost the battle for the democrat party's soul long ago

[KUTradition]

From 1966 to 2019, 77% of mass shooters purchased at least some of the weapons used in the shootings legally, per data compiled by the National Institute of Justice, a research agency of the Department of Justice.

poor randy…what a pitiful existence

[jfish26]

Because one person's individual experience with gun violence should not be a deciding factor in the gun laws for an entire country

It happened in the late 80s, the felony was non violent, drug distribution. I dont recall how the person got the gun. But I dont think you realize what a ridiculous amount of unregistered guns there are in this country. I didnt see the family member actively get shot but saw the scars on their chest from surgery and all the muscle tissue that was removed to do it. And I don't know how they got the gun. But illegal items are pretty accessible in this country, there is a black market for just about anything

"one person's individual experience"??????

Do you not get it? It's not one person. I am just one person but I am one of MANY people who have had an individual experience.
Did my words not register with you when I said, "literally 100s of thousands of other Americans have" - witnessed someone they care about have bullet holes in their body.

The reason why I asked about the felon was because of what you said - there are ridiculous amounts of UNregistered guns in this country. How did the felon obtain the gun? Was it stolen, was it given to him/her, how do all the "bad guys" obtain "illegal" and "unregistered" guns?
Don't you feel it would be beneficial to somehow figure a way to make it more difficult for it to happen?

Sometimes you have to be realistic. Guns aren't going anywhere. Actions that make something harder to be legally done, won't affect illegal actions. And that is what murder is

You mean well, but you are trying to make it harder to legally obtain something to commit an illegal crime. There is no logic there. These people do not care about doing things legally

Just so you know, we all know that the reason you do this dumbass, absolutist "if we can't solve the problem 100%, we shouldn't try at all" garbage...is because making the other side prove a negative (or do the impossible) is one of the silly gotcha games your exploiters have seeded you with.

[KUTradition]

and…

More than 80% of the assailants responsible for K-12 shootings stole their guns from family members, per the National Institute of Justice.

and…

Illegal purchases were made by just 13% of mass shooters, per the data, which also notes that 32.5% of mass shooting cases could not be confirmed.

[randylahey]

Randy.

“no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns”

This is morally, ethically and logically broken. It is sick.

Your brain is logically broken. You want to pass illogical gun restrictions to cater to your feelings.

Gun violence is already illegal lol. Murder is illegal. If a criminal isn't concerned about dying or serving life sentences, how will your new gun restrictions change anything for criminals?

Do you not understand what a ridiculously large amount of "illegal" or unregistered guns are already passed around in this country

Please go back and read what you wrote.

“no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns”

You are saying - your words - that there simply is not an amount of gun violence that could possibly lead you to support new gun laws.

That's deranged, and culty.

It also illustrates (again) that you have problems with big numbers. Let's say, using your example, that 99.9% of the 260 million adults in the US are "not irresponsibly using guns."

That leaves two hundred sixty thousand (260,000) US adults who are "irresponsibly using guns." I would absolutely say that the minor imposition of going back to the assault weapons ban is WELL WORTH making it more difficult* for those two hundred sixty thousand people to murder my children in school, or my mother at church, or my wife at work, or me at a bank.

* You will note, because I'm an adult, that I do not claim that banning assault rifles will end all crime.

The more dangerous the world is, the more you need the right to defend yourselves. You can't hide behind a computer screen from everything.

If others don't care about the law, the ones that do need to be able to legally defend themselves

[randylahey]

and…

More than 80% of the assailants responsible for K-12 shootings stole their guns from family members, per the National Institute of Justice.

and…

Illegal purchases were made by just 13% of mass shooters, per the data, which also notes that 32.5% of mass shooting cases could not be confirmed.

So stealing guns... isn't that what you would call illegally possessed guns? Lol

[KUTradition]

The suspected shooter who opened fire at the Covenant School, a few miles south of downtown Nashville, on March 27 was armed with two "assault-type guns" and a pistol, the police said.

Police said that the shooter legally bought seven firearms from five different local gun stores.

…

In Louisville, Kentucky, the shooter accused of killing at least five people at a bank bought the weapon used in the massacre legally from a local dealership about a week before the attack, police said.

…

In Buffalo, New York, the 18-year old accused of a mass shooting at a supermarket last year is believed to have legally obtained an AR-15 style rifle from a federally licensed gun dealer in New York, he purchased a shotgun previously and he received a rifle as a gift, the Associated Press reports.

…

In Uvalde, Texas, the gunman legally bought two AR-style rifles just days before the massacre at Robb Elementary School last year, including one that he brought with him to the elementary school, per the Texas Tribune.

…

And in Parkland, Florida, the shooter at the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 people died, purchased the AR-15-style rifle used in the attack legally, authorities said.

[jfish26]

From 1966 to 2019, 77% of mass shooters purchased at least some of the weapons used in the shootings legally, per data compiled by the National Institute of Justice, a research agency of the Department of Justice.

poor randy…what a pitiful existence

The fact is that nearly every single functional gun in circulation in the US was initially obtained legally.

That's why the math on tougher gun laws is just not complicated. Fewer guns in circulation means less gun violence. It just does, when the numbers get big. Rubes and their handlers will hide being anecdotes or silly gotcha games, but it's simply true that the lowest-hanging fruit for addressing our disgusting gun violence problem, is reducing the number of guns that are out there.*

* This may be lost on Randy, but it's also just fundamentally TRUE that reducing the number of legal guns in circulation will also reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation, because the supply of black market guns will go down (and the price will go up). That will drive demand (and purchases) down.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Because one person's individual experience with gun violence should not be a deciding factor in the gun laws for an entire country

It happened in the late 80s, the felony was non violent, drug distribution. I dont recall how the person got the gun. But I dont think you realize what a ridiculous amount of unregistered guns there are in this country. I didnt see the family member actively get shot but saw the scars on their chest from surgery and all the muscle tissue that was removed to do it. And I don't know how they got the gun. But illegal items are pretty accessible in this country, there is a black market for just about anything

"one person's individual experience"??????

Do you not get it? It's not one person. I am just one person but I am one of MANY people who have had an individual experience.
Did my words not register with you when I said, "literally 100s of thousands of other Americans have" - witnessed someone they care about have bullet holes in their body.

The reason why I asked about the felon was because of what you said - there are ridiculous amounts of UNregistered guns in this country. How did the felon obtain the gun? Was it stolen, was it given to him/her, how do all the "bad guys" obtain "illegal" and "unregistered" guns?
Don't you feel it would be beneficial to somehow figure a way to make it more difficult for it to happen?

Sometimes you have to be realistic. Guns aren't going anywhere. Actions that make something harder to be legally done, won't affect illegal actions. And that is what murder is

You mean well, but you are trying to make it harder to legally obtain something to commit an illegal crime. There is no logic there. These people do not care about doing things legally

I agree guns aren't going anywhere. At least not in my lifetime.

I disagree that actions that make something harder to be legally done, won't affect illegal actions.
Do you not comprehend that some/many of these "mass shooters" obtained their guns LEGALLY and some specifically said they waited to get their guns LEGALLY - so that they could use them to murder others.
Maybe making it harder to legally obtain guns won't substantially make a difference but I do believe it will make some difference. Even one less person murdered is a bonus. Especially if that one person is you, your friend, or your relative.

Yes, I am trying to mean well. Yes, I am hoping somehow some way in my lifetime it will be harder to BOTH legally and illegally obtain something to commit an illegal crime. There is a lot of logic there - to me.
I agree many/most "bad people" don't care about doing things legally but wouldn't it be nice if it was more difficult for "bad people" to do things illegally?

[zsn]

You have a strange definition of government overreach and tyranny. Today, it’s five old men, two of them sex criminals, telling women what kinds of healthcare they’re going to obtain. One of those criminals has confessed to being completely ignorant about the law that he doesn’t even know how to fill out forms.

No amount of gun ownership is going to protect us from this tyranny.

[jfish26]

Your brain is logically broken. You want to pass illogical gun restrictions to cater to your feelings.

Gun violence is already illegal lol. Murder is illegal. If a criminal isn't concerned about dying or serving life sentences, how will your new gun restrictions change anything for criminals?

Do you not understand what a ridiculously large amount of "illegal" or unregistered guns are already passed around in this country

Please go back and read what you wrote.

“no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns”

You are saying - your words - that there simply is not an amount of gun violence that could possibly lead you to support new gun laws.

That's deranged, and culty.

It also illustrates (again) that you have problems with big numbers. Let's say, using your example, that 99.9% of the 260 million adults in the US are "not irresponsibly using guns."

That leaves two hundred sixty thousand (260,000) US adults who are "irresponsibly using guns." I would absolutely say that the minor imposition of going back to the assault weapons ban is WELL WORTH making it more difficult* for those two hundred sixty thousand people to murder my children in school, or my mother at church, or my wife at work, or me at a bank.

* You will note, because I'm an adult, that I do not claim that banning assault rifles will end all crime.

The more dangerous the world is, the more you need the right to defend yourselves. You can't hide behind a computer screen from everything.

If others don't care about the law, the ones that do need to be able to legally defend themselves

Again with the bullshit absolutism.

NO ONE SERIOUS IS CALLING FOR A BAN ON ALL GUNS.

There is simply NOT, however, a marginal benefit (in the self-defense context)* to assault rifles that justifies the grave, outlying harm they do in the wrong hands, for the wrong purposes.

* It's also true, even though you don't want it to be, that research is pretty clear that guns in homes are correlated with greater incidence of gun violence (suicides included), not less.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Sorry Trad and Fish!
You both posted things much more eloquently than I did - and backed it up with stats.
Thanks for doing as such.
At times this has been exhausting dialogue for me but clearly I am passionate on the subject and refuse to be silent and give up on my hope for a better future - for all of us.

[Mjl]

Let me guess, you feel he's a piece of shit primarily because he's not "pro" Israel and you wrongly believe he is a Holocaust denier. Am I right?

He's beyond just not being pro-Israel. He's for the destruction of the Jewish state that is keeping people like him safe. He can rot in hell. The fact that he's a pedo connected to Epstein makes sense.

I don't believe he's for the destruction of Israel but ok, I respect your disdain for him.
Unless you know something I don't I am unsure why you are calling him a "pedo". Maybe he is a pedo? Do you have a credible source that states he is?
No doubt Epstein was a piece of shit and I am not going to defend Chomsky meeting with him for whatever reason/s it was but.... I have a feeling if I dug hard enough I just might be able find a distant "connection" (indirect but still "connection") between you and Epstein.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a fan of Chomsky and I feel he has said and done numerous shameful things.
My initial response to DC was questioning what did he feel is/was "lol" in regards to Chomsky meeting with Epstein - which was what I assumed DC was referring to.

Distant connection to Epstein is multiple magnitudes different than meeting directly with him when you already know what he's guilty of

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

He's beyond just not being pro-Israel. He's for the destruction of the Jewish state that is keeping people like him safe. He can rot in hell. The fact that he's a pedo connected to Epstein makes sense.

I don't believe he's for the destruction of Israel but ok, I respect your disdain for him.
Unless you know something I don't I am unsure why you are calling him a "pedo". Maybe he is a pedo? Do you have a credible source that states he is?
No doubt Epstein was a piece of shit and I am not going to defend Chomsky meeting with him for whatever reason/s it was but.... I have a feeling if I dug hard enough I just might be able find a distant "connection" (indirect but still "connection") between you and Epstein.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a fan of Chomsky and I feel he has said and done numerous shameful things.
My initial response to DC was questioning what did he feel is/was "lol" in regards to Chomsky meeting with Epstein - which was what I assumed DC was referring to.

Distant connection to Epstein is multiple magnitudes different than meeting directly with him when you already know what he's guilty of

TRUE - with a capital T R U and E

[randylahey]

Lets say we ban ar15s only. As some of you want. Here's what happens:

Hand gun violence becomes the new talking point (majority of gun violence is committed by hand guns already, despite ar15s being the focal point used to manipulate you)
Big government slowly starts working to get people on board with banning hand guns

Banning ar15s is not an endgame for them. Its a stepping stone. Thats why we can't budge

[KUTradition]

are you still scared of the dark too?

[jfish26]

Lets say we ban ar15s only. As some of you want. Here's what happens:

Hand gun violence becomes the new talking point (majority of gun violence is committed by hand guns already, despite ar15s being the focal point used to manipulate you)
Big government slowly starts working to get people on board with banning hand guns

Banning ar15s is not an endgame for them. Its a stepping stone. Thats why we can't budge

Do you have any primary source support for this slippery slope argument?

Because, AR-15s were recently banned for a ten year period. And I do not recall a handgun ban even being considered, let alone proposed, let alone attempted, let alone passed.

As the caselaw stands, and as the Court is presently and for the near-to-medium term composed, it does not seem remotely possible that such a ban would be found Constitutional in any case.

[KUTradition]

just curious, randy, but from 1994 to 2004 what additional firearms were banned?

was there even legislation that happened to not pass?

[randylahey]

are you still scared of the dark too?

Funny. You are the ones scared of covid and guns and everything else.

My side of the argument is always telling your crew to calm down and come to your senses. Maybe skip the evening propaganda formally known as the news

[jfish26]

It's also the case that responsible gun owners (like me) should very much SUPPORT an assault weapons ban. Because the ONE thing I can think of that would result in popular will turning against gun ownership, generally...is kids keeping on getting turned into hamburger meat by assault rifles.

The more my fellow citizens abuse the right of firearm ownership (by turning children into hamburger meat)...the more likely it becomes that that right (as I exercise it) is going to be narrowed through legislation and/or litigation.

[randylahey]

Perfect example of why the 2nd amendment is important. Scroll through for the gist of it. Or dig deeper elsewhere for more info. But its a real life story of guns stopping political corruption