Miscellaneous Rumbles

Vegas- Holy Hannah, hope everyone’s ok

126

The military used to sell used once fired brass. Ammo company's reloaded this brass. Now the brass used by military gets ground up and then sold as scrap. Ammo did go up. EPA shut down lead smelting plants. Shot and bullets (the projectiles) have gotten very expensive. (A 25 lb bag of shot increased from 8.00 to 45.00.). After 911, the demand went nuts and ammo sold out. Yes the obomba era gov. Made ammo expensive. Deer hunting ammo was about six bucks a box of twenty, now it about a buck per cartridge. Reloading is a bit cheaper, but finding the components is difficult. I'm not a NRA guy. I know first hand what effects the price of hunting and recreational shooting. There are many laws about guns and the criminals don't give a crap about them,we have no choice to abide. If mental Heath was handled better and criminals weren't repeatedly let out of jail,we wouldn't be having this conversation. Don't agree? Call your state rep or congressman. Tell them your opinion. Vote. Make a difference.

127

Semi-Auto Rifle + Bump Stock = Machine Gun. Machine Gun = Illegal. Ban Bump Stocks.

– lx

Don't forget huge 100 shot magazines. No one needs military weapons for hunting.

To add to Munman's ammo post---ammo hasn't just gotten expensive, it's gotten rare, hard to find. Chris Rock (I think) suggested that since guns were everywhere we ought to make bullets $5000 each.

128

Aaaaand.... I'm done. I'll let you anti-constitutional liberal gun haters hash it out from here. You guys can keep preaching to the choir (each other). I've got a wonderful vacation weekend to take with my family.

– ruger9

weak sauce.

129

Ok, what do verifiable facts tell us? They tell us the US has about the worst record of any country in the world for gun violence and deaths. We just had about 600 of our fellow Americans killed or sent to the hospital from just one event in Las Vegas. At the same time, bills are being written to reduce the effectiveness of existing gun laws and attempting to arm every other American that isn't armed already and have those folks wandering around in public openly carrying those weapons. Does that make any sense at all?

.....the only handguns I have left are my 1861 Colt Navy replica which I could holster, and my old CVA flintlock which I'd stuff in my waistband like a Pirate! AAAAAARGH!

"Don't take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home". Nice song! If you listen to your party more than to your own mind, you're being played like the instruments in that tune.

Casinos are currently flooded by a Hurricane that just hit Mississippi. Scientists tell us that Hurricane would have had lower wind speeds and lower water content before global warming took hold. Who do we believe? 97% of the worlds scientists, or the leaders of our party?

130

This is precisely the kind of argument that infuriates me, because it is so purely (if accidentally) political in nature. As a character in MASH asked when confronted by an Army general who was confident that Allied casualties in a proposed action would be "insignificant":

"How many lives in an 'insignificant'?"

It's not that gun violence actually ends fewer lives than hands, it's that it ends innocent lives at all. By your own submission, more than 8100 lives were lost in the US due to murder by firearm. And by the way, your chart does not mention "accidental" shootings, which range from outright hunting accidents to "I didn't know it was loaded" in-home deaths.

8124 lives lost to murder by firearm. Assuming that each victim leaves 2 survivors, that is nearly 25,000 lives forever affected by gun violence, and very likely more. There are a lot of towns in the US where the population is under 25,000. Those stats take one of them off the map entirely every year.

Note that I am not talking just rifles. It's far too blithe to point to a very small piece of the puzzle in order to prove that something else is "worse". To me, dead is dead. To those who must deal with it, even just as witnesses, whether caused by handgun, rifle, shotgun or one of those insane conversions we saw last weekend, they still have to deal with it. Personally, I am concerned with the problem of death by easily-accessible gun- any gun

Have we arrived at an answer to Hawkeye's question? Is the answer really 8,000? Is this a number acceptable to the majority?

Somehow, I doubt it.

– Kevin Frye

And this is precisely the reason I added it, as it's simply the facts, unless the FBI alters the stats for political purposes,a whole other discussion. I could have used the NY Times, or the NRA stats, I chose the FBI assuming it to be neutral.Of course one life lost by violence is one too many. By hand, long rifle, baseball bat, whatever. In Chicago the death toll for the year is 530. But they didn't happen at one moment,but is in fact worse than LV in terms of lives lost, which is why we need to look at this without emotion driving the debate. And looking at the stats it clearly shows that long rifles are near the bottom of the list. Given that this is a gun friendly country of mostly law abiding citizens, I can assure you that guns will continue to be in citizens hands for the unforeseeable future,no matter what any of us would like. Given these inconvenient facts, what common ground can we find outside of the "dialectic" that might reduce the numbers of death? What is it about modern times that has somehow fundamentally changed regarding how our citizens behave towards one another? In my father's day (br.1921)it was common practice for boys to keep a rifle in their lockers for after school hunting, a practice that went on in places up to the 50's. These type of events outside of gang warfare were nearly non-existent then. What is driving all the mental instability we see today?

I say making decisions based on emotion does nothing to address the issue, but sets us all up for more regulation by the people dressed in grey. 9/11 is a perfect example of where emotions led us to draconian cavity searches and decades of war with no end in sight, treasury busted, and three terrorists spring up for everyone we take out. Same could be said of the war on drugs. We must build a consensus of better mental health infrastructure, gun safety, environments conducive to economic prosperity,ect. and get beyond the conquer by division we see being played out by TPTB.

131

Let's buy our kids super violent games where shooting people is fun! Splatter them all over.....then complain that little nudnic has violent tendanceys. When he gets arrested for a violent crime, let him out to repeat it endless times! Health care is too expensive, kick the crazy bastards out in the streets.

132

Let's buy our kids super violent games where shooting people is fun! Splatter them all over.....then complain that little nudnic has violent tendanceys. When he gets arrested for a violent crime, let him out to repeat it endless times! Health care is too expensive, kick the crazy bastards out in the streets.

– munman

I miss the good ol' days of Health Care. When Hospitals were called "City General" or "County General" or "Saint Someone or Other" where the billing department was a Nun with a shoe box. Nowadays everything is market driven where some guy who owns the system stands there and pockets 30-40% of every dollar we hand him that should be given to the Doctors to try to keep us alive.

Health care is too critical to folks than to let other folks profit mightily from our misery.

I really enjoy Medicare. I wish we all had it.

133

"Ok, what do verifiable facts tell us?"

They tell us that one of the places with the strictest gun control in the country (Chicago) has the death rate of the Vegas Massacre EVERY MONTH.

Your move.

Oh- I'm back

134

google : how many people were shot and killed in chicago this weekend

you'll find for recent weekends

9 dead 30 wounded 3 / 36 8 / 63 9 / 54

And this is obomba's home - just one of many urban areas with the same issue.

How many of those guns you think were legal? What law will change these statistics?

You guys don't have a clue.

135

Like finding female teachers having sex with their teenage male students, badmouthing Obama's Chicago is an eight year Fox News red meat mainstay.

Chicago has a mediocre gun control rating plus they back up on two red states with virtually no controls on buying guns. Anyone with a White Van that can drive across the border and back again can set up shop all over the city outside of the loop. On the other hand, how's San Francisco doing? But yup, you guys are right, there are way too many gun deaths in America.

Mentioning Chicago is pointing out part of the problem, do you have any answers? Too many Illegal guns? Is that another way of saying "too many guns"? How do we keep guns out of the hands of bad guys? Do you have a clue on how to stop them?

The problem in Las Vegas wasn't bad guys in the inner city with hand guns, it was a bad guy with twenty something modded ARs, those can be handled with laws outlawing certain add-ons.

136

"badmouthing Obama's Chicago"

It's just the truth, F107. Whether you want to face it or not. The statistics can't be denied. You can try to spin them all you want, but the fact and truth remains that Chicago has high gun control (who rates them as "medium"? Pelosi? ROFL) and also one of the highest gun crime rates. Period.

As far as "banning add-ons"... I have already said it's extremely likely the "bump stock" will be federally banned. That will be your bone. I don't think you'll get anymore out of this president/congress, nor should you.

Let's just take this all the way to the argument's end right now: the only way you will have total gun control in this country is if you repeal the 2nd amendment, and ban ALL private ownership of ALL firearms, period. AND ALSO have no grandfathering period: ALL firearms MUST be surrendered to government under threat of prosecution. I know your side repeats ad nauseum "that's not what we want", but it is. Because that is the ONLY answer that will, in the end, satisfy you that the "laws" have done everything they can to stop things like Las Vegas. And you know what? Criminals will still get guns coming in from Mexico and elsewhere. Maybe even some AMERICAN guns sent over TO Mexico thru Obama and Holder's "Operation Fast and Furious".

So, when you REALLY want to talk about what you REALLY want, let us know. Until then, this is all just political party back-and-forth partisan BS.

Because if what I just stated ever happens, it'll be the 2nd revolution. So be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it. Hopefully not in my lifetime.

IN THE MEANTIME, if you want to talk about "common sense gun laws", then getting the bump stock banned- that'll be it. That'll be all you get. That's what he used, it'll be banned, of course you won't be able to confiscate all of the ones currently purchased, so....

137

yup... i got answers.....

  1. repeated criminals executed.

  2. give mental heatlh for free, it would be cheaper and better for civilized living.

  3. no long term jail. see rule one.

  4. remove public education. it doesn't work and is way too expensive.

  5. enforce the laws. theres plenty. no enforcement or meaningful punishments,no law.

  6. no eternal welfare....workfare or short term....no free rides unless disabled. (after paying into system first)

ask any judge or cop....i'll wait......

and again, those poor folks in vegas.

lawlessness grows daily, your rights do too. cops are running scared,from lawyers and criminals.

138

Ruger, do you forget that I was what in the old days was called a "Gun Nut"? I'm on the same team you are. The last thing I want to see is guns getting anymore of a bad name than they have now. I don't wanna see total gun control, just "realistic, common sense" gun control to keep the far left fanatics off our backs. Sadly, the mass shootings that have caught everyone's attention up to now: Orlando, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, have been with normal ARs. Bump Stocks may not be enough in the long run.

Chicago, like I mentioned, is a starboard side red meat talking point, like "Pelosi" and "Soros" and "Fast and Furious" and "Sillyandra", nothing more. It has no more visibility outside the right wing bubble than any other major city with a depressed inner city population.

The 2nd amendment? Another starboard side talking point. The 2nd amendment means nothing more to me than the third or sixth or whatever. Guns are legal in the US, that's the important thing. Interpreting the 2nd as authorization to take on the Feds? that's nutso.

139

There it is again, exactly the one thing I said I didn't need- the "cold dead hands" argument. Why? Why does it keep coming up? What are these folks afraid of? Because that is what such a reaction ultimately is based on- fear.

Get this- No one (aside from a somewhat loonie fringe) is trying to take away anyone's lawfully obtained guns!

And please- go back a couple of pages and re-read what I asked when I tried to continue this thread intelligently- like the adults we thought we were. I said talk to me, not to each other, but instead I keep seeing the same ad hominem attacks about the same things time after time. Interestingly, the most scathing attacks keep coming from those who are dogmatically in favour of keeping the status quo.

I get it- You are scared. You're afraid there is some gi-normous conspiracy out there trying to utterly destroy the second Amendment. That's not what I asked at all. I simply asked you why it is that the Second is that much more sacred than the First or the 14th or the 26th. why can't the people of the United States agree that perhaps it, like the 18th, could possibly be out of date and may need touching up?

Agreements are amended, updated to reflect current situations, etc all the time. But when it comes to even the thought of an amendment to the Second to bring it into the situation America finds itself in, suddenly people run for the mattresses (Chicago phrase), haul out their Peacemakers and start blasting away like the invaders from Mars were on the coast. "Guns don't kill people! People kill people!" they chant, along with Heston's poorly-chosen "cold, dead hands" and the one that does make me chuckle- "When the government comes for us, we have to be ready!" All of those are born of fear rather than thought.

Why is that? Why did my honest and thoughtful request to understand this turn into a shouting match? Dragging up every conceivable stat to prove that there are more people dying out there than are killed by firearms.

Big deal. That's like saying people who are killed by drunk drivers somehow deserve it. It makes no sense, and it's only purpose is distraction. If you could save 8000 people next year, would you? Be honest. Is saving 8000 lives such a bad thing?

As I have said before- "How many dead bodies in an insignificant?" Dead is dead. Sooner or later, the idea that guns have wiped the equivalent of an entire town off the map every year since the 1960's has got to penetrate the thought processes of Americans, doesn't it?

I am certainly not in a position to take away anyone's guns. I don't even want to.

But I want to understand why it is that so many can't even have a rational discussion without resorting to name calling, and from the last several pages, my analysis can be boiled down to one thing,

Fear.

So I ask again- why are you so afraid of losing them when no one is asking you to give them up? Why is even the thought of a little rational control (like waiting periods, proper storage rules and mandatory handling courses) so bad an idea? How long will America (as a nation ) tolerate episodes like we witnessed last week before someone finally realises that lives are being lost (as many lives as many small towns) every year, thousands more destroyed forever simply because a very loud and vitriolic minority think that one paragraph in a document over 215 years old is as sacred as the Ten Commandments?

Take a deep breath- take two or three if need be. Then come back and explain to me and the rest of us who simply do not understand.

And If it goes to hell again, this thread is gone. Period. I`m out of patience.

Plus- Bax would probably like his space back.

140

"Chicago, like I mentioned, is a starboard side red meat talking point, like "Pelosi" and "Soros" and "Fast and Furious" and "Sillyandra", nothing more."

It is something more: it's the TRUTH. But you keep practicing your Rules For Radicals Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

"The 2nd amendment? Another starboard side talking point. The 2nd amendment means nothing more to me than the third or sixth or whatever. Guns are legal in the US, that's the important thing. Interpreting the 2nd as authorization to take on the Feds? that's nutso."

Who said anything about "authorization"? But here's something to chew on: the founding fathers had JUST fought a war, with their own personal weapons in many cases, to throw off a tyrannical govt. A tyrannical govt they would have had no hope of throwing off without firearms, them being just "subjects" at the time (no standing army).

Feel free to read up on the founding father's actual writings on the subject. If you can forgo your confirmation bias, I think you will be very surprised on their opinion of the matter.

But, to re-iterate: tell us EXACTLY what you want. You want bump-stocks banned? You will likely get your wish. Anything else? We've already got, in differing degrees depending on the state, mag limits, background checks, assault weapons bans, full-auto bans, heck the NY Safe act even goes so far as confiscation. WHAT DO YOU WANT?

141

"So I ask again- why are you so afraid of losing them when no one is asking you to give them up? Why is even the thought of a little rational control (like waiting periods, proper storage rules and mandatory handling courses) so bad an idea?"

You DO know we already have mandatory federal background checks and waiting periods in many places... right?

A federal background check and a waiting period is not going to stop someone who has LEGALLY-OBTAINED firearms from committing a crime with them, if they choose to do so. NOW.... what do you want? I'm serious- THINK. If someone with LEGALLY-OBTAINED firearms can then commit a "Vegas Massacre", what law do you propose that would stop it? There is only ONE. I outlined it above.

So, like I said- tell us WHAT YOU WANT. Because the "end game" here, whether you are willing to be intellectually honest enough to admit it or not, is an outright ban and confiscation. A background check did not stop Vegas. A waiting period would not have stopped Vegas. Even a bump-stock ban would not have stopped Vegas. It MIGHT have lowered the deaths/casualties, but it would not have stopped it. "mandatory handling" courses would not have stopped it. "Proper storage" laws would not have stopped it.

CRIMINALS DO NOT ABIDE LAWS. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

So, let's hear your "law" that would have stopped it. We're all ears.

142

Ruger- Once again, the point has been missed. I am asking why it is that you cling to the thought that the Second Amendment is unassailable, not discuss my version of what US law should be (I do have an opinion, and it's a strong one, but it is off-topic despite your challenge).

So, please, and understand that I am not an American, explain to me (and the rest) what it is about the second amendment that sets you on fire. Why is it -of all the laws in the US- the one law that can never be amended, altered, or updated?

Is that hard to understand? Tell ya what- you provide me with a thoughtful, carefully worded answer and I will spell out my thoughts on gun ownership from the point of view of Canadian who has worked in law enforcement, had access to firearms since I was 3 and who can probably out-shoot at least a third of the folks on this board.

So- show me yours and I will show you mine.

Or we simply end this, because it's simply a revolving door.

143

Personally, I think this isn't about guns at all. The left WANTS to MAKE it about guns, but this goes deeper than that. Guns have been in abundance in this country since it's founding. But the mass shooting thing? That's relatively new. So what's changed? Guns haven't changed (and "AR-15" "assault rifle" is NO different than a semi-automatic rifle of any kind, like WWII's M1 Garand or Carbine.) Kids in the 50's would take their hunting rifles to school with them, and store them in their lockers, then go hunting after school. The guns haven't changed. The guns laws have gotten WAY more restrictive, yet shootings increase. So what's REALLY going on here?

It's not the guns. It's the PEOPLE. It's the culture and it's society. I posted a link earlier about how outrage has become the new IT- if you aren't outraged, then you don't care! If you don't HATE the other side, then you join them! Gotta be offended and outraged about SOMETHING these days!

It's not the guns. Guns have been around forever. Semi-autos since before WWII. But the mass shooting thing? Really only in the last 20 years, really starting with Columbine in 1999. I don't deny these things are growing. What I deny is that the guns are the issue, what I deny is that more laws will do ANYTHING (they don't- just ask Chicago).

If you guys ever want to REALLY examine the issue, we can get started. But you'll have to get over your illogical blaming of guns first.

144

"Once again, the point has been missed. I am asking why it is that you cling to the thought that the Second Amendment is unassailable, "

"Why is it -of all the laws in the US- the one law that can never be amended, altered, or updated?"

I never said it was unassailable. Not at all. BUT...

First of all, the 2nd Amendment- like the 1st- like the first 10- are the "Bill of Rights". These are INALIENABLE. They are not granted TO us by government, so they cannot be TAKEN AWAY FROM US by government. Look it up.

But...Want it repealed? Be my guest- get yourself a constitutional convention, get 3/4 of the states to agree to amend the constitution, and you;re good. Until then, it's unassailable. JUST LIKE THE 1ST AMENDMENT. Of course, that doesn't stop the govt from trying to infringe and restrict BOTH. I find it interesting the left loves to carry the flag of the 1st, wiling to do ANYTHING IT TAKES to protect it- even restrict the 1st Amendment rights of others (hello, UC Berkeley), but has ZERO interest in protecting the 2nd. Hmm...

The 2nd only "sets me on fire" because it's being constantly attacked- the others are not. Altho, the 1st has certainly been being attacked by the left alot lately....

But hey- get yourself a constitutional convention. I'll wait....


This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.