Jump to content

Gun Control


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, commando said:

story says 5 guns....unless i forgot how to count or maybe the revolver or shotgun doesn't count....but i see 6 guns in the photo

 

I'd be willing to bet those are not the guy's weapons.  The story has a lot more impact with a photo, and I'd bet the NY Times did not have a photo at the time the story was breaking. 

 

Also, the guy is either:  1) an irresponsible idiot; or 2) a mass shooter who lost his nerve.     

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And imagine if the people who think they're analyzing the facts actually read the articles in question and understood what per capita means. 

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) go

Lovely.

Posted Images

32 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

I'd be willing to bet those are not the guy's weapons.  The story has a lot more impact with a photo, and I'd bet the NY Times did not have a photo at the time the story was breaking. 

 

Also, the guy is either:  1) an irresponsible idiot; or 2) a mass shooter who lost his nerve.     

I found an Atlanta news article.  The police corrected the initial press release and increased the number to 6 when they released the photo.

 

Those appear to be the guns this guy took with to buy some milk and bread...(edit: This comment is mine.  The man's intentions haven't been released)

 

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/man-with-5-firearms-body-armor-at-publix-in-atlantic-station/85-ef4815b2-99f2-48ba-9929-9456c1f68ae4

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, funhusker said:

Those appear to be the guns this guy took with to buy some milk and bread...

 

Yikes!   What a jacka$$.  /smh 

Link to post
Just now, NUance said:

 

Yikes!   What a jacka$$.  /smh 

I should be clear, the "milk and bread" comment was mine.  As far as I know, they haven't released his intentions.  I'd actually agree with you, it could easily be a mass shooter that went into the bathroom to either prep or try to build up courage...

Link to post

On 3/24/2021 at 5:10 AM, Hedley Lamarr said:

Why don't we simply address the actual issue of mental health? By all accounts this guys family said he was nuts, he had no business owning any kind of firearm and was a danger to both himself and others. There is nothing special about an AR-15 other than it looks scary in comparison to a multitude of other firearm options that just as easily could have taken the same toll in a supermarket. Violence is a symptom of the society we have created. You take away the scary looking AR and you are left with a multitude of things that can still inflict massive amounts of casualties. Why don't we stop sending money overseas and paying for political pet projects and actually direct those tax dollars to helping education and mental health for starters here in the US. I know this is far too radical and it is far easy to scream for assault weapon bans that statistically did practically nothing to reduce gun violence in the US. 

 

I think most people who are demanding some way to slow or ban the purchase of certain weapons are talking about mental illness issue at the same time. It's like walking and chewing gum -- I'm almost certain we can do both. 

 

The telling problem is that when Obama wanted to conduct a study on gun deaths -- modeled after an earlier study on automotive deaths -- the NRA and its congresspeople prevented its funding. Nobody was talking about banning cars, or under the illusion car fatalities could be ended, just that working out solutions with the cooperation of automakers, road builders and others could save thousands of American lives each year. And by gosh, they did. Bet you don't even remember your freedoms being infringed. Could have been the same with guns.

 

But guns are now a zero sum game. It's not about freedom and protection, and it quit being about hunting ages ago. It's a fetish, a paranoid fantasy, and a political litmus test. Remember the huge run on guns and ammunition when Obama was elected? Good times. 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

But guns are now a zero sum game. It's not about freedom and protection, and it quit being about hunting ages ago. It's a fetish, a paranoid fantasy, and a political litmus test. Remember the huge run on guns and ammunition when Obama was elected? Good times. 

And, this is EXACTLY why the NRA that is funded by gun and ammo manufacturers push so hard the fear of the libs taking all our guns away.  

Link to post

A slightly different view regarding the bold. Was it the Clinton Admin?

 

Gun rights supporters argue the CDC shouldn't get involved. The agency should stick to controlling and preventing disease, they say.

There’s also a healthy dose of distrust of any research the CDC might conduct – which is why the agency essentially stopped studying the issue in 1996 after the NRA accused the CDC of advocating for gun control. The resulting research ban caused a steep decline in firearms studies nationwide. As a University of Pennsylvania criminology professor explained it, “I see no upside to ignorance."

 

 

8 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

when Obama wanted to conduct a study on gun deaths -- modeled after an earlier study on automotive deaths -- the NRA and its congresspeople prevented its funding

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/ 

Link to post
On 3/24/2021 at 7:10 AM, Hedley Lamarr said:

There is nothing special about an AR-15 other than it looks scary in comparison to a multitude of other firearm options that just as easily could have taken the same toll in a supermarket.

I’m guessing you’re not too familiar with different firearms and their ballistics/shoot-ability etc, because your statement on this is absolutely false.
AR-15 rifles and the like are specifically designed to shoot fast and accurate at virtually any reasonable combat range.   combine that with the capability to accept high capacity magazines and you have a killing machine that is unmatched by any other gun a normal citizen can legally own.  

  • Plus1 5
Link to post
1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

And imagine if the people who think they're analyzing the facts actually read the articles in question and understood what per capita means. 

:laughpound:laughpound good one.  Now Imagine if people got called out on it, so they went back, read the article and apologized for using the headline instead of the article.  

I’m still imagining when you plan on stealing my car btw. Been waiting a week or so.  I might be able to vote in the local April elections if you don’t hurry.  

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No.  It's literally their business model.

 

2015 so a bit dated, but... https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html

 

A CNNMoney analysis of federal campaign finance records shows that much of this money comes from everyday Americans. And these contributions, which the NRA uses to keep pro-gun lawmakers in office, are on the rise.

Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates.

Yeah....anyone with an open mind knows that's BS.  

 

If a gun manufacturer donates to the general fund for the NRA, that allows them to operate while other "donations" are going towards political action.  So, if they weren't donating those millions, the other donations would be needed to operate and wouldn't be available for political crap.

Link to post
27 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yeah....anyone with an open mind knows that's BS.  

 

If a gun manufacturer donates to the general fund for the NRA, that allows them to operate while other "donations" are going towards political action.  So, if they weren't donating those millions, the other donations would be needed to operate and wouldn't be available for political crap.

From Devi’s article. 
“Contributions came from nearly 30,000 donors, with around 90% of donations made by people who gave less than $200 in a single year. According to the NRA, the average donation is around $35.”
 

do you have info to post that says the opposite of CNNMoney’s info?  If not, then you are wrong. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...