Thoughts and Prayers!!!

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I think guns in general should be banned. Background checks don't go nearly far enough, you are correct. 

 

Unless you can provide valid enough reasons for average citizens to own AK-47s that is also worth a mass shooting every day in this country.

 

 

Who owns an AK-47.  When did AK-47’s start causing daily mass shootings? 

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

That's a bit of a straw man.

No, it’s a question.  

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Who has said universal background checks would eliminate all shooting situations?

Not me.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Who owns an AK-47.  When did AK-47’s start causing daily mass shootings? 

No, it’s a question.  

You happen to know that AK-47 was mentioned in that specific article. It is an assault rifle. AR-15 style assault rifles, similar to AK-47s in their design for military use in killing large numbers of people quickly, are behind some of the worst mass shootings in our country's history.

 

Your argument from this comment is basically, "Dr. Strangelove is an idiot, AR-15s in the hands of common citizens are what's killing people, not AK-47s GOT EM". 

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

You happen to know that AK-47 was mentioned in that specific article. It is an assault rifle. AR-15 style assault rifles, similar to AK-47s in their design for military use in killing large numbers of people quickly, are behind some of the worst mass shootings in our country's history.

 

Your argument from this comment is basically, "Dr. Strangelove is an idiot, AR-15s in the hands of common citizens are what's killing people, not AK-47s GOT EM". 

My argument is that you made mention of average citizens owning AK 47’s is a byproduct of mass shootings everyday.  
 

so I ask, is private legal AK-47 a big thing.  In FL it’s illegal unless one is federally qualified.  And I said I didn’t realize AK-47’s contribute to daily mass shootings.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

Rifles can be used for hunting. Pistols can be used to defend yourself from an attacker.

 

But a lot of guns in America's private arsenal are solely designed to kill as many humans as quickly as possible. 

 

And the only way to rationalize that is to foresee an armed battle against government tyranny and/or an oncoming race war.

 

And that's where we are. 

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

My argument is that you made mention of average citizens owning AK 47’s is a byproduct of mass shootings everyday.  
 

so I ask, is private legal AK-47 a big thing.  In FL it’s illegal unless one is federally qualified.  And I said I didn’t realize AK-47’s contribute to daily mass shootings.  

Your mental gymnastics are incredible.

 

But I suppose necessary, with mass shootings nearly every day it would be difficult to justify gun ownership without it.

 

Furthermore, AK-47s are not responsible for large numbers of mass shootings, unlike the American made AR-15. This is not because of positive reasoning, but because the AK-47 is manufactured in Russia. In 'Murica, we prefer our gun violence and the killing of children to be from domestic products. USA! USA! USA! 

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Not me.  

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

No, it’s a question.  

Stop trying to be coy. You regularly posit seemingly innocuous questions or statements even though your position on any given topic is generally well-documented.

 

You've stated that you believe current laws should be enforced before anybody thinks about new ones. And you've had debates before with people (i.e. me) positioning yourself against more strict gun legislation. So, why are you asking about the efficacy of universal background checks as it pertains to that situation and that article, particularly when you're probably well aware that the answer is 'nothing' and the article at no points mentions background checks?

[Archy1221]

6 hours ago, Enhance said:

 

Stop trying to be coy. You regularly posit seemingly innocuous questions or statements even though your position on any given topic is generally well-documented.

 

You've stated that you believe current laws should be enforced before anybody thinks about new ones. And you've had debates before with people (i.e. me) positioning yourself against more strict gun legislation. So, why are you asking about the efficacy of universal background checks as it pertains to that situation and that article, particularly when you're probably well aware that the answer is 'nothing' and the article at no points mentions background checks?

Universal background checks is the absolute #1 change in gun law that every Democrat politician immediately goes to after every shooting that makes the national news which you know this already.  Hence my question. 
 

so I guess I will ask a different question as to not be “coy”.  What change in law (outside of banning all guns) would have stopped this and why did the original poster equate that story with AK-47’s and everyday mass shootings in the same sentence.   No call out on that ridiculous statement??

[TGHusker]

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 6/3/2021 at 6:20 PM, Archy1221 said:

Universal background checks is the absolute #1 change in gun law that every Democrat politician immediately goes to after every shooting that makes the national news which you know this already.  Hence my question. 
 

so I guess I will ask a different question as to not be “coy”.  What change in law (outside of banning all guns) would have stopped this and why did the original poster equate that story with AK-47’s and everyday mass shootings in the same sentence.   No call out on that ridiculous statement??

 

It's really hard to figure out what we can or should do to stop the increasing gun violence in this country. 

 

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

It's really hard to figure out what we can or should do to stop the increasing gun violence in this country. 

 

 

Yes

[Guy Chamberlin]

And yet it feels like one rather large side of the argument insists we do nothing.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

And yet it feels like one rather large side of the argument insists we do nothing.

If you ignore what that side is saying I could see how you think that.  

[Enhance]

On 6/3/2021 at 8:20 PM, Archy1221 said:

Universal background checks is the absolute #1 change in gun law that every Democrat politician immediately goes to after every shooting that makes the national news which you know this already.  Hence my question. 
 

so I guess I will ask a different question as to not be “coy”.  What change in law (outside of banning all guns) would have stopped this and why did the original poster equate that story with AK-47’s and everyday mass shootings in the same sentence.   No call out on that ridiculous statement??

I didn't agree with the original AK-47/mass shooting narrative either, FWIW, but I interpreted his post as being more of a statement against gun issues in general rather than AK-47's, explicitly. I think it was maybe just a case of a poorly articulated post.

 

That said, it seems weird to focus on a conversation about AK-47's and mass shootings (which we know are incredibly rare, if not non-existent) rather than have the harder conversations about firearm ownership and America's obsession with guns in general. That's the real issue here. Additionally, isolating 'universal background checks' without pretense is equally as disingenuous as the claims you're making against OP's AK-47/mass shooting post. Seems like you're just fighting fire with fire.

 

To answer your question though, I think there are a couple of things that could significantly decrease the chance of this situations happening:

- Outlawing ownership of certain firearms and supplemental equipment (i.e. private citizens shouldn't be able to own automatic weapons, military grade equipment, conversion kits, etc.) + stiffer penalties for breaking those laws and failing to appropriately dispose of them

- Buyback programs to eliminate excess weapon inventory from our streets

[Guy Chamberlin]

22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

If you ignore what that side is saying I could see how you think that.  

 

I've heard the argument that we should better enforce the laws already in place. There's some merit to that.  But I haven't heard much else from the Second Amendment side. 

 

There are some mixed signals, as the other side tends to resist those laws already in place, and prefers not to fund any study of the subject.