I promise not to debate you…

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

caligas

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
2,214
Reaction score
2,794
Just trying to process what happened in Texas. People’s young children murdered at school. The first thought I have is how can ANYONE think it’s the right thing for a teenage boy to be able to buy assault rifles (or whatever you want to call them) and all that ammo?

Yet I know people DO believe it deeply. Just want to hear their perspective if they are reading this. Can’t speak for others but I won’t make any counter arguments on this thread, will just listen.

Thanks
 
Heard a couple of kids needed DNA samples to identify the bodies since their faces were blown off. Not sure how or why we need these type of guns but the NRA is a powerful organization with a lot of leverage.
 
Seriously sad and feel for all the families. But I think there will always be people that want to hurt others and they will find a way to do it.
Yup. But the idea is to reduce harm and potential harm.

If these weapons were banned 30 years ago, it would be substantially more difficult for the average nutjob to get them today.

This kid just walked into a store and bought them on his bday. Not exactly strict.
 
Time for all the politicians to send thoughts and condolences. Time to get riled up for 1-2 weeks and talk a big game. Time to do nothing. Let the NRA big money lobby machine start turning their gears and chugging money into Republican Senators pockets.

The families will never heal. Never.

Now we sit and wait for the next mentally disturbed kid to buy an AR15 and high capacity magazines and barricade themself in a classroom and gun down 19 defenseless children and their teachers. Maybe it’ll be the classroom where one of our kids sit. No telling.

Thoughts and condolences. Thoughts and condolences.
 
What happened in Texas is terrible. As a parent, I cannot imagine getting that phone call from the school.

Politics/policy wise - 260 children got shot in a Chicago in 2021, over 50 died. Are you equally outraged?
This guy got the NRA emergency talking points. Make sure to pull the race card out in your next post.
 
This guy got the NRA emergency talking points. Make sure to pull the race card out in your next post.
Not an NRA member. Haven’t shot a gun in years. Done enough research to realize increased gun control doesn’t reduce gun deaths. See Washington DC and Chicago. Also, the school was a “gun free zone”. What policy do you think would
Have a meaningful difference? Evidence?
 
Probably time to track ammo like they do OxyContin. Probably time to restrict the use of these weapons to the gun range.
Probably time to make it easier to remove mentally ill people from society for treatment and damage control purposes. Time for some real school safety measures aside from teaching kids how to run and hide.
Time for some moderate reasonably enforceable solutions… too bad that’s not what this country is about anymore. People want radical left or radical right agendas and are too quick to demonize the other side - the middle isn’t “cool” anymore. And it’ll be the downfall of our country.
 
Not an NRA member. Haven’t shot a gun in years. Done enough research to realize increased gun control doesn’t reduce gun deaths. See Washington DC and Chicago. Also, the school was a “gun free zone”. What policy do you think would
Have a meaningful difference? Evidence?

Increased gun control on a state level is pointless. It needs to be federal.

Want evidence? Look at gun deaths in nearly every other developed country compared to the US. Less guns = less deaths. Yes, it’s that’s simple.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?noredirect=on

There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms. US population roughly 300 million. 0.0001% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. 75% of those are suicide. 5% are from law enforcement.

Gun deaths (outside suicidal and law enforcement) is really 5,000 ish or 0.00001% of population.

4X as many criminal deaths per year from knives vs rifles (“ARs”) - data from FBI

“Assault rifle” regulation really isn’t the answer to gun related deaths.
 
Last edited:
Here’s the part I’ve never understood - though your research/data suggests increased gun control may not reduce gun violence (which is debatable, since there is plenty of evidence to show it will) — isn’t it worth at least trying? And if there truly is no difference at all in gun violence over a couple years, then repeal whatever laws are enacted? How many more children need to be slaughtered before we try something rather than just shrugging our shoulders?
 
He got his guns legally. Would stricter background checks have prevented this? I don't know. If someone wants to get ahold of a gun for nefarious purposes I'm sure somehow or another they would be able to do it. I don't agree with the 2nd ammendment and I don't like thr GOP and NRA agenda. But The cat is out of the bag. There are already too many weapons out in the public.
 
Personally, I've had enough. If we can create an entirely new government agency and directly impact the cost, time, hassle of air travel, AND loss of personal freedom with the aforementioned agency being completely ineffective across MULTIPLE studies because of ONE serious attack, then we can do something about gun control and the ability of deranged individuals to acquire firearms.
 
Not an NRA member. Haven’t shot a gun in years. Done enough research to realize increased gun control doesn’t reduce gun deaths. See Washington DC and Chicago. Also, the school was a “gun free zone”. What policy do you think would
Have a meaningful difference? Evidence?
Australia. 1 mass shooting. Got rid of guns. No more mass shootings.
 
There really just isn’t a valid counter argument here. Every other developed country regulates guns, especially high capacity rifles. Every other country doesn’t have mass shootings like we do even adjusted for population.

Yes, you can kill people with a knife or a handgun or your fists. But slowly, fewer of them; and less effectively. Yes high capacity rifle regulation won’t stop gun death. But it will reduce it, and over time likely dramatically. A handgun wound and a high powered rifle wound just aren’t the same thing. The pistol bullet destroys what is in its path. Unless it hits your heart, brain, or a great vessel you’ll probably live. The rifle bullet destroys what is in its path and everything around it, like a goddamn bomb went off (source: operating in trauma surgery). That’s why sometimes you hear news of “5 people shot, one dead” versus “24 people shot, 18 dead”. Bigger magazines, more range, more accuracy, deadlier bullets. There is a reason our soldiers carry rifles and not handguns as a primary weapon. There is no reasonable justification for it.
 




Unlike politicians physicians use data to come up with decisions.
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?noredirect=on

There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms. US population roughly 300 million. 0.0001% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. 75% of those are suicide. 5% are from law enforcement.

Gun deaths (outside suicidal and law enforcement) is really 5,000 ish or 0.00001% of population.

4X as many criminal deaths per year from knives vs rifles (“ARs”) - data from FBI

“Assault rifle” regulation really isn’t the answer to gun related deaths.
Your math is off, mate.

30,000/300 million is 0.0001, which is 0.01%. You incorrectly converted to a percentage. 0.01% is a relatively large number, especially considering how hard many of us work and successfully save 95 out of every 100 gsw victims we see in our trauma bays
 
Your math is off, mate.

30,000/300 million is 0.0001, which is 0.01%. You incorrectly converted to a percentage. 0.01% is a relatively large number, especially considering how hard many of us work and successfully save 95 out of every 100 gsw victims we see in our trauma bays
You’re right. After suicide and law enforcement, 5,000 gun deaths per 300 million is 0.001% chance of gun related death. Look further and you’ll see nearly 50% of that 5,000 are gang related deaths in 4 cities (Detroit, Chicago, St Louis and Baltimore). So for the average non-gang member American, it’s even lower.
 
Last edited:
There really just isn’t a valid counter argument here. Every other developed country regulates guns, especially high capacity rifles. Every other country doesn’t have mass shootings like we do even adjusted for population.

Yes, you can kill people with a knife or a handgun or your fists. But slowly, fewer of them; and less effectively. Yes high capacity rifle regulation won’t stop gun death. But it will reduce it, and over time likely dramatically. A handgun wound and a high powered rifle wound just aren’t the same thing. The pistol bullet destroys what is in its path. Unless it hits your heart, brain, or a great vessel you’ll probably live. The rifle bullet destroys what is in its path and everything around it, like a goddamn bomb went off (source: operating in trauma surgery). That’s why sometimes you hear news of “5 people shot, one dead” versus “24 people shot, 18 dead”. Bigger magazines, more range, more accuracy, deadlier bullets. There is a reason our soldiers carry rifles and not handguns as a primary weapon. There is no reasonable justification for it.

There appears a morbid glory for certain deranged individuals to kill a large number of innocents before going out in a flame of glory either self inflicted or in a shootout with police. That was the intent in Columbine and it’s been carried forward ever since. It’s even worse when you consider at some point killing kids in a classroom became part of it.

Consider how easy it is for just about any American to buy an AR, ammunition, high capacity magazines, and a ballistics jacket. The recipe is there - just insert crazy person. It’s pure lunacy.

I honestly believe that if we cared enough we could find a way to thwart this without infringing on the ability to form a goddamn militia. But a very large portion of the country isn’t interested, believing if an inch is given the other side takes a mile. So kids will continue to get killed in classrooms.

I believe if we stopped it a few times, or increased regulations and made it more difficult to acquire these types of weapons, it’d hopefully snowball and stop. But we have to find a way as a country. It’s our kids going to school for Christ sake.
 
He got his guns legally. Would stricter background checks have prevented this? I don't know. If someone wants to get ahold of a gun for nefarious purposes I'm sure somehow or another they would be able to do it. I don't agree with the 2nd ammendment and I don't like thr GOP and NRA agenda. But The cat is out of the bag. There are already too many weapons out in the public.
This

We've past the point of no return. Too many guns.
 
Relax. I am just inoculating the board against piety with a small aliquot of “Jesus”. This one simulates what an Evangelical Christian would say. You can also add in variations to it like suggesting that the school was part of a child sex trafficking ring if you want to make it more appealing to the MAGA/QANON sub demographic.

C’mon man. Are you even American? I highly doubt it. If you were, you’d already be habituated to being accosted by ******ed boomer zealots with similar inane drivel.
 
Seriously sad and feel for all the families. But I think there will always be people that want to hurt others and they will find a way to do it.
Is it just there is something fundamentally wrong with Americans that kids are getting murdered in schools with guns on a pretty regular basis? (I’m not going to even bring up other gun deaths and mass shootings).

Why doesn’t this happen regularly in other country’s schools if people will always find a way?

It’s sad that we’re just numb to this and think there are no solutions.
 
This

We've past the point of no return. Too many guns.
Only solution is to have more guns:


I find it interesting how at the NRA convention, guns are not allowed inside… I guess maybe they do understand that guns are dangerous but only around them?

 
Last edited:
common sense gun laws
no one needs assault rifles.
it's comical to see how politicians response to gun violence is more guns! let's arm teachers! maybe let's arm grocery cashiers and pastors too! you get a rifle, you get a rifle, you get a rifle!

i'm going to start giving advice to people regarding hangovers. "oh massive hangover preventing you from working straight on monday because of your weekend bender? you should just quit your job and keep drinking !"

also crazy how these politicians fight more to keep gun rights than to keep women's rights over their own bodies too lol
 
At this point I just want congress to do something. Anything. Lock them in their chambers until they can agree on some sort of bill. Want to arm teachers? I think it’s ridiculous but if that’s the route you want to go then figure out funding and training and pay teachers double what they are making now.

Visiting my parents’ this week and of course they have to see what Tucker Carlson has to say about it. He says that now is not the time to push liberal agenda. If nearly 20 elementary students being killed with a legally obtained gun isn’t the time to take about it, then when should we talk about it? Because we somehow went 10 years after Sandy Hook without talking about it
 
At this point I just want congress to do something. Anything. Lock them in their chambers until they can agree on some sort of bill. Want to arm teachers? I think it’s ridiculous but if that’s the route you want to go then figure out funding and training and pay teachers double what they are making now.

Visiting my parents’ this week and of course they have to see what Tucker Carlson has to say about it. He says that now is not the time to push liberal agenda. If nearly 20 elementary students being killed with a legally obtained gun isn’t the time to take about it, then when should we talk about it? Because we somehow went 10 years after Sandy Hook without talking about it


We talked plenty but didn’t do anything else.
 
common sense gun laws
no one needs assault rifles.
it's comical to see how politicians response to gun violence is more guns! let's arm teachers! maybe let's arm grocery cashiers and pastors too! you get a rifle, you get a rifle, you get a rifle!

i'm going to start giving advice to people regarding hangovers. "oh massive hangover preventing you from working straight on monday because of your weekend bender? you should just quit your job and keep drinking !"

also crazy how these politicians fight more to keep gun rights than to keep women's rights over their own bodies too lol
Approx 80 million Americans own guns. There are around 100 million rifles in the USA. Rifles kill approx 400 people per year and you think it’s common sense to take away all 100 million rifles? Ok...
 
Approx 80 million Americans own guns. There are around 100 million rifles in the USA. Rifles kill approx 400 people per year and you think it’s common sense to take away all 100 million rifles? Ok...
Looks like 19 of those are innocent children this year. 19 families forever afflicted. May be a small number to you but this may have not happened if access to assault rifles are changed. Point is.. something needs to be done. At least try...
 
Visiting my parents’ this week and of course they have to see what Tucker Carlson has to say about it.

Let me save you the trouble.

"The time for politics is later, let the families mourn."

"Guns don't kill people, people do."

"It's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem"

"This wouldn't have happened if we had guns in schools."

"Immigrants."

"This tragedy just shows how precious the gift of life is... so ban abortions."
 
Let me save you the trouble.

"The time for politics is later, let the families mourn."

"Guns don't kill people, people do."

"It's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem"

"This wouldn't have happened if we had guns in schools."

"Immigrants."

"This tragedy just shows how precious the gift of life is... so ban abortions."

Only a good kid with a gun can stop a bad kid with a gun.
 
It's kind of hilarious the fascination these people have with guns. They almost view it as when they are sexually aroused and blood rushes and engorge. A gun to them is a direct extension of their phallus. Don't get me wrong, I've seen some gun channels on youtube (demolition ranch) for example, and guns themselves are cool technologically wise, but would I be okay with if they decided to ban buying ARs, or even raising the age to buy a gun to say 25 at the very least, of course.

It must be commended that the NRA are so politically active, though. They literally track when people talk about guns in congress/senate etc. and will have people go and sit in them. I don't think people that are against guns do the same.
 
1653512105786.jpeg
 
It's kind of hilarious the fascination these people have with guns. They almost view it as when they are sexually aroused and blood rushes and engorge. A gun to them is a direct extension of their phallus. Don't get me wrong, I've seen some gun channels on youtube (demolition ranch) for example, and guns themselves are cool technologically wise, but would I be okay with if they decided to ban buying ARs, or even raising the age to buy a gun to say 25 at the very least, of course.

It must be commended that the NRA are so politically active, though. They literally track when people talk about guns in congress/senate etc. and will have people go and sit in them. I don't think people that are against guns do the same.


If only the ASAPAC was as well funded and effective as the NRA.
 
Approx 80 million Americans own guns. There are around 100 million rifles in the USA. Rifles kill approx 400 people per year and you think it’s common sense to take away all 100 million rifles? Ok...
Yup.

Because if they did that 30 years ago then a substantial number of those rifles would disappear over time through wear and tear, decrease in popularity and attrition.

Especially considering a good number of these cases involve people buying guys recently..I don't worry about the guy who has owned a rifle for 50 years. If he was going to kill a bunch of kids, he would've already done it.

The decision we make today is to affect the future generations. No need to arm a new generation of teenagers
 
From an historian. The politics of guns have changed substantially over the past 50 years and the NRA was a very different organization at one time.

“May 24, 2022​

Heather Cox Richardson
14 hr ago

1,390
480

Today, a gunman murdered at least 19 children and 2 adults at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.
For years now, after one massacre or another, I have written some version of the same article, explaining that the nation’s current gun free-for-all is not traditional but, rather, is a symptom of the takeover of our nation by a radical extremist minority. The idea that massacres are “the price of freedom,” as right-wing personality Bill O’Reilly said in 2017 after the Mandalay Bay massacre in Las Vegas, in which a gunman killed 60 people and wounded 411 others, is new, and it is about politics, not our history.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, on which modern-day arguments for widespread gun ownership rest, is one simple sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There’s not a lot to go on about what the Framers meant, although in their day, to “bear arms” meant to be part of an organized militia.
As the Tennessee Supreme Court wrote in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
Today’s insistence that the Second Amendment gives individuals a broad right to own guns comes from two places.
One is the establishment of the National Rifle Association in New York in 1871, in part to improve the marksmanship skills of American citizens who might be called on to fight in another war, and in part to promote in America the British sport of elite shooting, complete with hefty cash prizes in newly organized tournaments. Just a decade after the Civil War, veterans jumped at the chance to hone their former skills. Rifle clubs sprang up across the nation.
By the 1920s, rifle shooting was a popular American sport. “Riflemen” competed in the Olympics, in colleges, and in local, state, and national tournaments organized by the NRA. Being a good marksman was a source of pride, mentioned in public biographies, like being a good golfer. In 1925, when the secretary of the NRA apparently took money from ammunition and arms manufacturers, the organization tossed him out and sued him.
NRA officers insisted on the right of citizens to own rifles and handguns but worked hard to distinguish between law-abiding citizens who should have access to guns for hunting and target shooting and protection, and criminals and mentally ill people, who should not. In 1931, amid fears of bootlegger gangs, the NRA backed federal legislation to limit concealed weapons; prevent possession by criminals, the mentally ill and children; to require all dealers to be licensed; and to require background checks before delivery. It backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act, designed to stop what seemed to be America’s hurtle toward violence in that turbulent decade.
But in the mid-1970s, a faction in the NRA forced the organization away from sports and toward opposing “gun control.” It formed a political action committee (PAC) in 1975, and two years later it elected an organization president who abandoned sporting culture and focused instead on “gun rights.”
This was the second thing that led us to where we are today: leaders of the NRA embraced the politics of Movement Conservatism, the political movement that rose to combat the business regulations and social welfare programs that both Democrats and Republicans embraced after World War II. Movement Conservatives embraced the myth of the American cowboy as a white man standing against the “socialism” of the federal government as it sought to level the economic playing field between Black Americans and their white neighbors. Leaders like Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater personified the American cowboy, with his cowboy hat and opposition to government regulation, while television Westerns showed good guys putting down bad guys without the interference of the government.
In 1972, the Republican platform had called for gun control to restrict the sale of “cheap handguns,” but in 1975, as he geared up to challenge President Gerald R. Ford for the 1976 presidential nomination, Movement Conservative hero Ronald Reagan took a stand against gun control. In 1980, the Republican platform opposed the federal registration of firearms, and the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate—Reagan—for the first time.
When President Reagan took office, a new American era, dominated by Movement Conservatives, began. And the power of the NRA over American politics grew.
In 1981 a gunman trying to kill Reagan shot and paralyzed his press secretary, James Brady, and wounded Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and police officer Thomas Delahanty. After the shooting, then-representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation that became known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or the Brady Bill, to require background checks before gun purchases. Reagan, who was a member of the NRA, endorsed the bill, but the NRA spent millions of dollars to defeat it.
After the Brady Bill passed in 1993, the NRA paid for lawsuits in nine states to strike it down. Until 1959, every single legal article on the Second Amendment concluded that it was not intended to guarantee individuals the right to own a gun. But in the 1970s, legal scholars funded by the NRA had begun to argue that the Second Amendment did exactly that.
In 1997, when the Brady Bill cases came before the Supreme Court as Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court declared parts of the measure unconstitutional.
Now a player in national politics, the NRA was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers. By 2000 it was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election. In that year, the landmark Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller struck down gun regulations and declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
Increasingly, NRA money backed Republican candidates. In 2012 the NRA spent $9 million in the presidential election, and in 2014 it spent $13 million. Then, in 2016, it spent over $50 million on Republican candidates, including more than $30 million on Trump’s effort to win the White House. This money was vital to Trump, since many other Republican super PACs refused to back him. The NRA spent more money on Trump than any other outside group, including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million.
The unfettered right to own and carry weapons has come to symbolize the Republican Party’s ideology of individual liberty. Lawmakers and activists have not been able to overcome Republican insistence on gun rights despite the mass shootings that have risen since their new emphasis on guns. Even though 90% of Americans—including nearly 74% of NRA members—support background checks, Republicans have killed such legislation by filibustering it.
The NRA will hold its 2022 annual meeting this Friday in Houston. Former president Trump will speak, along with Texas governor Greg Abbott, senator Ted Cruz, and representative Dan Crenshaw; North Carolina lieutenant governor Mark Robinson; and South Dakota governor Kristi Noem—all Republicans. NRA executive vice president and chief executive officer Wayne LaPierre expressed his enthusiasm for the lineup by saying: “President Trump delivered on his promises by appointing judges who respect and value the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and in doing so helped ensure the freedom of generations of Americans.”
Tonight, President Joe Biden spoke to the nation: “Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?... It’s time to turn this pain into action. For every parent, for every citizen in this country, we have to make it clear to every elected official in this country, it’s time to act.” In the Senate, Chris Murphy (D-CT) said, "I am here on this floor, to beg, to literally get down on my hands and knees and beg my colleagues....find a way to pass laws that make this less likely."
But it was Steve Kerr, the coach of the Golden State Warriors basketball team, whose father was murdered by gunmen in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1984, who best expressed the outrage of the nation. At a press conference tonight, shaking, he said, “I’m not going to talk about basketball…. Any basketball questions don’t matter…. Fourteen children were killed 400 miles from here, and a teacher, and in the last ten days we’ve had elderly Black people killed in a supermarket in Buffalo, we’ve had Asian churchgoers killed in Southern California, and now we have children murdered at school. WHEN ARE WE GONNA DO SOMETHING? I’m tired, I’m so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the devastated families…. I’m tired of the moments of silence. Enough. There’s 50 senators…who refuse to vote on HR 8, which is a background check rule that the House passed a couple years ago…. [N]inety percent of Americans, regardless of political party, want…universal background checks…. We are being held hostage by 50 senators in Washington who refuse to even put it to a vote despite what we the American people want…because they want to hold onto their own power. It’s pathetic,” he said, walking out of the press conference.
“I’ve had enough.”


 
Personally, I've had enough. If we can create an entirely new government agency and directly impact the cost, time, hassle of air travel, AND loss of personal freedom with the aforementioned agency being completely ineffective across MULTIPLE studies because of ONE serious attack, then we can do something about gun control and the ability of deranged individuals to acquire firearms.
Preach on brother.
Was that done because they were foreign Muslims and not our own US people I wonder. Because when it’s one of us doing it, the government doesn’t do a thing but pray.
How many people died on 9/11? How many have died since because of easy access to guns?
 
We talked plenty but didn’t do anything else.

We talked for a couple weeks. Then the typical BS drowned us out. The nonsense about ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ or ‘arm the teachers!!!’ or ‘arm everyone, a bystander will save the day’. We fell silent knowing the NRA lobbyists ruled the day.

We lit candles, we cried, and worst of all, we moved on and it moved to the back of our minds. We went on with our lives. None of the families did though. Stuck in a day forever where they lost their child. So sick man.

Yeah. We talked. For a few weeks. That asshat Tucker has done all the talking between then and now.
 
Personally, I've had enough. If we can create an entirely new government agency and directly impact the cost, time, hassle of air travel, AND loss of personal freedom with the aforementioned agency being completely ineffective across MULTIPLE studies because of ONE serious attack, then we can do something about gun control and the ability of deranged individuals to acquire firearms.
I don’t have a dog in this fight but you can’t ignore the fact that the same people that run the “completely ineffective” agency would also be in charge of gun control.
 
Top