A Gun control solution - perhaps

[Vociferous]

As usual, you're uninformed about types of gun jams, namely a double-feed, that requires removing the mag to clear.

And as usual you didn't bother to actually read my post - the time it takes to reload was the issue, and reloading was a sufficient explanation for the event. Like this:

Nope, I've already shown you real world tests of how much time it takes to change a mag, here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-gun-control-solution-perhaps.160629/page-26#post-3516828
It is not sufficient time to realize there's an opportunity and act. So you either ignored that demonstration or you're lying.

That's what my argument depended on. It was a response to people here who claimed that reload time is too short to matter. (Usually the same people who insist on their need for large magazines, because reload times are critical).
As far as whether it was a reload or a jam, Fox News is the only source I've found that reported it as a jam only, without caveat. But not everything Fox says is false - maybe they were right. Irrelevant to my argument either way.

If your argument relied on reload time, then you were just wrong. It is too short for a prepared shooter, but not for an unsuspecting defender who is likely under more stress.
I've already quoted the guy who stopped the shooter admitting he didn't know if is was a reload or a jam, here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-gun-control-solution-perhaps.160629/page-26#post-3516863

You post things like that a lot. You never check. You're always wrong, but you carefully never find out.

You make a lot of noise, and few supported arguments. Oo, oo, oo!

Tell that to the people who buy it for that reason: https://moderncombatandsurvival.com...eapons/best-ar-15-modifications-home-defense/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html
https://www.elites2llc.com/product-page/bump-stock-for-ar-15-bump-fire-systems
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...on-minute-geissele-ar-15-rapid-fire-trigger-/

Or, safer, realize that your problem there was poor reading comprehension in the first place - you got my argument backwards somehow - and maintain dignity in silence.

Modular design isn't the same as "designed to be modified" for "rapid fire."
That something can be done doesn't mean the platform was designed to do so. Just ask the California politicians who keep being thwarted by Ar-15 innovations.
Again, you're hoisted by your own ignorance.

Nobody did. What somebody did was argue that they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves against a charging grizzly.

Who? Where? In a "legal challenge?"

 

[sculptor]

green jacket
any idea what kind of jacket?

 

[iceaura]

Modular design isn't the same as "designed to be modified" for "rapid fire."

So?
The AR -15 and eqs was and is designed to be easily modified for even more rapid fire than the restrictable stock configuration. It has been advertised as such - much as it has been advertised as an assault rifle, etc.

Nope, I've already shown you real world tests of how much time it takes to change a mag,

And they support my contentions.

It is not sufficient time to realize there's an opportunity and act.

In ordinary hands, it is. It has been.

I've already quoted the guy who stopped the shooter admitting he didn't know if is was a reload or a jam,

And somehow you thought that was relevant - brain glitch?

Who? Where? In a "legal challenge?"

Late to these threads, and didn't bother catching up. Not the first time.

A clear majority of Americans would prefer a world with magazine size restrictions and universal background checks. It's coming. Question is: who's going to write these new laws? The bothsides jamb will break or be bypassed - somebody's going to be isolated.

 

[Vociferous]

So?
The AR -15 and eqs was and is designed to be easily modified for even more rapid fire than the restrictable stock configuration. It has been advertised as such - much as it has been advertised as an assault rifle, etc.

Again, it wasn't "designed to be easily modified for even more rapid fire", nor have you shown any AR advertised as an "assault rifle."
You just keep polishing those turds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Modularity

And they support my contentions.

No, they don't.

In ordinary hands, it is. It has been.

When and where?
Reloading a shotgun, which has each shell loaded individually? https://thinkprogress.org/seattle-s...-a-limited-amount-of-ammunition-e647ee2ce0c2/
An old woman who grabbed a spare mag, after the guy had already been tackled? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pat...s-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933

And somehow you thought that was relevant - brain glitch?

That, and the demonstrated real-world opportunity during reloads.

Late to these threads, and didn't bother catching up. Not the first time.

So, you don't know. Got it.

A clear majority of Americans would prefer a world with magazine size restrictions and universal background checks. It's coming. Question is: who's going to write these new laws? The bothsides jamb will break or be bypassed - somebody's going to be isolated.

Again, universal background checks would either be a de facto nationwide gun registry or require one to enforce. Otherwise the records are, as it currently stands, destroyed after a very short retention period.

A gun with a larger than usual capacity magazine is in theory somewhat more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine (a common size for most semiautomatic handguns), but in practice nearly all shootings, including criminal ones, use many fewer rounds than that. And mass shootings, in which more rounds are fired, usually progress over the span of several minutes or more. Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few seconds, a mass murderer — especially one armed with a backup gun — would hardly be stymied by the magazine size limit. It’s thus hard to see large magazines as materially more dangerous than magazines of normal size.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rounds-constitutional/?utm_term=.51db4fd2d12a​

Getting these things in individual states is one thing, but such federal laws would run afoul the Tenth Amendment.

 

[iceaura]

Again, it wasn't "designed to be easily modified for even more rapid fire", nor have you shown any AR advertised as an "assault rifle."

They were and still are set up to be "customized", as advertised, and you can run your own netsearch on these sky-is-blue claims. That tactic gets old.

And they support my contentions.
No, they don't.

They do. If you aren't going to think for yourself, you'll just have to trust me.

When and where?

At the Waffle House, for starters. Remember that was the initial context here? Right in front of you.
Or here, for another you have seen recently:

the Jared Loughner killings, according to press accounts, were stopped when Loughner stopped to reload and was tackled by several people.

back to the trollmines

Late to these threads, and didn't bother catching up. Not the first time.
So, you don't know. Got it.

You appear to be assuming people are going to credit you with posting like that on purpose, as cleverness. I'm beginning to wonder - ALOS.

Again, universal background checks would either be a de facto nationwide gun registry or require one to enforce.

Nonsense. You keep repeating that crap like you haven't even thought about it - what for?

A gun with a larger than usual capacity magazine is in theory somewhat more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine (a common size for most semiautomatic handguns), but in practice nearly all shootings, including criminal ones, use many fewer rounds than that.

Exactly. Hold that thought. In practice, ten rounds is plenty.
Except for this one situation:

And mass shootings, in which more rounds are fired, usually progress over the span of several minutes or more. Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few seconds, a mass murderer — especially one armed with a backup gun — would hardly be stymied by the magazine size limit.

For some reason this author is requiring that the mass shooter be "stymied", rather than merely slowed and inconvenienced and made occasionally vulnerable while giving his targets a break. Any idea why?

 

[Neddy Bate]

The time it took to change a magazine is what allowed the intervention.

That's what my argument depended on. It was a response to people here who claimed that reload time is too short to matter. (Usually the same people who insist on their need for large magazines, because reload times are critical).

That is a good point. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

I guess they are arguing that a restriction on magazine size would only result in the burden of law abiding gun owners to have to carry multiple magazines, and would have no effect on the outcome of most mass shootings.

But there have been some compelling examples where the time it took to change a magazine is what allowed intervention, and very few compelling reasons to want to carry a 30 or 50 round magazine. So a restriction does make some sense.

With that being said, I would still detest losing any of our precious few remaining freedoms to government restriction, as I believe that we have already lost too many, (war on drugs, FOSTA/SESTA, etc.) Once lost, freedoms are rarely returned to the citizens.

 

[sculptor]

... Once lost, freedoms are rarely returned to the citizens.

Amen.

 

[Vociferous]

Again, it wasn't "designed to be easily modified for even more rapid fire", nor have you shown any AR advertised as an "assault rifle."

They were and still are set up to be "customized", as advertised, and you can run your own netsearch on these sky-is-blue claims. That tactic gets old.

The word is "modular", which was designed for easy repairs.
And do your own homework. You're the one who claimed AR-15s were advertised as "assault rifles", so it's your burden to support that claim. But we all know you can't.

They do. If you aren't going to think for yourself, you'll just have to trust me.

The real-world demonstrations I posted prove you either lazy, ignorant, or lying.
We're not trusting your substitution for demonstrated reality.

At the Waffle House, for starters. Remember that was the initial context here? Right in front of you.

You can't know that, as even the guy who stopped him said he didn't know.

Or here, for another you have seen recently:

the Jared Loughner killings, according to press accounts, were stopped when Loughner stopped to reload and was tackled by several people.

Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury. Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel who had also been shot himself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting#Shooting​

Fumbled reload, not typical, and surrounded by enough bystanders to take advantage.

You appear to be assuming people are going to credit you with posting like that on purpose, as cleverness. I'm beginning to wonder - ALOS.

Why, is that why you post the way you do? Quit projecting.
"ALOS?" Average length of stay?

Nonsense. You keep repeating that crap like you haven't even thought about it - what for?

No, it's fairly obvious that you haven't thought about it.
For example, do you expect the government to keep records of every gun sold? For how long?
What good are universal background checks if no one knows which gun sales went through one?
Sounds like you're just aping leftist talking points without any comprehension.

For some reason this author is requiring that the mass shooter be "stymied", rather than merely slowed and inconvenienced and made occasionally vulnerable while giving his targets a break. Any idea why?

Stymied - prevent or hinder the progress of.

 

[iceaura]

Fumbled reload, not typical, and surrounded by enough bystanders to take advantage.

The common circumstance - screwup. The skilled professionals are not going to be hampered much by such standard gun control - but they aren't our main concern.

The word is "modular", which was designed for easy repairs.

The word was "modified" - in particular, easily modified for high rate of fire and large magazines and so forth.

You're the one who claimed AR-15s were advertised as "assault rifles", so it's your burden to support that claim.

Demanding support for sky-is-blue observation is a rhetorical tactic, and it's too common. You guys do that a lot, demanding exhaustive evidence of stuff everybody knows just to avoid the actual issues and deflect attention from your latest dumbassery, and it's something that frankly should be moderated on a science forum. There's no damn excuse for that kind of shitbrained harassment of other people's honest posting.
Fuck you, here's the first two from the first page of a ten second Google search, which is all the time I'm going to waste - one historical, as expected and claimed, the second kind of surprised me by being right now - I had assumed they'd all switched over to "tactical" years ago:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Mail_order_assault_rifles_NO_FFL_required/5-1232311/
http://www.proguns.com/assaultrifles.asp
For those too lazy to click on my other links either:

AR 15 Assault Rifles For Sale At ProGuns.com

For example, do you expect the government to keep records of every gun sold? For how long?

As posted to you several times before: The background check (in my advocacy) would not even be a record of a sale, necessarily. No registry of the firearms themselves is necessary or indicated or proposed, by me.

You can't know that, as even the guy who stopped him said he didn't know.

Pay attention: The time required to reload is the claim. And I do know that. That is in the established record of the event.
The guy who stopped him said he moved when he got a break, heard a pause - that is, the time required for the unskilled and frenetic to reload. It doesn't matter why he got the break - getting the break saved many lives.
Meanwhile, two eyewitnesses said he had paused to reload. The number of shots fired indicated a smaller magazine would have run out or been close to it. He was carrying extra magazines, apparently small ones (jacket pocket). And the only major media source I could find that said his gun jammed was Fox News - everybody else said "reload", probably because that's what the witnesses said. They could be wrong, of course - they probably didn't know the difference. But it doesn't matter, right?
The time is the claim. Read the posting. The time. The break. The interval. The chance the bystander had and took. It's not a complicated or subtle matter, eh?

Stymied - prevent or hinder the progress of.

With the connotation of prevent, stopped and frustrated however temporarily, yes.
The wrong word, in other words.

What good are universal background checks if no one knows which gun sales went through one?

To repeat - just for you - for the fifth, sixth, who knows how many, time:
They would know which gun transfers that led to mishap or crime did not go through one.
Just as with all the other similar laws - drugs, booze, tobacco, even cars and houses and such.
Ordinary law enforcement. It does make a difference. It's a good idea, and most people agree about that.
The very significant majority agree. Eventually, the law will come - you can help write it, or not. Your choice.

 

[Vociferous]

Fumbled reload, not typical, and surrounded by enough bystanders to take advantage.

The common circumstance - screwup. The skilled professionals are not going to be hampered much by such standard gun control - but they aren't our main concern.

No, just means your making a special pleading with one incident as anecdote.

The word was "modified" - in particular, easily modified for high rate of fire and large magazines and so forth.

It wasn't "designed" to be modified, so the rest of your bare assertion is nonsense.

Demanding support for sky-is-blue observation is a rhetorical tactic, and it's too common. You guys do that a lot, demanding exhaustive evidence of stuff everybody knows just to avoid the actual issues and deflect attention from your latest dumbassery, and it's something that frankly should be moderated on a science forum. There's no damn excuse for that kind of shitbrained harassment of other people's honest posting.
Fuck you, here's the first two from the first page of a ten second Google search, which is all the time I'm going to waste - one historical, as expected and claimed, the second kind of surprised me by being right now - I had assumed they'd all switched over to "tactical" years ago:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Mail_order_assault_rifles_NO_FFL_required/5-1232311/
http://www.proguns.com/assaultrifles.asp
For those too lazy to click on my other links either:

Maybe you're actually frustrated at being constantly asked to support your own claims (from people who do not live in your partisan bubble).
Or maybe you just hope it will distract from your original claim, that you now seem to be backpedaling on:

Btw: note the slippery rhetoric in the descriptions of the two rifles in #408. For example: "Semi automatic but for some reason is commonly called an assault rifle". "For some reason"? As you must know, because you are calling other people ignorant, the reason that thing is called an "assault rifle" is that it was marketed as such, labeled an "assault rifle" by the sales and advertising departments of its manufacturers - that was before the too common nature of the kinds of assaults too many of its buyers had in mind became part of the ugly common knowledge of our day.

It was "assault" then, it's "tactical" now. I don't know why - maybe "assault" has bad connotations, for some reason, maybe the superiority of "tactical" won out. But you can hardly blame people for using the same terms the manufacturers used to describe things.

A "remembered" forum post and an ignorant web store (whose About US says they're a local store in Wisconsin and their Contact US says they're a "Market Direct Group" in Florida) are hardly credible, much less speak to anything "in the historical record (#508)" or "manufacturers."

As posted to you several times before: The background check (in my advocacy) would not even be a record of a sale, necessarily. No registry of the firearms themselves is necessary or indicated or proposed, by me.

Then again:

"What good are universal background checks if no one knows which gun sales went through one?"​

Is it just a panacea and means for a later slippery slope?

Pay attention: The time required to reload is the claim. And I do know that. That is in the established record of the event.
The guy who stopped him said he moved when he got a break, heard a pause - that is, the time required for the unskilled and frenetic to reload. It doesn't matter why he got the break - getting the break saved many lives.

I've already quoted the guy who stopped him saying he didn't know the cause of the opening.
You're simply lying when you claim you know.

Meanwhile, two eyewitnesses said he had paused to reload. The number of shots fired indicated a smaller magazine would have run out or been close to it. He was carrying extra magazines, apparently small ones (jacket pocket). And the only major media source I could find that said his gun jammed was Fox News - everybody else said "reload", probably because that's what the witnesses said. They could be wrong, of course - they probably didn't know the difference. But it doesn't matter, right?
The time is the claim. Read the posting. The time. The break. The interval. The chance the bystander had and took. It's not a complicated or subtle matter, eh?

You keep claiming things about witnesses you never cite. I wonder why.

When he looked inside the restaurant he said he saw another man wrestle the gun away from the suspect and throw it behind the counter. He echoed the police, calling that man a hero.

"He really saved some people I'm positive he did," Cordero said. "Had that guy had a chance to reload his weapon, there was plenty more people in that restaurant."
https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...-witness-describes-scene-nashville/540105002/

Maybe you just couldn't parse that he didn't see him try to reload, only that he didn't have a chance to. Can't find your other eyewitness. Likely just another comprehension failing on your part. Haven't seen any details on magazine size, so that sounds like more baseless assumptions from you.
The point is that magazine size does not guarantee an opportunity to stop a shooter.

With the connotation of prevent, stopped and frustrated however temporarily, yes.
The wrong word, in other words.

connotation - an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.
Yes, your subjective feeling of what the word invokes, as opposed to the literal meaning. Seems we've have that discussion before.

To repeat - just for you - for the fifth, sixth, who knows how many, time:
They would know which gun transfers that led to mishap or crime did not go through one.
Just as with all the other similar laws - drugs, booze, tobacco, even cars and houses and such.
Ordinary law enforcement. It does make a difference. It's a good idea, and most people agree about that.
The very significant majority agree. Eventually, the law will come - you can help write it, or not. Your choice.

How would they know "which guns...did not go through one"? You just said:

The background check (in my advocacy) would not even be a record of a sale, necessarily. No registry of the firearms themselves is necessary or indicated or proposed, by me.

How would they know without "even be a record of a sale" or registry?
You keep making vague claims about what "ordinary law enforcement" can do, apparently based on watching too much CSI.

 

[iceaura]

connotation - an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

Nope.

No, just means your making a special pleading with one incident as anecdote.

Three of four incidents referenced here, of many - any one of which is sufficient to dismiss your claim of magazine irrelevance.

How would they know "which guns...did not go through one"?

Not the gun, dummy - the buyer, owner, possessor, etc.
It's a law, like any other. It would be enforced just like all the other laws: testimony, witnesses, circumstances, observations, you know - evidence.

How would they know without "even be a record of a sale" or registry?

They would have an armed person come to their attention who was unable to pass a background check. So there's one crime. Then they would have the usual rigmarole of evidence gathering.

It wasn't "designed" to be modified

Yes, it was. And is.

I've already quoted the guy who stopped him saying he didn't know the cause of the opening.
You're simply lying when you claim you know.

Whether the guy knew or not is still irrelevant. I did not claim to know. The claim was the time, remember.

Or maybe you just hope it will distract from your original claim, that you now seem to be backpedaling

So we are in agreement that the AR-15 and eq has been marketed as an "assault rifle" for many years. We are agreed that that term - "assault rifle" - was not first applied to the AR-15 and eq by the anti-gun crowd, but by the pro-gun crowd.
In other words, your claim otherwise was wrong. That's for sure.
And you are now arguing over whether this term was used by manufacturers specifically, rather than merely their retail outlets, sellers and buyers and owners, and so forth. You are doubting this, and demanding evidence.

 

[Vociferous]

connotation - an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

Nope.

Well if you didn't know what that word meant when you used it, there's no reason to trust your claims on word usage.

Three of four incidents referenced here, of many - any one of which is sufficient to dismiss your claim of magazine irrelevance.

I've only seen the one. The only others I've found were unrelated, like shotguns.
And I don't believe you enough to run off on a fool's errand to hunt up your other supposed references. If you can't remember enough about them to google up a few links, I doubt they exist at all.

How would they know "which guns...did not go through one"?

Not the gun, dummy - the buyer, owner, possessor, etc.
It's a law, like any other. It would be enforced just like all the other laws: testimony, witnesses, circumstances, observations, you know - evidence.

So they would know how many guns you have, just not which guns they are? Still a de facto registry. Person or gun makes no effective difference.
And some vague "they could just CSI that shit" is not an argument.

How would they know without "even be a record of a sale" or registry?

They would have an armed person come to their attention who was unable to pass a background check. So there's one crime. Then they would have the usual rigmarole of evidence gathering.

Wait, so they can't currently find out if an armed person is unable to pass a background check?
How would universal background checks change the "evidence gathering"?

Yes, it was. And is.

Bare assertion, even though I've already shown otherwise.

Whether the guy knew or not is still irrelevant. I did not claim to know. The claim was the time, remember.

You're whole argument against high-capacity magazines rests on them being a factor in the opportunity to stop a gunman.
So yes, it is relevant. But you seem to be happy making policy out of ignorance. Just panacea?

The problem is that these larger than standard magazines often are unreliable and lack the mechanical design and R&D testing resources of a firearm manufacturer. With the larger number of cartridges, there is a higher chance that they will become misaligned before or during firing. As a result, these products are prone to jamming, rendering the firearm useless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine​

Maybe you should be arguing for high-capacity magazines.

So we are in agreement that the AR-15 and eq has been marketed as an "assault rifle" for many years. We are agreed that that term - "assault rifle" - was not first applied to the AR-15 and eq by the anti-gun crowd, but by the pro-gun crowd.
In other words, your claim otherwise was wrong. That's for sure.
And you are now arguing over whether this term was used by manufacturers specifically, rather than merely their retail outlets, sellers and buyers and owners, and so forth. You are doubting this, and demanding evidence.

Not by manufactures, as you claimed, and not for "many years" (unless you've backpedaled "historical" to some irrelevantly short past), since you've only shown one verifiable example.
Nor have you shown that that one example predates anti-gun usage of the term.

 

[iceaura]

You're whole argument against high-capacity magazines rests on them being a factor in the opportunity to stop a gunman.

Not my whole argument. Just one aspect of it.

Well if you didn't know what that word meant when you used it, there's no reason to trust your claims on word usage.

Everything you post after the word "if" is always bullshit.

I've only seen the one. The only others I've found were unrelated, like shotguns.

You've recently posted about two - Loughner and the Waffle House. Shotguns are of course related - slow to reload, short range, slow rate of fire, smaller magazines, less apt to punch through walls and such, much safer for the public - and quite the effective self defense weapon, no? The others are gone where everything you don't want to acknowledge goes - into vague claims of doubting people, as if your doubts were evidence of anything outside your head.

Wait, so they can't currently find out if an armed person is unable to pass a background check?

Why yes, they often can. See how this stuff works?

How would universal background checks change the "evidence gathering"?

It wouldn't.

So they would know how many guns you have, just not which guns they are? Still a de facto registry. Person or gun makes no effective difference.

Your continued confusion here is very strange. "They" would of course not know how many guns you have, or which ones they are, or even whether you have any at all.
- - - - - -

Nor have you shown that that one example predates anti-gun usage of the term.

I await your claim that the professional marketers and experienced owners and shooters of firearms picked up their vocabulary from the anti-gun crowd.

Not by manufactures, as you claimed, and not for "many years" (unless you've backpedaled "historical" to some irrelevantly short past), since you've only shown one verifiable example

Nobody but myself to blame for wasting those five minutes handing you blue sky links. I do know better.
Do you remember your original claim?

 

[Vociferous]

Not my whole argument. Just one aspect of it.

One that doesn't hold water unless you can show that reloading really helps stop active shooters.

Everything you post after the word "if" is always bullshit.

We all know you shouldn't be trying to use five dollar words.

You've recently posted about two - Loughner and the Waffle House. Shotguns are of course related - slow to reload, short range, slow rate of fire, smaller magazines, less apt to punch through walls and such, much safer for the public - and quite the effective self defense weapon, no? The others are gone where everything you don't want to acknowledge goes - into vague claims of doubting people, as if your doubts were evidence of anything outside your head.

Apparently you're unaware of shotgun slugs too.

Wait, so they can't currently find out if an armed person is unable to pass a background check?

Why yes, they often can. See how this stuff works?

Zing! I guess I should have tagged that as sarcasm.
Of course, anyone who knows guns/gun laws already knows it was. It just gets lost on the uninformed, like you.

It wouldn't.

Then remind me why you're advocating for it.

Your continued confusion here is very strange. "They" would of course not know how many guns you have, or which ones they are, or even whether you have any at all.

Again, remind me what universal background checks would do then.

I await your claim that the professional marketers and experienced owners and shooters of firearms picked up their vocabulary from the anti-gun crowd.

You haven't shown any evidence they have picked up anti-gun vocabulary.

Nobody but myself to blame for wasting those five minutes handing you blue sky links. I do know better.
Do you remember your original claim?

I do, and it seems you're either dishonest or completely ignorant of slippery slopes.

 

[iceaura]

One that doesn't hold water unless you can show that reloading really helps stop active shooters.

The length of the break involved has helped stop some active shooters, and slowed others, saving lives. As shown by examples easily found.

We all know you shouldn't be trying to use five dollar words.

And you shouldn't be using the word "if". You end up lost in the weeds every time.

Of course, anyone who knows guns/gun laws already knows it was. It just gets lost on the uninformed, like you.

Poe's Law, with you. You've said many similar things in perfect sincerity.
Meanwhile: If there is no universal background check, it doesn't matter what they would have passed.
Not lost, see - better understood.

Again, remind me what universal background checks would do then.

Hinder gun transfers to criminals, the officially unfit, and the mentally ill.
Align government policy with the expressed wishes and preferences of the citizenry.
Allow the more effective sorting of firearms by degree of hazard to the public and benefit to the possessor.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Can I ask you Vociferous, what gun law/regulation would you like to see repealed or otherwise removed from the nations legislature?

..and why?

and then if your up to it, answer the same question regards currently illegal drugs ( esp. opioids)

...and why?

( I believe the issue really at stake is the issue of "prohibition" and how superficially, historically, it has been shown to fail to achieve it's mandate.)

 

[billvon]

Good news for all concerned about gun violence, especially in schools! The lieutenant governor of Texas just explained why school shootings happen - and all you gun nuts will be happy to hear that guns have nothing to do with gun violence. What causes them are:

- Abortions. Because apparently this causes broken homes and children with no fathers. (Do NOT ask the obvious question here.)

- Violent video games. He didn't hit on the immoral lyrics in that rock-and-roll stuff, but we all know that's just because he didn't have time.

- Not enough guns. If more teachers had guns, then there would be no accidental shootings and potential assailants would be shot full of holes until they looked like Swiss cheese.

- Too many entrances. It's the fault of the doors, not the guns!

- Not enough Jesus in schools. Shooters come in because "we threw God out of school." And you can have one or the other.

So all we have to do is ban most doors, outlaw abortion, mandate school prayer, get rid of violent video games and lyrics, and get all teachers guns, and this gun violence problem (sorry, violence problem that uses guns but has nothing to do with guns) will go away once and for all.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Good news for all concerned about gun violence, especially in schools! The lieutenant governor of Texas just explained why school shootings happen - and all you gun nuts will be happy to hear that guns have nothing to do with gun violence. What causes them are:

- Abortions. Because apparently this causes broken homes and children with no fathers. (Do NOT ask the obvious question here.)

- Violent video games. He didn't hit on the immoral lyrics in that rock-and-roll stuff, but we all know that's just because he didn't have time.

- Not enough guns. If more teachers had guns, then there would be no accidental shootings and potential assailants would be shot full of holes until they looked like Swiss cheese.

- Too many entrances. It's the fault of the doors, not the guns!

- Not enough Jesus in schools. Shooters come in because "we threw God out of school." And you can have one or the other.

So all we have to do is ban most doors, outlaw abortion, mandate school prayer, get rid of violent video games and lyrics, and get all teachers guns, and this gun violence problem (sorry, violence problem that uses guns but has nothing to do with guns) will go away once and for all.

Rumor has it here that the new NRA CEO is blaming the ADHD drug Ritalin, even though there is no evidence of it's use in the shooter. Next they will blame vaccinations as the rooooot of all evil...

 

[billvon]

Rumor has it here that the new NRA CEO is blaming the ADHD drug Ritalin, even though there is no evidence of it's use in the shooter. Next they will blame vaccinations as the rooooot of all evil...

Ok good, so we are expanding the list. The politically correct causes of gun violence are now Ritalin, abortion, not enough Jesus, not enough guns, doors, and violent video games. But it has nothing to do with guns.

 

[iceaura]

The lieutenant governor of Texas just explained why school shootings happen

In the Texas system, the lieutenant governor has a lot of power - more, by many estimates, than the governor.

He probably could, in fact, mandate fewer entrances to schools. Ban doors.

Meanwhile, the NRA crowd will have run the string out a step too far eventually, and this might be the step. They had thirty years to negotiate in good faith with those of good faith, they bought their own hooey instead, and that window is speeding up; may be closing too fast for them to react. We're seeing a lot of this kind of conversion of liberals to hardline tactics: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a20747292/nra-guns-take-them-away/

And this is the context: the NRA leadership does not represent even a majority of its own membership any more, let alone a large fraction of the American public. The only thing their Republican alliance for control of the media can accomplish is framing the battle, not winning it - and they are in danger of doing that and then losing. Which means they could even, in the extreme (a bad series of school shootings in Texas and Oklahoma, say) lose the 2nd Amendment altogether, simply because they themselves framed it as that choice.