The 'Americans Getting Shot' Thread

[panama hat]

^ That’s an odd case. A transgender person the perp.

A victim of bullying would be a guess

Something can be done, the thing is nothing will be done more like.

True words.
I'd like to share Troy's optimism but this is a lost cause, especially because it is subject to the so-called bizarrely worded and abused 'right to bear arms' . . . without taking into consideration the 'well-regulated militia'.

[Headworx]

^^Your assuming people will forget or forgo their 2nd amendment rights multiple times there.

There so no plan, because it requires a constitutional change that will never get enough states.

Bingo. And that's only the first hurdle, albeit a large part of the can't be done logic.

However that does not preclude a ban on assault-style weapons which are the mass shooters weapon of choice.

Couple of points on the assault rifle topic: It really doesn't matter what the rifle looks like or if its a weapon of war, once you have a large calibre semi-automatic weapon in your hands you are in a position to do a lot of damage. In fact, in most cases you'd do more damage with a self loading single fire weapon shooting at moving targets than you would with a full-auto spray and pray weapon of war. Next problem, any semi-auto can be turned into a full-auto by a gunsmith or anyone with the right tools and access to YouTube instructional vids. And the final problem for now, nobody is calling for all semi-auto rifles to be banned.

[Norton]

And the final problem for now, nobody is calling for all semi-auto rifles to be banned.

Actually getting 20 million AR 15 like weapons out of circulation is the final problem.
The simple fact is no matter what changes are made in gun ownership these incidents will be common place. Not even news worthy anymore imo.

[Troy]

It's not a matter of banning AR-15s. It's a matter of making gun possession socially unacceptable.

[Troy]

^^Your assuming people will forget or forgo their 2nd amendment rights multiple times there.

Not sure if it does. Individual right to have a gun in the house has not been violated. The other rights, to carry in public on an individual basis, are subjective. Nothing prevents licence laws, training and renewed training, nor high taxes. More importantly, weapon manufacturer liabilities are not subject to second amendment.

[TizMe]

Actually getting 20 million AR 15 like weapons out of circulation is the final problem.
The simple fact is no matter what changes are made in gun ownership these incidents will be common place. Not even news worthy anymore imo.

The first action should be to stop the 20 million becoming 30 million.
At least ban the sale of new AR 15 like weapons.

Second action is a voluntary buy back of any that are already out there.

It wont eliminate them altogether, but surely a drop in numbers is a start.

[Stumpy]

Always top news for sure. As many know I had a lot of guns for various things, duck and goose hunting, Deer/pig, guns for upland game birds and a few for shooting at the range for fun. It's not the guns. It's how easy it is to get them. With 50 states the rules and requirements vary significantly. The wait period is far too short. There are no test requirements for new purchasers at all.

There has to be a federal standardized mandate for gun purchase. That's a simple start. It doesn't impede on one's right to bear arms, just means you can't get one with a quick form and limited back ground check.

Regardless the loss of young children to some shooter is unacceptable.

[Edmond]

Regardless the loss of young children to some shooter is unacceptable.

Understatement of the decade alert.

[harrybarracuda]

Regardless the loss of young children to some shooter is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, to many it is not.

[harrybarracuda]

it is subject to the so-called bizarrely worded and abused 'right to bear arms' . . . without taking into consideration the 'well-regulated militia'.

It has been taken into consideration by the SCOTUS who decided in District of Columbia vs Heller that the latter phrase effectively means fuck all. Sadly there is no higher body nor will to overrule them.

[harrybarracuda]

[Stumpy]

Unfortunately, to many it is not.

Agreed HB. The fact that any individual determines that the way to make a statement or vent their frustrations is go shoot a bunch of people is waaaaaay out there.

Lots of mentally ill people globally. I suspect it will only get worse.

[Troy]

It has been taken into consideration by the SCOTUS who decided in District of Columbia vs Heller that the latter phrase effectively means fuck all. Sadly there is no higher body nor will to overrule them.

I thought that ruled the right of an individual to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self defence at home
It did not give carte blanche to walk around with a firearm in public nor buy multiple weapons and masses of ammunition.

These rulings can also be overturned if they are thought to compromise the safety of society.

The NRA needs to be killed off, provide more funding to the opposing view. Remove immunity laws protecting gun manufacturers.

First and foremost, people need to stop being defeatist and resign themselves to believing nothing can be done.

[Headworx]

The first action should be to stop the 20 million becoming 30 million.

When those sort of numbers are being bantered about does it really even matter anyway? It would be like stopping motorbike sales in Thailand of anything over 400cc and thinking the current road toll carnage that's among the worst in the world would decrease, they can kill themselves and other innocent members of the public just as easily on a scooter or a Ducati.

If some magic wand could be waved to stop all American gun sales starting today there's still an estimated four to five hundred million firearms in circulation there, any one of which could have been used in the latest school shooting, so reducing that number dramatically would be obviously be required. There's no scenario I can even imagine where American people willingly or unwillingly disarm themselves, more so with those who definitely should not have guns in the first place, so that's about hurdle #125 on why this problem can't be fixed.

It's not a matter of banning AR-15s. It's a matter of making gun possession socially unacceptable.

You simply do not get it and I can only assume you've never spent any time there, especially in a State like Texas. A large percentage of Americans grew up with firearms being an everyday part of their lives, guns and the right to own/carry them is literally ingrained into their culture and protected by the constitution. If events like regular school deaths and mass shootings (647 last year) don't make guns socially unacceptable to the masses, do you really think any other methods will make them suddenly want to disarm themselves? Hurdle #374 is guns are socially acceptable there by the majority.

[misskit]

^^ The NRA seems to be shrinking from lack of new members over the last few years. This doesn’t mean people are buying fewer guns but maybe the NRA will have less money to throw at the politicians in the future.

[bsnub]

There are 400 million firearms in private ownership in the US, many of which are not traceable. Even if you passed a law that stopped all gun sales, what would you do with the 400,000,000 remaining firearms? Good luck trying to take those back from their owners. I am not stating my personal feelings, just pointing out a reality.

Firearm confiscation would result in civil war.

[Stumpy]

A large percentage of Americans grew up with firearms being an everyday part of their lives, guns and the right to own/carry them is literally ingrained into their culture

I was one HW. I had my first shotgun at 8. It was a passing to go duck hunting. I was brow beat by my uncles and cousins about safety and being responsible with them. In all my years of gun ownership not once did I think it was acceptable to shoot another human being. I used to use my uncles 30.06 to shoot coyotes that used to raid chickens.

What I am getting at is that in my opinion it's all about upbringing. These fuktards that decide the answer to their problems is shoot a bunch of people is a broken ideology. Sure the person gets his/her 5 minutes of fame but how can this be blamed on gun makers? I still stand that it's all about the rules, regs, requirements it takes to purchase one.

That said, if a young individual takes a gun that the parents had that they took and did a shooting, then those parents are 100% liable and they should do jail time without question.

The bigger issue surrounding this is Lawyers. They are nothing more then bottom feeders who twist the facts to get people off. Why any mass shooter who is apprehended alive is immediately executed is beyond me.

[Headworx]

I thought that ruled the right of an individual to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self defence at home
It did not give carte blanche to walk around with a firearm in public nor buy multiple weapons and masses of ammunition.

Seriously, do some research online since you clearly have no practical experience. Start with Texas gun laws where you don't even need a licence to buy and carry a sidearm, as long as it's in a holster. Buy 50 of them if you want, and 100,000 rounds of ammo, its all perfectly legal.

Firearm confiscation would result in civil war.

Yep, which is reason #759 on why it isn't going to happen.

[harrybarracuda]

These rulings can also be overturned if they are thought to compromise the safety of society.

Unfortunately a majority right wing SCOTUS decided to throw stare decisis out of the window and throw out the two main legal precedents protecting the right to abortion.

Since abortion is not specifically protected under the constitution, it's really at the whim of SCOTUS, and at this point the fucking thing is so blatantly conservative, with neanderthal c u n t s like Kavanaugh and Barrett bending the scales, there is little chance of a fairly considered decision.

You won't see any movement on either abortion or guns with the current political stalemate and a bent SCOTUS.

[Troy]

You simply do not get it and I can only assume you've never spent any time there, especially in a State like Texas.

I've spent time in the USA, working in LA, Minneapolis and Atlanta as well as touring various other states. I am not unaware of the gun culture in the USA and nor am I unaware of the difficulties in creating gun laws that are continually met with litigations concerning the second amendment.

You continually refer to hard line states such as Texas, trying to approach the problem head-on against the hardliners and then saying it's impossible. That is not the way to win this argument. It cannot be done at the federal level but it needs the help at this level. A continual chip at the laws in each state to outlaw guns with a reasoned argument that they are not the panacea against crime but the main cause of it. That, together with stricter laws to gain possession, more advanced training and higher taxes.

This is going to need the winning of small battles, larger ones and then even larger ones to win the war on guns. It will not be won by confronting the central states head-on. However it needs the help at the federal level to ensure NRA money is not the reason for people winning cases against these laws.

[Norton]

Firearm confiscation would result in civil war.

Moses prophesied it, so better take heed.

[harrybarracuda]

He showed his worth when Michael Moore put him on the spot about turning up and almost gloating at all these gun nut events after major shootings.

[Headworx]

You continually refer to hard line states such as Texas, trying to approach the problem head-on against the hardliners and then saying it's impossible.

Because Texas is the poster child of gun ownership laws in America. It's also where I spent a lot of time and was fully immersed in the gun culture as literally everyone I worked or socialised with had one or more firearms, and to them it was as natural as us having a couple of wrist watches. I can say with 101% confidence they would rather die or go to prison than to ever hand those firearms over then go unarmed in public and have no gun(s) in their houses for home protection. As insane as we might find this, it's their country and culture and laws. They think it's insane that we'd live in places where we can't carry guns!

That is not the way to win this argument.

It's not an argument, it's just facts. What more could possibly happen there that hasn't already for some people to realise that the reason nothing changes is it can't be changed, or it would have been long ago.

Here's a scenario to work with for hurdle #946: Under new hypothetical laws a licenced responsible gun owner has to hand his weapon in, it might have been an AR-15 or a semi-auto shotgun or a bolt action .22 but it really doesn't matter, if the 4 to 5 hundred million gun number is to be slashed and the public de-armed it has to go. His home gets broken into the following week by armed gangbangers and you don't even want to think about what happens to him and his family. That is a very real scenario and the moment it happened, the shit would hit the fan on an unimaginable scale. Thoughts and prayers wouldn't be enough to protect anyone who helped bring those hypothetical laws in, and they know it.

[MarilynMonroe]

It's a matter of making gun possession socially unacceptable

How possible really is this though?
It seems like most households have one or more.

[MarilynMonroe]

A victim of bullying would be a guess

I bet you are 100% right, hence why I posted that the US needs loads more money put into mental health supports and services in the schools and in the community.

We can talk about if change is possible or not, but the fact is many people are dying and suffering from the effects of mass shootings both dead and alive.... you'd think people would want to make more changes somehow, but I'm not sure it will happen with second amendment in place.