Shooting in Southern California

[Seraphina]

I'm done engaging in any sort of discussion with gun advocates. Done.
Their arguments are illogical and intellectually dishonest.

The shooting in the OP happened in California. California's incoming governor, elected only the day before this mass killing, , said yesterday the answer "sure as hell isn't more guns" and called the NRA "morally bankrupt". And all indications are he'll push for stronger gun control than our outgoing governor.

California is a bellwether state. Gun huggers, beware.

For the rest of us, when the NRA gets worked up into a lather and starts up again with their propaganda instead of going dead silent after every shooting, that will be a sign that change is afoot.

-Teresa

[The Grand Nudger]

Personally, as a gun advocate...I think that gun control advocacy should be the business of all gun owners.  At some point we have to accept that if we do nothing to deal with this problem, our guns will be made illegal, and many of us will then become criminals by default. Not exactly the best possible outcome.

Nutballs are spoiling it for everyone.

[Brian37]

We focus on mass shootings, but the suicides are the bulk, second are domestic violence, third are accidental, then crime outside the home. The truth remains arm more isn't a solution. I am sick of the paranoid fucking crybabies treating prevention as being the same as a presumption of guilt.

And like most gun injuries and deaths, the act starts with a LEGALLY PURCHASED firearm. That says to me we suck as a nation at vetting to prevent even suicides with a firearm.

And I am glad none of these worshipers raised me knowing I suffer from anxiety and depression, I am lucky my mom learned from my drunk dad who shot his 38 with me in the room as a kid. If it were not for her quick action back then in pulling me out of the house, not sure I'd be here today.

Arm more is not a solution. And I never get a good answer if that is their argument, how many firearms would be enough, because we already have 300 million out there already.

Also considering Suicide is an act of self directed violence it still counts .

True. But again, the truth has been since the late 70s the NRA leadership is a profit lobby paid by the corporations who make those products to protect the market and profits of the industry.

If they were the safety org they started out as, they would care about better vetting at the time of sale to prevent any type of firearm injury or death.

[The Grand Nudger]

The NRA is a political lobby that maintains a wedge issue and (apparently) operates at the behest of hostile foreign powers.  The gun industry's actual profit lobby is worse (if that can even be imagined, lol), and better at what -they- do.

[onlinebiker]

Ban them.  As they do in Australia and Japan and other civilized countries.

Total disagreement.

Salute your honesty about it.

---

Personally, as a gun advocate...I think that gun control advocacy should be the business of all gun owners.  At some point we have to accept that if we do nothing to deal with this problem, our guns will be made illegal, and many of us will then become criminals by default.  Not exactly the best possible outcome.

Nutballs are spoiling it for everyone.

If they spent more time controlling the nutballs - they would make a dent in the number off incidents. It is doable.


But - it' s easier to ban scary rifles. Like the Barrett 82a. A 50 caliber, high accuracy semi- auto rifle. California banned the sale of this rifle - despite the FACT that there were NO cases of one being used in a crime.

[Amarok]

If they spent more time controlling the nutballs - they would make a dent in the number off incidents. It is doable.

Lol that's even less doable then banning guns . Not to mention far more oppressive .

But - it' s easier to ban scary rifles. Like the Barrett 82a. A 50 caliber, high accuracy semi- auto rifle. California banned the sale of this rifle - despite the FACT that there were NO cases of one being used in a crime.

So you think a specific gun needs to be used in a crime to ban it ?

[The Grand Nudger]

If they spent more time controlling the nutballs - they would make a dent in the number off incidents. It is doable.

Lol that's even less doable then banning guns . Not to mention far more oppressive .

But - it' s easier to ban scary rifles. Like the Barrett 82a. A 50 caliber, high accuracy semi- auto rifle. California banned the sale of this rifle - despite the FACT that there were NO cases of one being used in a crime.

So you think a specific gun needs to be used in a crime to ban it ?

Yes, absolutely, if we want the bans/buybacks to produce a reduction in crime.  Every state has a tracker for this stuff, I've linked it before.  If we wanted to get rid of crimes overwhelmingly committed with a specific firearm then we would have to deal specifically with that firearm.  Banning guns no one uses does jack shit to that.  The reason for this is simple..but perhaps not intuitive to people unfamiliar with guns.  Not all guns are well suited to crime.    Expensive guns, and difficult to conceal guns...are very very thin on the ground in crime stats.


Even in the category of mass shootings...handguns are overwhelmingly the issue.

When dems passed the brady bil, for examle...l..it did absolutely nothing, and the doj had no interest in continuing with it since it produced no effect. They picked the wrong guns - and they would have known that, if they looked at the data that they themselves had the government collect. Maybe they did look at it, and they did know that..but for whatever eldritch reason they persisted anyway.

-and here we are.

That was it, that was their chance. They fucking blew it, and the gun control debate was lost the moment that a school got shot up and we did nothing. Dems will never pass functional gun control legislation because they aren;t trying to do so, they;re pandering to their base in contradiction to facts..like common trumpers.

---

"Hey, Steve, I've noticed an unusually large amount of people are getting shot by 9mm pb...let's ban bowtie pasta - everybody hates bowtie pasta!" -and before you say "what a ridiculous comparison"..consider this..a bowtie pasta ban would have worked just as well as the brady bill. I'll just leave you with a quote from a study done on the bill as an ar...

because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data

The hope, ofc, was that with more years....the effect (if there was one) might cross the threshold of detectability! Holy fucking shitballs........and as it just so happens, it never did.

---

If they spent more time controlling the nutballs - they would make a dent in the number off incidents. It is doable.

Is it...-you're one of the nutballs I'm referring to-.  Somebody points out that a shitload of people are getting shot and your first impulse is to blurt out the name Nancy Pelosi and then waffle around over some bullshit about "inflated data", lol....?

So tell me, how would you like to be controlled? How do we keep -that- from influencing the ballot?

[Brian37]

I'm done engaging in any sort of discussion with gun advocates. Done.
Their arguments are illogical and intellectually dishonest.

The shooting in the OP happened in California. California's incoming governor, elected only the day before this mass killing, , said yesterday the answer "sure as hell isn't more guns" and called the NRA "morally bankrupt". And all indications are he'll push for stronger gun control than our outgoing governor.

California is a bellwether state. Gun huggers, beware.

For the rest of us, when the NRA gets worked up into a lather and starts up again with their propaganda instead of going dead silent after every shooting, that will be a sign that change is afoot.

-Teresa

You don't have to directly talk to them on social media. But it is still important to speak out to all your local, state and national leaders as well as your local and national media. 

I get tired of their bullshit too. But every day I say something, and not just here at this website. Change doesn't happen in a day. It took 40 years of deregulation and NRA bullying to get us to our level of firearm violence. 

The good thing is since Parkland, that seems to have sparked enough solidarity that all the safety orgs like "A March For Our Lives" and "Newtown Action" and "Sandy Hook Promise" and "Mom's Demand Action" to see that we don't have to live this way.

Don't give up. 

You can ignore the gun worshiper's noise, and still speak out every day.

[Amarok]

Lol that's even less doable then banning guns . Not to mention far more oppressive .


So you think a specific gun needs to be used in a crime to ban it ?

Yes, absolutely, if we want the bans/buybacks to produce a reduction in crime.  Every state has a tracker for this stuff, I've linked it before.  If we wanted to get rid of crimes overwhelmingly committed with a specific firearm then we would have to deal specifically with that firearm.  Banning guns no one uses does jack shit to that.  The reason for this is simple..but perhaps not intuitive to people unfamiliar with guns.  Not all guns are well suited to crime.    Expensive guns, and difficult to conceal guns...are very very thin on the ground in crime stats.


Even in the category of mass shootings...handguns are overwhelmingly the issue.

When dems passed the brady bil, for examle...l..it did absolutely nothing, and the doj had no interest in continuing with it since it produced no effect.  They picked the wrong guns - and they would have known that, if they looked at the data that they themselves had the government collect.  Maybe they did look at it, and they did know that..but for whatever eldritch reason they persisted anyway.

-and here we are.

That was it, that was their chance.  They fucking blew it, and the gun control debate was lost the moment that a school got shot up and we did nothing.  Dems will never pass functional gun control legislation because they aren;t trying to do so, they;re pandering to their base in contradiction to facts..like common trumpers.

---

"Hey, Steve, I've noticed an unusually large amount of people are getting shot by 9mm pb...let's ban bowtie pasta - everybody hates bowtie pasta!"  -and before you say "what a ridiculous comparison"..consider this..a bowtie pasta ban would have worked just as well as the brady bill.  I'll just leave you with a quote from a study done on the bill as an ar...

because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data

The hope, ofc, was that with more years....the effect (if there was one) might cross the threshold of detectability!  Holy fucking shitballs........and as it just so happens, it never did.

---

If they spent more time controlling the nutballs - they would make a dent in the number off incidents. It is doable.

Is it...-you're one of the nutballs I'm referring to-.  Somebody points out that a shitload of people are getting shot and your first impulse is to blurt out the name Nancy Pelosi and then waffle around over some bullshit about "inflated data", lol....?

So tell me, how would you like to be controlled?  How do we keep -that- from influencing the ballot?

Your first part is right .

[Brian37]

OLB

The nutballs could be controlled better if the corporations who make firearms gave a fuck where their products ended up. But they do not.

Your problem is you refuse to accept that like any other business that sells a product, that business has a goal of expanding their market and attracting shareholders. 

That industry is throwing a fit just like Nader did when he told auto makers their products were not safe. But guess what, after REGULATIONS mandated seat belts and air bags, cars are STILL being sold today.

Gun makers are the only industry who have undue immunity to avoiding scrutiny to how their products affect public health.