Notice From My Cold Dead Hands......

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I fail to see the importance of what the guns are called. Whether you call them assault rifles, sporting guns, or cute fluffy kittens, they were still used to kill a bunch of kids.

barfo
Well, the argument is made quite often that assault weapons should only be available to the military. "Why do people need ASSAULT weapons!?".
The fact of the matter is, only the military, police, and people who go through a very thorough background check by the ATF are allowed to own assault weapons.

The guns people keep claiming are "assault weapons" have been modified for use by civilians, to be less deadly than a typical hunting rifle which hunters have been using for the last 100 years or so...

It's inaccurate and dishonest. The purpose is to elicit an emotional response rather than a logical one.

The details matter if we're going to talk about banning specific types or features of guns. Currently, assault weapons are banned except for a very few people. In order to ban an AR15 you're likely going to have to ban all semi-automatic rifles.

That's a tall order. One that will in all likelihood not happen. But it will distract us from some much more important issues.
 
Muddy waters! Smokescreen. Whatever you want to call it.
It makes the conversation about something other than what it needs to be about.
It makes the conversation accurate. Though I do understand why some people do prefer that.
 
And that is a big problem. Creating that cool factor to get young people to buy these guns. Even if they aren't truly assault rifles, the perception that they are has been dangled out there long enough that it's stuck. A culture has been created. The result is, this easy to get gun, that many identify as an assault rifle, has become the gun of choice for mass shooters. Maybe it's time to do something about that.

The company that sold the guns the shooter in Uvalde bought had such ads to try and get younger buyers. Well, unfortunately it worked.
Companies like that can be sued. And they should be. https://time.com/6148299/sandy-hook-remington-lawsuit-settlement/

If you are using dishonest marketing to sell guns to young people you should be sued. But if somebody buys your gun and it works perfectly, and you only engaged in responsible advertising then you should not be held liable. You made a good and safe tool.
 
On another topic, I just have to mention: being that cigarette manufacturers have been held financially liable for mass lung cancer deaths, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have been held financially liable for the opioid crisis, it just seems unamerican that weapons manufacturers can't be held financially liable for mass shooting deaths. But then again, laws passed because of special-interest lobbying that go against the best interests of the public at large are probably actually as "American" as anything.
Remington just had to pay $73 million for irresponsible marketing which was determined may have resulted in death. I'm good with this. The toxic gun culture (gun=man=warrior) is a big problem, and one that I do not support.

https://time.com/6148299/sandy-hook-remington-lawsuit-settlement/
 
And that is a big problem. Creating that cool factor to get young people to buy these guns. Even if they aren't truly assault rifles, the perception that they are has been dangled out there long enough that it's stuck. A culture has been created. The result is, this easy to get gun, that many identify as an assault rifle, has become the gun of choice for mass shooters. Maybe it's time to do something about that.

The company that sold the guns the shooter in Uvalde bought had such ads to try and get younger buyers. Well, unfortunately it worked.
And they may well be held accountable for that. If they engaged in irresponsible marketing they should be held accountable. But if they did not, then they should not.

I do not support gun manufacturers or sales locations being sued just because a gun purchased from them was used to kill somebody.
But I do support it if they are using irresponsible marketing. Sued, or held legally liable. Or both.
 
Well, the argument is made quite often that assault weapons should only be available to the military. "Why do people need ASSAULT weapons!?".
The fact of the matter is, only the military, police, and people who go through a very thorough background check by the ATF are allowed to own assault weapons.

The guns people keep claiming are "assault weapons" have been modified for use by civilians, to be less deadly than a typical hunting rifle which hunters have been using for the last 100 years or so...

It's inaccurate and dishonest. The purpose is to elicit an emotional response rather than a logical one.

The details matter if we're going to talk about banning specific types or features of guns. Currently, assault weapons are banned except for a very few people. In order to ban an AR15 you're likely going to have to ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Ok, you've convinced me: let's ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Sure, maybe 'assault rifle' is the emotionally charged phrase in "An assault rifle was used to murder 19 children". But I think it's the used to murder children part myself. So it's fine with me to call the gun whatever you think is correct.

That's a tall order. One that will in all likelihood not happen. But it will distract us from some much more important issues.

On the other hand, lots of things are politically impossible until years of activism changes the equation. I think it's too soon to say if we as a nation will ever change our minds on guns.

And supposedly, we humans are able to walk and eschew guns at the same time.

barfo
 
Rumor going around that one of the reasons the 19 officers held back is that when they did try to make entrance into the classroom they shot a kid.
 
Ok, you've convinced me: let's ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Sure, maybe 'assault rifle' is the emotionally charged phrase in "An assault rifle was used to murder 19 children". But I think it's the used to murder children part myself. So it's fine with me to call the gun whatever you think is correct.



On the other hand, lots of things are politically impossible until years of activism changes the equation. I think it's too soon to say if we as a nation will ever change our minds on guns.

And supposedly, we humans are able to walk and eschew guns at the same time.

barfo
So you have no problem with people reporting false information? Interesting...

And no, I don't think we can eliminate guns and enact universal Healthcare, and universal education, and improve the social safety net, and overhaul our police forces, and prison / judicial system and climate change all at the same time.

And the number of lives saved and improved by doing each other accomplishment on that list is exponentially greater than any gun control has ever shown to be.

So if fighting for gun control delays one of those things it's been a net negative. And I would argue that we've allowed politicians and propaganda to make it such a charged issue that it delays and hurts the advancement of every other cause...

Putting off all of those causes (millions of lives per year) for decades longer over mass murders that cost mere hundreds of lives per year is disgraceful.
 
Last edited:
Lawyer for Uvalde teacher contradicts key detail from official police account of shooting

In the days after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 students and two teachers dead, news reports echoed police claims that the shooter entered the classroom where he killed all his victims through a door that was left propped open by a school teacher.

Now, according to the San Antonio Express-News, the teacher's lawyer says she closed the door shut after she was informed an active shooter was on the loose.

Lawyer Don Flanary said the teacher, who remains unidentified, called 9-11 when to report an accident near the school involving a black truck, which later turned out to belong to the gunman, 18-year-old Salvador Ramos. Flanary added that the teacher propped open the door around the time Ramos crashed his truck, and that the employee called 9-11, but said he wants to make clear that the door was not left propped open.

“She saw the wreck,” Flanary said. “She ran back inside to get her phone to report the accident. She came back out while on the phone with 911. The men at the funeral home yelled, ‘He has a gun!’ She saw him jump the fence, and he had a gun so she ran back inside.

“She kicked the rock away when she went back in. She remembers pulling the door closed while telling 911 that he was shooting. She thought the door would lock because that door is always supposed to be locked.”

A source familiar with the investigation said security video confirms the teacher removed the rock holding the door open and closed it.

https://www.rawstory.com/uvalde-school-shooting/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
So you have no problem with people reporting false information? Interesting...

Policing the semantics of gun classification is not an interest of mine. As I said, I'm happy with whatever definition of guns you choose, you are the expert.

And no, I don't think we can eliminate guns and enact universal Healthcare, and universal education, and improve the social safety net, and overhaul our police forces, and prison / judicial system all at the same time.

I'm not sure we can do even one of those things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

And I know that there are versions of you out there making similar cases against each of those other things. I have a MD friend who is very much against universal healthcare, for instance, and believes it's a waste of resources to even talk about it.

barfo
 
Policing the semantics of gun classification is not an interest of mine. As I said, I'm happy with whatever definition of guns you choose, you are the expert.



I'm not sure we can do even one of those things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

And I know that there are versions of you out there making similar cases against each of those other things. I have a MD friend who is very much against universal healthcare, for instance, and believes it's a waste of resources to even talk about it.

barfo
I could see why an MD would selfishly be opposed to universal healthcare. It would likely cut their salary.
 
I could see why an MD would selfishly be opposed to universal healthcare. It would likely cut their salary.

Yes. People sometimes have selfish reasons for their political positions.

barfo
 
UYi12YS.jpg
 
I could see why an MD would selfishly be opposed to universal healthcare. It would likely cut their salary.

Why? More competition? Not going to be allowed to charge outrageous fees for their service?

They'd still charge the same and just get paid by the state/fed.
 
Why? More competition? Not going to be allowed to charge outrageous fees for their service?

They'd still charge the same and just get paid by the state/fed.
Nah, they'd likely have to charge Medicare rates. It would save them a lot on paperwork and in the claims department, but I think it would still end up being a 10% pay cut or so...
 
Policing the semantics of gun classification is not an interest of mine. As I said, I'm happy with whatever definition of guns you choose, you are the expert.



I'm not sure we can do even one of those things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

And I know that there are versions of you out there making similar cases against each of those other things. I have a MD friend who is very much against universal healthcare, for instance, and believes it's a waste of resources to even talk about it.

barfo
I would also say that any of those other things would have a far greater positive impact on far more lives than any gun law ever could.
 
the cops killed some kids on accident and are covering it up
It's interesting that we haven't heard about any of them committing suicide, if true. I sure as hell wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did that.
 
Opinion: I’m from Uvalde. I’m not surprised this happened.

Neil Meyer, a retired lawyer, is a fifth-generation Texan. He now lives in Bethesda. I was born in Uvalde, Tex., lived there recently and love its complex history and people. Like most, I’ve been struggling under the weight of grief to understand the violence that left 19 children, two teachers and a young killer dead last week. But I’m not surprised. Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

First, you would be challenged to find a more heavily armed place in the United States than Uvalde. It’s a town where the love of guns overwhelms any notion of common-sense regulations, and the minority White ruling class places its right-wing Republican ideology above the safety of its most vulnerable citizens — its impoverished and its children, most of whom are Hispanic. Story continues below advertisement

Second, at news of the shooting, I was struck to hear the words “Robb Elementary” because I knew of its centrality to the struggle in Uvalde over the past half-century to desegregate its schools. Robb sits in the city’s southwest quadrant. So I knew the victims of the shooting would largely be Hispanic. They have been locked into that school for decades. In Uvalde, simply put, everything north of Highway 90 is primarily White Republican, and everything south is mostly Hispanic Democrat. The city has about 15,000 residents; more than 80 percent identify as Hispanic or Latino. Most of Uvalde’s political leadership and the heads of the largest employers are White. At the center of town on the courthouse grounds, you’ll find a monument to Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president — installed when the Ku Klux Klan dominated Uvalde politics. (Some of us tried to get the monument removed after the murder of George Floyd, but that’s a story for another day.) Story continues below advertisement When I heard reports about the shooter, a young Latino, I winced at the reflexive disclaimer that he wasn’t an “illegal immigrant.” It wasn’t surprising to learn that he was bullied for a speech impediment, may have come from a broken family struggling with drug use and had experienced problems in school. Drug use plagues the city, and the courts struggle under the weight of young people’s encounters with the legal system. About 1 in 3 Uvalde children live in poverty. The killer allegedly bought his guns at the Oasis Outback, a popular lunch spot for wealthier Uvaldeans, known for its large buffet, hunting supplies and gun shop. On most days you’ll also see groups of Border Patrol agents and local law enforcement there. It’s a monthly meeting place for groups such as the Uvalde County Republican Women, whose Facebook page includes posts decrying “the border invasion.” The Oasis reflects the establishment’s deep cultural reverence for guns, hunting and the Wild West mythology. I wasn’t surprised that an 18-year-old could walk in and easily buy tactical weapons without anyone being concerned.

I wasn’t surprised to see the Republican panel of politicians at a news conference the day after the shooting, almost all White and in top positions of power in the community and the state, taking the lead. In Uvalde, the custodians of order — the chief of police, the sheriff, the head of the school district police — are Hispanic, but here they were largely silent. Unsurprisingly, they now bear the primary blame for the disastrous response at the school. Finally, I wasn’t surprised to see victims being flown to San Antonio for treatment. The Uvalde hospital was converted in recent years to a critical access facility, limiting its number of beds. The hospital benefited financially, but many residents seeking health care must now travel to distant locations. The negative impact on a community with high rates of poverty — families who can’t afford this burden — is obvious.

President Biden and the first lady visited Uvalde on Sunday to offer comfort to the families of victims at Robb. But Uvalde and other towns like it need more than comfort — we need to know that American leaders will take the overdue steps necessary to keep these communities safe.

Let’s start with banning assault weapons and limiting young people’s access to firearms. The freedom to own weapons that facilitate mass murder is less important than the safety of our children, they’re not needed for hunting, and they don’t need to be sold to 18-year-olds. Most Americans and many Texans agree, despite the rhetoric of Republican leaders. Let’s also recognize that Uvalde has a sufficiently large law enforcement presence, between the police department, the sheriff’s office, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Rangers, Customs and Border Protection and the FBI. We won’t succeed in creating “hardened targets” by arming teachers and other civilians. Finally, the social conditions that gave birth to deadly violence and the killer’s mental condition can be addressed through our support of community organizations, health-care systems and schools — by supplying resources and legal avenues to identify and deal with emerging threats such as the one posed by this young man. The deaths at Robb Elementary were predictable and avoidable. Uvalde, the state of Texas and the United States of America failed the children and teachers who died there. We owe it to their memory and to current and future generations to avoid yet another, similar tragedy.

So much needs fixed in our country.
 
Put it simply. What do you love more, your guns or your children?
I love my children too much to rely solely on the police to defend my family.

According to the CDC there are at least 500,000 defensive gun uses per year in the US. Possibly as many as 3 million per year.

These emotional pleas are completely disregarding the actual data available to us.

Students in America are 20x more likely to be killed by their parents than by a gun at school. The vast majority of "child" gun deaths are due to their involvement in gangs.

The guns are a red herring to prevent us from focusing on the real problems. Which are all far less expensive and politically simpler to address, as the constitution isn't standing in the way of those solutions.
 
I love my children too much to rely solely on the police to defend my family.

According to the CDC there are at least 500,000 defensive gun uses per year in the US. Possibly as many as 3 million per year.

These emotional pleas are completely disregarding the actual data available to us.

Students in America are 20x more likely to be killed by their parents than by a gun at school. The vast majority of "child" gun deaths are due to their involvement in gangs.

The guns are a red herring to prevent us from focusing on the real problems. Which are all far less expensive and politically simpler to address, as the constitution isn't standing in the way of those solutions.
20x’s more likely to be killed by their parents and or at a gun range.

I don’t think that made the case you wanted it to?
 
20x’s more likely to be killed by their parents and or at a gun range.

I don’t think that made the case you wanted it to?
I've advocated for better gun safety education.

But far more children are killed by their own parents every year than are killed by all accidental firearm deaths. Gun range or not.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top