Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PtldPlatypus said:
For the purpose of their statistic, they set the necessary death toll at 5 to qualify as a mass shooting.
Click to expand...

Our FBI sets the number at 3 (or maybe it's 4).

The Hunt family murders was 5.

Pro gun control sites count a car backfire near a school as a school shooting. I kid you not.
 
MarAzul said:
Perhaps. What does your amendment look like?
Click to expand...
You misinterpret my posts; I have not taken a position on anything in this thread one way or the other. I am neither in favor of nor in opposition to gun control. I just like to discuss the topic on both sides. It's too complex of an issue for me to think that I can realistically encompass all facets of the debate and formulate a complete position without extensive research for which I simply don't have the time or the inclination.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
You misinterpret my posts; I have not taken a position on anything in this thread one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Just indicating an open mind to potential change depending on what and how it's done. As suggest by you or anyone else.:cool2:
 
PtldPlatypus said:
So, gun control works in Australia because they don't have Mexican cartels crossing their border, but if we no longer had Mexican cartels crossing our border, gun control wouldn't work here? Or it might work, but you're just not in favor of it regardless?
Click to expand...
You think a wall would stop cartels?
 
Denny Crane said:
More fact checking.

Australia passed its gun laws in 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

View attachment 18798

And then you have the media writing stuff like this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...shooting-since-1996-heres-what-did/340345002/

Australia hasn't had a fatal mass shooting since 1996. Here's what it did
Click to expand...

So in first example the man killed a hostage and the police killed him and a different hostage.

In the 2nd example the man killed his entire family.

And since we're using wikipedia...



A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence.[1] The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed or injured, echoing the FBI definition[3][4] of the term "mass murder". However, according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law on Jan 2013, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting resulting in at least 3 victims, excluding the perpetrator.[5][6][7][8][9] Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of five or more people (sometimes four)[10] with no cooling-off period.[11] Related terms include school shooting and massacre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
 
MarAzul said:
Just indicating an open mind to potential change depending on what and how it's done. As suggest by you or anyone else.:cool2:
Click to expand...
If I were to suggest an amendment, it would be a clarification of the language of the 2nd. One of the biggest issues with the right to bear arms, in my mind, is with people's understanding of its purpose.
  • Some believe it was intended that the US have no standing army, but that regular citizens would take up arms in defense of the nation if/when necessary, and as such it was essential that the populace be able to possess armaments to that end.
    • If this is the case, then the fact of the US having a standing army means that the second amendment is no longer valid, because the intended purpose is no longer necessary.
  • Others believe that it was understood that the US would have a standing army, and as such it was essential that the populace be able to possess armaments in order to potentially protect themselves from a corrupt and overreaching government
    • If this is the case, then the size and might of the US government demonstrates that the second amendment is absolutely necessary
In my mind, it is incredibly difficult for various sides of the gun debate to actually communicate because they interpret essential elements of the debate in completely different ways.
 
Nate said:
You think a wall would stop cartels?
Click to expand...
If it wouldn't significantly impede the ability of Mexican cartels to bring large volumes of firearms into the country, then it would indicate that it is completely useless. So I'm asking the question based on the premise that the wall would actually serve its intended purpose. If you don't believe it would, then that answers the question completely, which I appreciate.
 
There are no mass shootings in Australia because we want to redefine what a mass shooting is, and mass shooting of certain people don't count.

Obviously no guns were used and nobody was killed!

How about paying attention to facts?
 
Denny Crane said:
There are no mass shootings in Australia because we want to redefine what a mass shooting is, and mass shooting of certain people don't count.

Obviously no guns were used and nobody was killed!

How about paying attention to facts?
Click to expand...

Seems to me there's this fact: The United States has had more people mass murdered by gun in the last ten days than Australia has had since 1996.
 
Denny Crane said:
There are no mass shootings in Australia because we want to redefine what a mass shooting is, and mass shooting of certain people don't count.

Obviously no guns were used and nobody was killed!

How about paying attention to facts?
Click to expand...
Would you prefer if they used the term "public mass shooting"--which really is what American anti-gun advocates are (pardon the pun) up in arms about?
 
SportsAndWhine said:
Seems to me there's this fact: The United States has had more people mass murdered by gun in the last ten days than Australia has had since 1996.
Click to expand...
So... you don’t care about death by other ways?

Didn’t 70+ people get ran over recently?
 
SportsAndWhine said:
Seems to me there's this fact: The United States has had more people mass murdered by gun in the last ten days than Australia has had since 1996.
Click to expand...

Australia uses the metric system so there is no way to accurately compare shootings. Then factor in that Australia has fewer people than the United States and the deaths by gun per capita is probably about a million to one.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If I were to suggest an amendment, it would be a clarification of the language of the 2nd. One of the biggest issues with the right to bear arms, in my mind, is with people's understanding of its purpose.
  • Some believe it was intended that the US have no standing army, but that regular citizens would take up arms in defense of the nation if/when necessary, and as such it was essential that the populace be able to possess armaments to that end.
    • If this is the case, then the fact of the US having a standing army means that the second amendment is no longer valid, because the intended purpose is no longer necessary.
  • Others believe that it was understood that the US would have a standing army, and as such it was essential that the populace be able to possess armaments in order to potentially protect themselves from a corrupt and overreaching government
    • If this is the case, then the size and might of the US government demonstrates that the second amendment is absolutely necessary
In my mind, it is incredibly difficult for various sides of the gun debate to actually communicate because they interpret essential elements of the debate in completely different ways.
Click to expand...

People always had guns in this country and the federal government never saw fit to claim ownership is not a Natural Right. Natural Right being one you are born with, under Natural Law.

The US had a standing army early on. Nobody, for a century+, suggested the 2nd could somehow be interpreted to deny this right.

The US had big cities since the 1700s, so it's not a new thing to have guns and cities together.

The words "shall not be infringed" have specific legal meaning. No matter what clause precedes it, "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" means no matter what, the right shall not be restricted. Those words are extra syntax to make the intent as clear as can be. Words that aren't even used regarding the 1st amendment, for example.
 
What frustrates me is the two sides are so far off.

One sides answer is stricter laws on gun control and extensive background checks.

The others answer is more guns. Lol.

All the while another week, month, year goes by and more kids and teachers are killed and traumatized while we can’t make up our mind. So god damn frustrating. It ain’t about you or your political beliefs at this point, it’s about a solution.
 
These kids are surprisingly well spoken and seemed determine to make a change. Soon they will be voting. Change is coming whether we like it or not.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Would you prefer if they used the term "public mass shooting"--which really is what American anti-gun advocates are (pardon the pun) up in arms about?
Click to expand...

I prefer the truth. In spite of the most restrictive gun laws and the collection of guns, there have been several mass shootings in Australia (and other countries).

Where there aren't mass shootings, there are mass killings using other means. Often far more deadly than any of the mass shootings in the USA.

The OKC bombing killed 168 people and no gun was used. That's just one example.
 
AFully22 said:
What frustrates me is the two sides are so far off.

One sides answer is stricter laws on gun control and extensive background checks.

The others answer is more guns. Lol.

All the while another week, month, year goes by and more kids and teachers are killed and traumatized while we can’t make up our mind. So god damn frustrating. It ain’t about you or your political beliefs at this point, it’s about a solution.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to deal rationally with gun people. They've chosen their god, and they welcome the blood sacrifices.
 
rotary111 said:
These kids are surprisingly well spoken and seemed determine to make a change. Soon they will be voting. Change is coming whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...

When they come for you, who is going to defend you?
 
Denny Crane said:
The words "shall not be infringed" have specific legal meaning. No matter what clause precedes it, "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" means no matter what, the right shall not be restricted. Those words are extra syntax to make the intent as clear as can be. Words that aren't even used regarding the 1st amendment, for example.
Click to expand...

We do restrict who has guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top