What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Status
Not open for further replies.
Content creators on principle deserve to be shot so...

But in reality I don't see how the guy justified feeling threatened and is precisely the type of person that I am fearful of carrying a gun in public.
 
This is one of those hybrid situations where the right person got shot, but there still might be something wrong with shooting. Mainly because you have no control over the round when it exits the barrel, whether you hit your target or not.

With my heart racing, adrenaline pumping, and in fear for my life, I feel confident I would hit my target if it within 5 yards. In my home, regardless of the room I am in, I would be within 5 yards (15 feet) of someone. Then, what happens to the round AFTER it hit the person you were shooting at, provided you do? What kind of ammunition did you load your firearm with? Do you fire something like a 230 grain jacketed hollow point .45 caliber round with a muzzle velocity of 850 feet per second or or a 9MM full metal jacketed round that leaves your firearm at 1200 FPS? Even a hollow point with a relatively low muzzle velocity can travel right through a body. A jacketed round moving much faster is almost SURE to travel right through a body and do almost as much damage -- or possibly more because even a jacketed round can become deformed and act like a hollow pointed round -- when it hits the next, unintended target.

I am clearly not the smartest person in the world, because I own a firearm to begin with. But I am smart enough to know that come hell or high water, that firearm best never leave my home. I don't trust most cops who are allegedly trained in high stress firearm use situations to shoot in public. I am doubtful I trust myself in a setting like a mall. I sure as hell don't trust someone I don't know. So yeah, the right guy got shot, but I won't celebrate the shooter. Leave your guns at home.
 
Bronco said:
Oxford, MI school shooter sentenced to life without parole for killing four kids and wounding more. Parents still in the court system for supplying him with the gun facing manslaughter charges.

https://apnews.com/article/oxford-sc...cee603b7b1f0e3
Click to expand...

I can't like this. I agree it's not likely he'll ever be fit to re-enter society. His parents failed him and both of them should get put away for life along with him, even though that won't happen.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I can't like this. I agree it's not likely he'll ever be fit to re-enter society. His parents failed him and both of them should get put away for life along with him, even though that won't happen.
Click to expand...

I agree his parents failed him and should get serious time (decades). For the kid, I think life in prison without parole is a just outcome if it happens. I normally would agree that he should have a chance at parole but everything I hear about this kid is terrible. No remorse, and sounds like he would do it again if given a chance. If anyone isn't fit to belong in society it is this kid. Maybe in 40 years some DA will come back and look at the case since Michigan has one of the highest rates of kids locked up, but for now I find the possilbe sentence fair.
 
I don't know if the provided data is overly simplistic as in missing other mitigating factors, but...

Conservatives say bans on assault weapons don’t work.

That is demonstrably false.

After the Assault Weapons Ban became law in the ’90s, gun massacres fell by 37%.

When it lapsed, gun massacres rose by 183%

It's time to reinstate a ban on assault weapons.
Click to expand...
 
Bringing back the assault weapons ban has been proposed before. We were told it isn't practical because there are a lot more owners of such weapons now, and not every law-abiding gun owner is going to turn in their assault rifles. Which, if such legislation were to be enacted and they chose not to comply with the law, would make them...criminals. And what do we do with suspected criminals? Get a warrant? Oh no, they will show up at the door guns blazing and LEOs might die. Do you want a Ruby Ridge every week in this country? So we can't have that. /sarc
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Bringing back the assault weapons ban has been proposed before. We were told it isn't practical because there are a lot more owners of such weapons now, and not every law-abiding gun owner is going to turn in their assault rifles. Which, if such legislation were to be enacted and they chose not to comply with the law, would make them...criminals. And what do we do with suspected criminals? Get a warrant? Oh no, they will show up at the door guns blazing and LEOs might die. Do you want a Ruby Ridge every week in this country? So we can't have that. /sarc
Click to expand...

If you are talking about "bringing back" the assault weapons ban that was in place before, that ban did not forbid the use or possession of assault weapons. It forbade the manufacture of them. Hence, the issue of people turning them in or law enforcement seizing them was never an issue.
 
SJHovey said:
If you are talking about "bringing back" the assault weapons ban that was in place before, that ban did not forbid the use or possession of assault weapons. It forbade the manufacture of them. Hence, the issue of people turning them in or law enforcement seizing them was never an issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, and now there are tens of thousands more of those firearms out there. Thus, a ban on manufacturing new ones does nothing now. So why reinstate the old law? Might as well do nothing, like we always do and will likely do again this time.
 
Your argument has always been the same, though.
1) Everyone and their mother on here agrees that gun bans and/or making ammunition insanely expensive, among other drastic (by American standards) measures would save the most lives (i.e. most effective).
2) Everyone agrees there’s no political will, especially by one party, although there are Jared Golden’s and Joe Manchin’s in the party whose influence is as large, if not larger, than the Matt Gaetz and Co. part of the GOP, who are against the most drastic measures. 3) So, you compromise, or you don’t.
4) No compromise. This is the standard in America. End of exercise.
5) On the miraculous chance compromise legislation can even be achieved on the lowest hanging fruit subjects when it comes to gun control, it won’t be as effective at controlling gun deaths as the more drastic measures would have been. Still, the legislation will save more people, meaning it’s more effective than doing nothing at all.
I think you, Hovey, agree with 1-5. Where we diverge after that is
6) You see the backslapping of the politicians for reducing gun deaths by 2%** with their half-measures versus 10%** with full measures as worse than having done nothing at all, while the liberals on here think the 2% is better than 0% reduction. Because
7) What is the trade-off, or the negatives, of passing the compromise legislation? You argue one is back-slapping, which leads to
8) Nothing more done, maybe for years. But, nothing more done is still a 2% reduction, which is better than stopping at 4) in the exercise, which is nothing done at all. So,
9) What are the other drawbacks of the compromise legislation? I haven’t seen anything yet.
** completely subjective numbers, just showing we all agree full measures will be more effective at saving people than half.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top