Can't drive, can't buy beer, or cigarettes, or porn, or lottery... But a rifle?... No problem!

How are you going to pick a procedure if you are not going to look at what happened in past mass shootings?

 

What's keeping you from doing that?

 

Because I have neither the resources nor the time.

You are disregarding the procedure which is used to solve most major problems. The Air Force just grounded a large percentage of their C-130 aircraft because of cracks in the structure. They did not do that randomly because somebody thought that might be a good idea. During inspections they found some cracks in the same place in the same model of C-130. Based on that observation, they inspected all that they suspected might have similar cracks.

The same procedure applies to mass shootings. You look at the individuals doing it and see what they have in common. You look at the weapons used. Is there some kind of commonality? If we ban that weapons, are they likely to just pick another that has similar characteristics or can be easily made to have similar characteristics. That is a how a real study is conducted. Not ignoring everything that has happened in the past and throwing crap on the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

So now your resources and your time are the "standard"?

I was obviously asking what's keeping anybody from seeing it.

They did not do it "randomly", but they did do it because it might be a good idea. Don't you think it was a good idea?

You make absolutely no sense.

Of course!

What do they have in common? They all have a gun. So removing guns may be a good idea.

Sure. Assault weapons make it easier to kill more people. Removing assault weapons is a good idea.

Now we're getting somewhere. If we can't ban all weapons, then let's ban all weapons with similar characteristics.

Remind me what it was we were disagreeing on.... Looks like, after all, we weren't....

 

Why don't you stay away from the absurd? It is a waste of time.

I thought that "they" were not trying to take away our guns.

That would take us down to bolt action or single shot weapons? That is about the same as taking away our weapons because they are pretty much useless for self defense.

Except that you did not want to look at previous shootings. You said that was nonsense.

 

You were the one who took it to the absurd. What is your answer?

No answer?

No idea who this "they" you mention is. I speak for myself. And I would most definitely be in favor of making all firearms illegal. Of course the details of how I would do that is a different topic.

Depends on what you are defending against....

It never fails... Every single discussion we have is the same: once you have no way to rebut my arguments, you make up crap like this and ascribe it to me.

You and I both know how the rest goes, I ask you to quote... you don't quote.... I ask again.... you quote me saying something completely different... I put what you made up and what you quoted side by side so you can see that it's different.... and so on.

So let's not waste our time....

 

You are expecting me to solve the problem. I have neither the time or resources to do it. It would take a large group of people with access to a vast data file. It is absurd to expect me to do that.

I am defending against home invasion. Single shot pistol or a single shot or bolt action rifle is pretty much useless.

I said

You said "nonsense".

Sounds like a winner.

 

I said calling that "a standard" is nonsense.

Yeah. I'm done.

 

If it wouldn't have stopped any of the hundreds or previous mass shootings, it would be worthless.

 

I have been through the process a dozen or so times, both at gun stores and at gun shows (one of which was in Virginia). Each time, I had to fill out a 2 page questionnaire and had to display my ID. Being in the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland, when I buy handguns, I also have to display my handgun license.

Despite common misconception, you can't just waltz into the nearest gun store or gun show and get a gun without a background or ID check.

 

That is exactly what is nonsense. That exact statement, and nothing else....

Thanks for clarifying.

 

How do you determine whether an particular action will work?

 

For example....

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ifle-no-problem.560171/page-7#post-1070884309

 

Is the code I presented the only US law in existence?

 

nobody they want to circumvent it with legal Fiat.

I bring up the Second Amendment and that it needs to be repealed in order to violate it because people forget it's there.

I want a gun that some idiot considered an assault weapon but isn't fully automatic and there's no real reason to bad at other than morons are scared that's infringing on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

And the sad part about it is it's based on stupidity.

 

These people want this to be true so they can say that there's a need for gun control. They'll do any underhanded tactics they can think of.

A scripted TV show is not evidence of anything. Thanks for the article about them staging things.

 

The standard of ban all scawy scawy bang bangs(Anything titled assault weapon) because they are scawy.

Is far more stupid

 

That is looking at what happened in the past to stop something from happening in the future which is exactly what I am advocating and which you are saying is nonsense.

 

I already made my point in my Post #130 when I showed that the HBO producers already have credibility problems & you fell for another of their deceptive video shticks.

Firstly, I believe that a minor who has demonstrated that they can safely & proficiently handle a firearm should be able to possess one.
I began shooting when I was 8 & in over 6 decades since have not had a shooting accident. For that reason, I do not think that it should be illegal for a responsible minor to be in possession of a firearm but that their guardian or parent should be involved in the purchase of that firearm so that they can monitor its use, subsequent training etc.

Your closing sentence doesn't make sense because people do not normally sell their firearms through gun shops except when they take one in to trade for something different.

The reason I feel that age limits for buying a firearm are beneficial is that the parents or guardian would then know that their child has possession of that firearm.

 

So now you're going to argue that you made your case by not quoting the applicable law? That's hilarious!

 

No! I said that this is nonsense:

You: "The standard should be whether it would have stopped one of the shootings which already occurred."​

And the nonsense is mostly in the word "stop". As I said, we want to make it more difficult to kill a large number of people in a short amoun of time We take past occurrences to find out how to make it more difficult for the shooter to carry out their plans, to reduce the number of victims, to make it more likely that they will be stopped before they carry them out. It's nonsense to pretend to know if we can altogether "stop" something that already happened. But it's very reasonable to assume that if the Dayton shooter did not have an assault weapon, it would be unlikely he would have killed 8 people and shot so many others, in less than 30 seconds before being stopped. And that if the El Paso shooter had not been able to buy his assault weapon legally, he might have tried to get it in the black market, which increased the chances that he would have been caught. In both cases we would have made it more difficult. So if we do the things I have proposed on many threads, and look at all the .... 400+ mass shootings that have occurred this year.... there is no way we could say that it would have stopped one individual occurrence (and that's why your standard is nonsense), but there is no doubt that lives would have been saved overall by increasing the chances of people fleeing, or of the gunman not shooting as many, or of those shot surviving after medical treatment, or of being caught even before they killed anybody.

That is what I'm saying.

Now... if you have anything to comment on what I'm saying, I'm all ears. If you feel the need to make up nonsense and ascribe it to me because you can't comment on what I did say, I'll pass..

 

You have not done so. But, more importantly, you have not even shown why they would even have a need to deceive,.

It's not a gun shop. It's a gun show.

 

Fine. Then would have the change being proposed reduced the number killed or wounded? The concept remains the same.

 

“I’m free, white, and 21.”

 

I've already shown that the HBO makers of the video you showed were willing to perpetuate a hoax before, so why wouldn't they do so again to "...make a point" as they said?

- "HBO ripped over child labor ‘hoax’ report as libel trial begins"
https://nypost.com/2015/04/14/hbo-ripped-over-child-labor-hoax-report-as-libel-trial-begins/


- "Indian Boys Claim HBO Staged Soccer Ball Sewing In Child Labor Report"
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikehayes/indian-boys-claim-hbo-staged-soccer-ball-sewing-in

EXCERPT "Video interviews with two young Indian brothers claiming that HBO producers fed them lines for a staged documentary on child labor were shown in federal court this week. The cable network is facing a landmark defamation lawsuit from sports equipment company Mitre."CONTINUED


Their need to deceive this time is the same as virtually all anti gun MSM narratives: to dupe people into supporting more moves to disarm the American people a little bit at a time.


Re:

I know that the video included a visit to a gun show. You are the one who wrote "gun shops" in your own Post #137