Mass Shootings Maine

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

25 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

You are having an off day....even for you. 

I’m not surprised you would think this and it’s my fault, I should apologize. Normally I dumb down my responses for your benefit, use simple words of a few syllables, etc. I forget to do that this morning so no wonder it’s incomprehensible to you. I’ll do better, 

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

18 minutes ago, DonS said:

Question: have you ever personally fired a .22 AR-15? 

I am far from a gun enthusiast.  I had a 12 gauge shotgun when I was a teenager and I've fired a few different firearms over the years.  Firing my daughter's AR-15 (the .22 model that someone posted a link to from Cabela's) was literally like firing a BB gun vs her boyfriend's 9mm handgun and other larger caliber rifles.

Reading about a subject is one thing, but as with everything in life actually experiencing something gives a person a much better understanding vs parroting crap. 

Edit: replied to wrong post.  This question is for @The Real timschochet

I have not and I never will. I have no interest in hunting, I don’t believe a firearm makes me safer for self defense, and I have no paranoid fear of the government. 

[seafoam1 2,921]

4 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Thanks for demonstrating my point.    We've already gone down this road, and I lump you in with that side of the equation.     Never any specifics or solutions, just "fix people" or it's "mental illness".     Also, IMO, you guys always sidestepping that the efficiency of guns also plays a role makes you look as dumb as some of these guys talking about guns and gun bans.    

Anybody who types "they will just use X" (where X is not a gun) should probably also be crossed off the list of people wanting to have a serious discussion.   

Yeah, the "inefficient" knife has never been used to kill in the history of man. 

[seafoam1 2,921]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I’m not surprised you would think this and it’s my fault, I should apologize. 

Agreed. Do better.

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

1 minute ago, seafoam1 said:

Agreed. Do better.

Okay then. I certainly will. (Oops! Just ignore the big word I just wrote that starts with a c. What I meant is I will.) 

[5-Points 3,473]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have not and I never will. I have no interest in hunting, I don’t believe a firearm makes me safer for self defense, and I have no paranoid fear of the government. 

You should. Maybe it would help you get over your hoplophobia. You might even enjoy it. 

[seafoam1 2,921]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Okay then. I certainly will. 

I have my doubts.  But who really cares? You are a scavenger that needs to be slowly eliminated from American society. All you dooshbags are the epitome of destroyed other nations. 

[Nomad99 724]

11 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Thanks for demonstrating my point.    We've already gone down this road, and I lump you in with that side of the equation.     Never any specifics or solutions, just "fix people" or it's "mental illness".     Also, IMO, you guys always sidestepping that the efficiency of guns also plays a role makes you look as dumb as some of these guys talking about guns and gun bans.    

Anybody who types "they will just use X" (where X is not a gun) should probably also be crossed off the list of people wanting to have a serious discussion.   

Thanks for demonstrating a lack of understanding of the full INTENT of the 2nd amendment. THOSE THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO BE CROSSED OFF THE LISTOF PEOPLE WANTING TO HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION. 

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

You should. Maybe it would help you get over your hoplophobia. You might even enjoy it. 

I’m not afraid of guns. I just don’t think that some of them, like AR-15s, serve any useful purpose in society. But it’s too late now. 

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

1 minute ago, Nomad99 said:

Thanks for demonstrating a lack of understanding of the full INTENT of the 2nd amendment. THOSE THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO BE CROSSED OFF THE LISTOF PEOPLE WANTING TO HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION. 

My firm impression is that the people with the least understanding of the intent of the 2nd Amendment are pro NRA gun nuts. 

[5-Points 3,473]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I’m not afraid of guns. I just don’t think that some of them, like AR-15s, serve any useful purpose in society. But it’s too late now. 

You're not afraid of AR's, you just don't think people should have them. 

So you agree the problem isn't guns, it's people. 

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I’m not afraid of guns. I just don’t think that some of them, like AR-15s, serve any useful purpose in society. But it’s too late now. 

If you’re saying an AR-15 doesn’t serve a useful purpose in society then you are saying all semiautomatic rifles don’t serve a useful purpose in society. 

[Fireballer 2,641]

17 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

All you dooshbags are the epitome of destroyed other nations. 

You have to remember that Tim is an elitist who’s idiotic liberal takes have no real impact on him. He can afford to have opinions that aren’t based on fact.  He also thinks that trans lives would be in greater danger in rural America more so than a liberal city. Just keep in mind he’s a very emotional creature

[TimHauck 2,725]

48 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

More people are killed with hand guns.  We all know this.  Also, that wasn't the argument I made earlier.  Why is a .22 rifle perfectly fine but the rifle I linked to earlier so much worse?  I never got a straight answer.  For some reason a different gun with different caliber gets brought up.

“More people are killed with handguns” is irrelevant to my question and a different subject.

The subject at hand is how can we reduce the number mass shootings, or at least the number of people killed in mass shootings.  Is the argument by the “gun enthusiasts” here that AR-15’s and similar (let’s just say guns that would have fallen under the previous ban), are not more capable of causing more casualties than most other guns not covered by the previous ban?

[BuckSwope 654]

14 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

Thanks for demonstrating a lack of understanding of the full INTENT of the 2nd amendment. THOSE THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO BE CROSSED OFF THE LISTOF PEOPLE WANTING TO HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION. 

I didn't even bring up the 2A in that post, and it's intent is debated as well.   What is your point, or more accurately - what do you think my point was? 

[Nomad99 724]

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

My firm impression is that the people with the least understanding of the intent of the 2nd Amendment are pro NRA gun nuts. 

That's the template assumption of those that don't know what they are talking about......

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

“More people are killed with handguns” is irrelevant to my question and a different subject.

The subject at hand is how can we reduce the number mass shootings, or at least the number of people killed in mass shootings.  Is the argument by the “gun enthusiasts” here that AR-15’s and similar (let’s just say guns that would have fallen under the previous ban), are not more capable of causing more casualties than most other guns not covered by the previous ban?

What is the official list of guns that would be banned?

[avoiding injuries 1,562]

59 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

When you use terms like “traditional firearms” you certainly expose your ignorance on the subject.  

What’s wrong with going back to gunpowder and muskets?

[BuckSwope 654]

9 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

“More people are killed with handguns” is irrelevant to my question and a different subject.

The subject at hand is how can we reduce the number mass shootings, or at least the number of people killed in mass shootings.  Is the argument by the “gun enthusiasts” here that AR-15’s and similar (let’s just say guns that would have fallen under the previous ban), are not more capable of causing more casualties than most other guns not covered by the previous ban?

See, this is also where you start to spiral the conversation and should be specific.   The VAST majority of "mass shootings" are more domestic/crime/inner city type shootings, so if your goal is to reduce mass shooting numbers and deaths, shouldn't that be the starting point of a discussion?   But that is very different than the type of shooting people usually have in mind when they say they want to stop them - like this one.   Those are also the deaths that are in large part tied to handguns.

What people are trying to tell you is that:  1.  These are extremely rare  2.  banning one type of gun of 100s isn't going to make a significant dent in the numbers of these types of shootings for reasons talked about.   

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

5 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

What’s wrong with going back to gunpowder and muskets?

Muzzleloaders are still very popular for deer hunting. Terrible for self defense though, which defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment. 

[BrahmaBulls 659]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Just stop.  You don't know what you're talking about.

When has that ever stopped him?

[5-Points 3,473]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

“More people are killed with handguns” is irrelevant to my question and a different subject.

The subject at hand is how can we reduce the number mass shootings, or at least the number of people killed in mass shootings.  Is the argument by the “gun enthusiasts” here that AR-15’s and similar (let’s just say guns that would have fallen under the previous ban), are not more capable of causing more casualties than most other guns not covered by the previous ban?

It's my argument. Shooting fish in a barrel is easy. I could just as easily walk into a crowded bar with a shotgun and kill more people than you could with an AR, and in less time. 

 

[Nomad99 724]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I didn't even bring up the 2A in that post, and it's intent is debated as well.   What is your point, or more accurately - what do you think my point was? 

You talked about sidestepping the efficiency of certain guns.....those guns, although similar, are not as efficient as what the military has. The INTENT of the 2nd amendment is only debated by those without the intellectual capacity to understand what our Forefathers strived to accomplish. THEY.....wanted the Citizens to have the means to rise up against a government turned tyrannical....to stand up to ANY threat, foreign OR domestic. Do you think they intended for the citizens to accomplish that with much inferior weapons? In order adhere to their INTENT, WE THE PEOPLE need to have as much parity as reasonable. AND before anyone starts spouting off that our Forefathers didn't have the acumen to forsee the future changing as far as technology......Benjamin Franklin foresaw dropping troops behind enemy lines by way of aerial devices

[BuckSwope 654]

8 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

You talked about sidestepping the efficiency of certain guns.....those guns, although similar, are not as efficient as what the military has. The INTENT of the 2nd amendment is only debated by those without the intellectual capacity to understand what our Forefathers strived to accomplish. THEY.....wanted the Citizens to have the means to rise up against a government turned tyrannical....to stand up to ANY threat, foreign OR domestic. Do you think they intended for the citizens to accomplish that with much inferior weapons? In order adhere to their INTENT, WE THE PEOPLE need to have as much parity as reasonable. AND before anyone starts spouting off that our Forefathers didn't have the acumen to forsee the future changing as far as technology......Benjamin Franklin foresaw dropping troops behind enemy lines by way of aerial devices

Yep, you missed my point but got in the conversation anyway.   

What I was talking about was the type of crap like "they will just use a knife".   That's why I was specific in the next part when I posted "when X is not a gun".    

[Nomad99 724]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Yep, you missed my point but got in the conversation anyway.   

What I was talking about was the type of crap like "they will just use a knife".   That's why I was specific in the next part when I posted "when X is not a gun".    

YOU talked about certain people sidestepping the "efficiency" of certain guns.......I just attempted to point out the relevance of that "efficiency" pertaining to the 2nd.

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

14 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

AND before anyone starts spouting off that our Forefathers didn't have the acumen to forsee the future changing as far as technolog

No one seems to have an issue adjusting other amendments to technology, like freedom of speech. 

[Nomad99 724]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

No one seems to have an issue adjusting other amendments to technology, like freedom of speech. 

Imagine that......

[Patented Phil 1,469]

How about we start bringing some facts to the discussion?

Here’s the real truth, from a reputable source that actually cites where its numbers came from.  The data here is from 2021:

45,222 gun-related deaths, mostly suicides

19,384 gun-related murders

 2.6% (513) of gun-related murders were due to mass shootings

3.0% (581) of gun-related murders were done with rifles – the category that includes “assault weapons”

Assault weapons and mass shootings aren’t the problem here.  It’s handgun murders, mostly in Democrat-run cities, and exacerbated by Leftist DA’s, “defund the police”  nonsense, no cash bail, allowing homeless to camp out on our sidewalks, decriminalizing shoplifting up to $1,000... 

If Liberals really want to lower the number of gun-related homicides, get your focking house in order and stop going light on crime.

[Nomad99 724]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have not and I never will. I have no interest in hunting, I don’t believe a firearm makes me safer for self defense, and I have no paranoid fear of the government. 

But when trouble strikes, you are going to call for a guy with a badge.......and a gun.

[BuckSwope 654]

3 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

YOU talked about certain people sidestepping the "efficiency" of certain guns.......I just attempted to point out the relevance of that "efficiency" pertaining to the 2nd.

Again, no.  Read what you quote.   Just admit you assumed my position and wanted a 2A rant.  It happens.  

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

39 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

You have to remember that Tim is an elitist who’s idiotic liberal takes have no real impact on him. He can afford to have opinions that aren’t based on fact.  He also thinks that trans lives would be in greater danger in rural America more so than a liberal city. Just keep in mind he’s a very emotional creature

Oh bullsh!t. There is nobody more emotional than you conservative snowflakes these days. You’re all such a bunch of whiners. And you’ve got the anti-science side sewed up. 

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

1 minute ago, Nomad99 said:

But when trouble strikes, you are going to call for a guy with a badge.......and a gun.

A guy with a badge for sure. Some dumb fock with a gun- stay the hell away. 

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

2 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

How about we start bringing some facts to the discussion?

Here’s the real truth, from a reputable source that actually cites where its numbers came from.  The data here is from 2021:

45,222 gun-related deaths, mostly suicides

19,384 gun-related murders

 2.6% (513) of gun-related murders were due to mass shootings

3.0% (581) of gun-related murders were done with rifles – the category that includes “assault weapons”

Assault weapons and mass shootings aren’t the problem here.  It’s handgun murders, mostly in Democrat-run cities, and exacerbated by Leftist DA’s, “defund the police”  nonsense, no cash bail, allowing homeless to camp out on our sidewalks, decriminalizing shoplifting up to $1,000... 

If Liberals really want to lower the number of gun-related homicides, get your focking house in order and stop going light on crime.

Yes the way to do that is full registration of all guns, universal background checks, and federal red flag laws. We libs can’t do it by ourselves. 
 

You guys are the problem not us .

[Patented Phil 1,469]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yes the way to do that is full registration of all guns, universal background checks, and federal red flag laws. We libs can’t do it by ourselves. 
 

You guys are the problem not us .

I’m anti-gun, just so you know.  

[TimHauck 2,725]

41 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

See, this is also where you start to spiral the conversation and should be specific.   The VAST majority of "mass shootings" are more domestic/crime/inner city type shootings, so if your goal is to reduce mass shooting numbers and deaths, shouldn't that be the starting point of a discussion?   But that is very different than the type of shooting people usually have in mind when they say they want to stop them - like this one.   Those are also the deaths that are in large part tied to handguns.

What people are trying to tell you is that:  1.  These are extremely rare  2.  banning one type of gun of 100s isn't going to make a significant dent in the numbers of these types of shootings for reasons talked about.   

Sorry yes should have been more specific. Yes it’s arbitrary but IMO when I talk about “mass shootings” I’m thinking of ones where there are 5+ killed not including the shooter.  But as @Strike kindly (lol) pointed out, FBI defines “mass shooting” as 3 or more deaths and I believe that also can include the shooter.  For that reason, yes, “mass shootings” as defined by the FBI will likely usually occur in high-crime areas.

And yes, it’d be nice if we could stop or reduce those too, but again that’s a different conversation.  And troll me by calling me a racist or something if you want (not talking about you specifically), but unfortunately many (not all of course) of those victims aren’t exactly innocent, or at the very least aren’t usually random.  So even though the types of shootings that just happened in Maine are less common, for one there are more people killed in one incident, and two it is killing all innocent people basically at random.  So I think it’s certainly worthy of having a conversation focused specially on these types of shootings.

[The Real timschochet 6,636]

1 minute ago, Patented Phil said:

I’m anti-gun, just so you know.  

And I’m not. I want anyone who wants to own a gun to own one. So long as you’re a law abiding citizen. Including AR-15s. I might have banned them at the beginning but it’s too late now. I just want to keep them away from bad guys and conservatives won’t let me do that. And that’s the bottom line. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,265]

Real Tim, like much of the base of the Democratic Party, is certainly an elitist. But he most certainly is not elite. And that’s a problem in our society.  Mediocrities, at best, have an outsized say.  

[Nomad99 724]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yes the way to do that is full registration of all guns, universal background checks, and federal red flag laws. We libs can’t do it by ourselves. 
 

You guys are the problem not us .

Yeah......because the people that want to use guns for nefarious purposes are going to aquire them legally, register them & submit to a background check. 

[TimHauck 2,725]

38 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

It's my argument. Shooting fish in a barrel is easy. I could just as easily walk into a crowded bar with a shotgun and kill more people than you could with an AR, and in less time. 

 

Without comparing to me, you’re saying you think you could kill more people with a shotgun than an AR?

[Patented Phil 1,469]

17 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

And I’m not. I want anyone who wants to own a gun to own one. So long as you’re a law abiding citizen. Including AR-15s. I might have banned them at the beginning but it’s too late now. I just want to keep them away from bad guys and conservatives won’t let me do that. And that’s the bottom line. 

And what I’m trying to tell you is WHY Conservatives “won’t let you do that.”  But you have no interest in understanding.