Upset
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Using common sense seems to elude some...

Yesterday (Wednesday, June 8th) our House of Representatives passed some minor gun safety measurers. While I'm thrilled even that little bit was passed, I am frustrated that more, much more wasn't passed.

Why am I frustrated? Honestly it boils down to this: One party cares about finding ways to stop these killings and the other, regardless of how many die, care about antiquated words and saving their right to own guns that serve no legitimate purpose.
TexChik · F
Whoa, slow down there Mr Liberal. We have 20 thousand laws already on the books regarding guns and gun violence. What the democrats in Washington want has nothing to do with saving lives. Dems dont care about lives, they care about power and control and personal wealth. If Dems care about lives, would they advocate the killing of babies up to a minute before birth by the millions? Would they demand people who refused the Covid "vax" be cut off from all goods and services? Would they continue to demand vaccinating small children even though the results are disastrous? Would they be the face of child sex trafficking and pedophilia? I dont think so.

The rights you so carelessly want to abolish were fought and died for to preserve our nation. Obviously the cost of freedom is lost on many like you but the fact remains the second amendment is supported by 74% of Americans and continuously upheld by the supreme court. Those same 74% also vote.

Libs like restrictive laws but dont like enforcing them. Look at Chicago, LA, Phillidelphia...Gun violence abounds in the most restrictive gun law cities , while in the rest of the nation its fairly uncommon. The issue is mental illness, which is ignored. Many more deaths happen every day due to medical mistakes...and yet you are not clamoring to get rid of doctors!

If you dont appreciate the freedom provided for you then please find the nearest exit. The vast majority however do.
TexChik · F
@Ontheroad the typical lib response when one refuses to accept your lib nonsense.

Biden refused to help fortify schools but sent billions to the Ukraine. Libs don’t prosecute and choose the release violent criminals to reoffend , but some how the freedoms of law abiding citizens are the cause?
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
@Ontheroad
I can lay a select fire/fully automatic M16 and its variants along side an AR15 and from a few feet away you wouldn't know the difference.

completely irrelevant. pretty much any firearm could be made to "look like" a so called "assault rifle" to the uneducated. To a liberal, my old Tippman A5 paintball gun probably fits their definition of an "assault rifle"; it's black, has an adjustable stock, holds more than 30 rounds and can fire over 15 balls a second...

and weapon effectiveness depends solely on the user, not the weapon itself; and quite frankly, society should be thankful that the majority of these active shooters are uneducated, undisciplined morons...

against unarmed soft targets, a vehicle or explosives would be far more effective against a large group of people; and needless to say, a vehicle is easy to obtain, and most explosives can be manufactured with commercially available chemicals (terrorists have been using TATP for decades which is little more than hydrogen peroxide and acetone)

Whether the gun control advocates attack firearm ownership in it's totality, or whittle it down bit by bit, the end result is the same... (as has occurred in dozens of countries with little to no reduction in total crimes)

and as the UK and practically every middle eastern and north african country is evidence of, if you remove one type of weapon available to the public, they'll just find or improvise another...

As Samuel Colt put it, guns are the great equalizer. With them, even someone with little physical strength and training can overcome a superior enemy; without them, that margin widens; a stronger enemy can attack with more confidence.

People who argue about what firearms they think we "don't need" are precisely the reason we do need them. No criminal, group, or even government would knowingly attack someone armed with superior weapons.
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
And for the record, M16's haven't been fully automatic since the 80's (the m1 version), all later versions are single and burst only...
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
Spoken like a true indoctrinate.

If you think its only "one side" that is the problem I can assure you nothing will change and in 2 years you will be all worked up about whatever issue du jour you are being programmed to care about.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@SW-User
Why do I care? Well, I'm not American, it's true, and perhaps you have no problem with schoolchildren being sprayed with bullets as long as it doesn't happen in your country. But I do care.

That's a lovely sentiment. And let me be clear since you have implied several times to the contrary, I do, of course, care and would never want to see harm come to innocent children and animals.

Unfortunately though, bad things happen to children everyday, all over the world. Here are multiple stories of children being murdered in Ireland.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10824061/Anguished-mothers-words-toddlers-killer-jailed-life-murder-Ireland.html
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-woman-accused-murdering-three-children-named-publically
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330526/Irelands-day-horror-children-murdered-fathers.html

And as for suggesting that "an entire culture isn't interested in changing this" - well, it seems they are interested. 59% of Americans wanted stricter gun laws, even before the Uvalde shooting. That seems like a majority to me.

Uh huh. And what changes are to be made? There are multiple different ideas out there, but you seem to have made your choice(or had it made for you) and there is no further debate, your solution is the partisan solution.

I'm not going to go into the "angrily" blaming part, except to say perhaps you are happy to confuse passion for anger; especially as I'm a "foreigner". But, again, I will say that a significant portion of the political system is to blame: they're called Republicans. Although, in fairness, the real enemy is the National Rifle Association who bankroll most Republican politicians to a greater or lesser degree to get what they want.

That is propaganda straight from the DNC.

Are you aware that the Democrats were in charge during the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook shootings?
Do you remember Columbine? The Democrats were in charge then and guess what they blamed for the shootings? Violent video games and violent Hollywood movies...

I'm so bored of Western Europeans having highly selective visions of America that comes from their well curated, biased choice of media.

Fix your own fucking country. Or if you are so inclined, emigrate to America, become a citizen, and take some responsibility for changing things instead of sitting on your high horse spewing Democrat propaganda.
SW-User
@SumKindaMunster
And let me be clear since you have implied several times to the contrary, I do, of course, care and would never want to see harm come to innocent children and animals.]
My apologies, I take that back.

Uh huh. And what changes are to be made?
OK, fine. As an American yourself, what would you like to see change that might actually guard against unspeakable events like Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. happening again (this is not a challenge to you)?

Here are multiple stories of children being murdered in Ireland.
That's deflection. You know as well as I do that unspeakable things happen everywhere in the world. However, mass shootings do not...

That is propaganda straight from the DNC
...as, I daresay, it was once propaganda from the RNC.

The fact is, at this moment in time, the NRA see Republican politicians as the best way of maintaining the status quo, re guns, just as they doubtless did with Democrats in the past. With pressure building to enact meaningful gun control, the Republicans, at this precise moment in time, can follow their principles and enact some bipartisan legislation that maybe, just maybe, will save some innocent lives. At this moment in time, they are choosing not to.

highly selective visions
I notice that you're all about "indoctrination". Are you immune from indoctrination? What sources do you rely on? Are they across the political spectrum... (again not a challenge).

Fix your own fucking country
ok chill out. I'm doing my best. I vote Green, I'm a vegetarian, I donate to charities, I occasionally volunteer for community projects. Relax (and note my apology at the top).
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@SW-User
OK, fine. As an American yourself, what would you like to see change that might actually guard against unspeakable events like Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc.

As already stated, the name of the game is compromise and cooperation. So that would likely encompass a variety of ideas from both sides including:

Restrictions on assault style rifles and weapons
Restrictions on high capacity magazines and lethal bullets
"Smart guns"
National initiative to collect data to identify and intervene on individuals who might be planning a gun violence event(red flag laws)
Closing loopholes that allow individuals to not register their guns
Increasing the age at which a person can buy an assault rifle or other types of mass killing weapons.

This of course would require a complete do over of the current political environment which revels in blaming the other side, promising to change things if elected, then never fulfilling those promises. And every 2-4 years we complete the same dance.

That's deflection. You know as well as I do that unspeakable things happen everywhere in the world

It's not "deflection", I am not trying to dismiss your argument, I'm calling you out for your hysteria regarding these children in Texas and suggesting you gain some perspective on the issue.

The fact is, at this moment in time, the NRA see Republican politicians as the best way of maintaining the status quo, re guns, just as they doubtless did with Democrats in the past. With pressure building to enact meaningful gun control, the Republicans, at this precise moment in time, can follow their principles and enact some bipartisan legislation that maybe, just maybe, will save some innocent lives. At this moment in time, they are choosing not to.

I would again call your attention to previous school shootings in the past during Democrat administrations. They chose to do little to nothing, and of course scapegoated the Republicans and NRA for the problem then as well.

Did you know America passed assault weapon laws in the 90's?

1994

Tucked into the sweeping and controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the subsection titled Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. This is known as the assault weapons ban — a temporary prohibition in effect from September of 1994 to September of 2004. Multiple attempts to renew the ban have failed.

The provisions of the bill outlawed the ability to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” unless it was “lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.” Nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet.

It expired and we haven't attempted to compromise on the issue since. That includes the tail end of the Clinton Administration as well as Obama's administration, both Democrats.

I notice that you're all about "indoctrination". Are you immune from indoctrination? What sources do you rely on? Are they across the political spectrum... (again not a challenge).

I'm all about pointing out the lies and propaganda that people on here spew as their own, when in fact it comes from authoritative sources that they trust. My focus is to call that out and question how much of what they said they actually thought through and validated through critical thinking.

I read Reuters, AP and news aggregates for general news. I read BBC and Al Jazeera for other perspectives and opinions and I subscribe to several journalists on Substack that I have chosen to trust including Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Tracy.

No, I am not immune from "indoctrination" but I've consoled myself with the fact that many times I am correct about things that take a long time to come to light...some recent examples include: the ineffectiveness of the Covid 19 vaccines in preventing the spread of Covid, the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop, the political witch hunt that sought to demonstrate that Trump was a Russian asset.

Additionally I am willing to admit I am wrong at times..recent example: I did not believe the West when they said Russia's invasion of Ukraine was imminent, I assumed it was a political ploy to put pressure on Russia..well I was wrong about that...

ok chill out. I'm doing my best. I vote Green, I'm a vegetarian, I donate to charities, I occasionally volunteer for community projects. Relax (and note my apology at the top)

I am relaxed. We are just talking here. I use strong words and phrases to portray my passion and interest, I am not angry with you and am not upset by your beliefs and statements...doesn't mean I agree, but I am not upset. 😉
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
common sense eludes many...

not sure how people think more laws will fix anything when our society can't even obey the simplest laws we already have...

and they'd have to be a complete idiot to think people will obey an unjust law/unilateral decision that contradicts & ignores Constitutional law, congress, and the supreme court

the only thing outlawing firearms would accomplish is creating 100+ million armed "criminals"; and I'll be one of them (my military oath trumps your sense of self entitlement...)
redredred · M
Did you ever notice how few mass shooting occur in banks? Ever wonder why? Barks are, at least, somewhat hardened sites. They have well controlled entrances and exits. They gave security cameras. Lots of them have armed guards. Why? Because banks have things we want to protect.

School buildings don’t have these things by and large. They do have signs saying “no guns allowed”.

If you want to protect schools because of the very valuable treasure inside look at how we build and staff banks.
@redredred Great plan! The only problem is paying salaries and training for all the armed guards for 100,000+ US public schools buildings.

Since the only reason school armed guards are needed is to protect the sacred rights of assault weapons owners, how about we finance the guards with a property tax on all assault weapons. Sounds perfect!!

Or do you have some other funding mechanism in mind?
@redredred We can certainly rely on the 'Conservatives' to appropriate every dollar that it takes to do that, maybe even donate a few from the donations they receive from the NRA? Better yet maybe their King and multi-Billionaire (the builder) will donate it from his 'Charity Foundation' ? Everybody knows that he would run into a school, without a gun, if he heard gun shots from inside, what a guy, huh.
spjennifer · 61-69, T
@redredred Most ludicrous comment I've seen in a long time. Banks are a for profit institution and they're going to safeguard the money whatever the cost and we end up paying for it one way or another. Children are a valuable resource but there is absolutely no reason to turn schools into armed prisons to satisfy the gun fetishism of a select few, according to your logic, everywhere should be built like banks so that the right to own AR15's can be protected, malls and grocery stores, theaters and airports should all be built like banks, no matter the cost. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that specifies the type of weapons we are allowed to bear so why would banning AR15's be a violation of 2nd Amendment Rights? Seeing as the AR15 is the most sold rifle in the US, it's more about the profits of the gun manufacturers being protected, isn't it... 😖
Canada has far fewer gun murders and mass killings despite being very similar to the US in most demographics. Let's see what Canada is doing differently.

Canada assault weapons ban
Prohibition on assault-style firearms
As of May 1, 2020 the Government of Canada has prohibited over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and certain components of some newly prohibited firearms (the upper receivers of M16, AR-10, AR-15, and M4 patterns of firearms). New maximum thresholds for muzzle energy (greater than 10,000 Joules) and bore diameter (20 mm bore or greater) are also in place. Any firearm that exceeds them is now prohibited.

Canada large magazine ban
As a general rule, the maximum magazine capacity is:
* 5 cartridges for most magazines designed for a semi-automatic, centre-fire long gun
* 10 cartridges for most handgun magazines

Canadian licensing
Starting in 1979, people who wished to acquire firearms were required to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate (FAC) from their local police agency. From 1995 to 2012, all firearms owners were required to possess a firearms licence—either a possession and acquisition licence (PAL), a possession-only licence (POL), an FAC, or a minor's licence—and all firearms were required to be registered.

Before the 2020 assault weapons ban, guns like the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 (used to kill 14 women in Montreal in 1989) have been moved on and off Canada's restricted list since 1977. https://rsc-src.ca/en/node/4117 The requirement that local police sign off on a FAC & PAL amounts to a strong limits on assault weapons since about 1977.

Of course, the UK and most of Europe have strong gun control and very few gun murders or mass killings. Gosh, gun control works in the rest of the world - maybe it could work here!
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElwoodBlues The murder rate has not gone down in Canada since the gun restrictions. It didn't go up when the gun registry was 'eliminated' by the last government either. Only the method changed.
@hippyjoe1955 Got a link? Evidence??
Of course not!!

BTW, what makes you think the gun supply and murder rate will react instantly to changes in classification?
@ElwoodBlues His answer to similar questions has been, "Do your own research, and do try to keep up."
spjennifer · 61-69, T
Agreed, it's a shame that some of the rah rah Repugs aren't made to see the actual damage caused by guns they so wholeheartedly support, they kind of remind me of fresh meat arriving in the sandbox, "I'm a gonna kill me some of them muthereffers" then they're puking their guts out and crying for mommy after they see the results of their first firefight and some of them don't make it... 😖
SW-User
saving their right to own guns that serve no legitimate purpose

How can self-defense not be a legitimate purpose though? Making it more difficult for ordinary individuals to own guns is not going to make it more difficult for criminals and other violent people to own them. What it could do is make it harder for the former group to protect themselves when and if they need to.
That aught to stop the shootings..

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
Sadly only one side is doing the killing and that is the same side you think wants to stop it. Funny how that works.
@softspokenman (added) On CBS Mornings. News today 6/9/2022 7am MT here. The report was brought up but they didn't want to detail it because it was 'Breakfast' time.
Maybe those GOP Senators who don't want to destroy the 2nd Amendment by putting too many restrictions on gun controls should see the pictures of those children's bodies at Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner until it finally sinks in.
@softspokenman Yeah, Uvalde native (and movie star) Matthew McConaughey mentioned how those 5.56 rounds leave huge exit wounds. Sometimes they had to identify the body thru a bracelet or shoes because there wasn't enough recognizable flesh.

Some kinds of ammo make a clean hole and leave a linear track thru the body. But those kids were shot with soft point or hollow point that expands upon impact and makes a huge nasty bloody mess. It's not a kind of ammo you would use for hunting; you don't want bone fragments all thru your meet or the hide torn up with giant exit wounds. That ammo is specifically designed to kill humans.
@ElwoodBlues I did see that 👍 He also said that his mother taught at a kinder garden about a mile away. 'I am a different man, I've changed, my children have changed...'

Hasn't everyone of us changed since that day ?
Subalugirl · 22-25, F
Common sense is not common anymore
Ontheroad · M
@Subalugirl Sad, but true. I think it's better stated as not being able to think past the "I" and actually have at least a little empathy for others.

I just have a difficult time understanding how having the right to own a gun, when put on a scale, balances out to be more valuable that than saving a life.
Subalugirl · 22-25, F
@Ontheroad Yeah may be but every one has different thoughts, check your message
robb65 · 56-60, M
@Ontheroad There had to have been close to a dozen and maybe more things that went wrong in Texas. A Door that didn't lock. A missing security officer. Cops that stood there with their fingers up their asses while the shooting took place. A swat team that apparently no one knew where they were or how to contact them. A breakdown in communication between the cops on the scene and 911 operators. Any one of these could have prevented or at least reduced the number of deaths,. And there's still a question of why the guy wasn't on anyone's radar, or maybe he was and they didn't follow through. Why is no one interested in fixing the things that have a higher probability of saving lives than some new gun law? Please, think of the children.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
my favorite poptart is wildberry
SatanBurger · 36-40, FVIP
@Jackaloftheazuresand My favorite poptart is cherry ❤️
pdockal · 56-60, M
These changes will not affect the issue and until that's understood there will never be a solution
Why do you feel the constitution is antuquated
And you think outlawing gub cleaning is a good move ?????
The 1/6 committee will be on live TV 8pm est, some people are saying "it's a smear campaign against trump". I hope that it doesn't turn the streets into killing fields.
lacrossegirl25 · 22-25, F
why bother?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment