Bump stocks. Who will be

[Gordon Gray]

Maybe the only way Pneumonic (who apparently sees no issue with the AR 15) might change his opinion is if he has kids in school and God forbid, someone decides to kill his children with this gun.

Or maybe he has the bravado to go meet with the parents of Sandy Hook, Kirkland, etc., who lost their children in the mass killings, and explain his position on this weapon.

 

[Pneumonic]

Just like homicide stats, right? (ones which aren't manipulated)



This has never been about the AR15. It is about gun laws and controls in general. The AR15 might (rightfully, I believe) be subject to those controls.

There already are laws that control guns in the US. AR-15 included. Or, by control do you really mean, ban?

But, you have me confused. You stated earlier that you are not for the banning of guns except a few types ... is one type not the AR-15 which we have been most talking about? If not, which types do you mean? I believe I asked this last question earlier but never got an answer. I wonder why?

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Meanwhile this Monday..

A road rage incident in St. Augustine, Florida, led a man to allegedly pull out his AR-15 and aim it across a road at the other driver, authorities said.

Jamie Sanders and Katelin Daugherty were on their way to the beach when deputies say Meyer pointed a gun at them twice.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/...ls-road-rage-incident/apXXUCas51pDc21OasrAaP/

 

[Pneumonic]

Maybe the only way Pneumonic (who apparently sees no issue with the AR 15) might change his opinion is if he has kids in school and God forbid, someone decides to kill his children with this gun.

Or maybe he has the bravado to go meet with the parents of Sandy Hook, Kirkland, etc., who lost their children in the mass killings, and explain his position on this weapon.

Sure I would be upset if they were murdered by a gun. Just as I would be upset if they were murdered by a vehicle, or if they were stabbed to death with a knife or if they were poisoned or if they were unfortunate to meet up with a suicide bomber, etc. But, in each case, I wouldn't blame the weapons involved and ask that they be banned. That's nonsensical.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Sure I would be upset if they were murdered by a gun. Just as I would be upset if they were murdered by a vehicle, or if they were stabbed to death with a knife or if they were poisoned or if they were unfortunate to meet up with a suicide bomber, etc. But, in each case, I wouldn't blame the weapons involved and ask that they be banned. That's nonsensical.

You'd be upset to loose one of your kids? Talk about a deflective, robotic, non-sensical response.

Are you willing to meet the parents who's kids where killed by an AR 15, espouse your views, and find out how "upset" they are?

PS: Most "normal" parents are devastated by such a loss and they never forget and grieve for the remainder of their lives.

 

[Pneumonic]

You'd be upset to loose one of your kids? Talk about a robotic, non-sensical response.

Are you willing to meet the parents who's kids where killed by an AR 15, espouse your views, and find out how "upset" they are?

Would you prefer I used the term livid instead?

Does this sound better to you "sure I would be livid if they were murdered by a gun. Just as I would be livid if they were murdered by a vehicle, or if they were stabbed to death with a knife or if they were poisoned or if they were unfortunate to meet up with a suicide bomber, etc. But, in each case, I wouldn't blame the weapons involved and ask that they be banned. That's nonsensical."

 

[amey01]

There already are laws that control guns in the US. AR-15 included. Or, by control do you really mean, ban?

But, you have me confused. You stated earlier that you are not for the banning of guns except a few types ... is one type not the AR-15 which we have been most talking about? If not, which types do you mean? I believe I asked this last question earlier but never got an answer. I wonder why?

I never said ban.

Look up Australian gun laws (I) for an example(/I). It’s only an example. The details are for you to work out, but you need something more appropriate than you’ve got.

 

[Pneumonic]

I never said ban.

Then you are sending very confusing statements and mixed messaging.

In post #175 you stated the following in your discussion with Brad:

"So I am not anti-gun, and nor is the general ethos here in Australia. I just believe they need to be appropriate for the task, properly stored, and owners properly trained and vetted. Human-killing machines (like the AR15) have no place in a civilised residential area. I'm sure you could shoot "aggressive possums tearing up your plants" with a bolt-action .22 (that's if more modern, sophisticated (and effective) pest control techniques evade you). "

What does this quote of you mean, if not a ban of an AR-15?

 

[amey01]

Then you are sending very confusing statements and mixed messaging.

In post #175 you stated the following in your discussion with Brad:

"So I am not anti-gun, and nor is the general ethos here in Australia. I just believe they need to be appropriate for the task, properly stored, and owners properly trained and vetted. Human-killing machines (like the AR15) have no place in a civilised residential area. I'm sure you could shoot "aggressive possums tearing up your plants" with a bolt-action .22 (that's if more modern, sophisticated (and effective) pest control techniques evade you). "

What does this quote of you mean, if not a ban of an AR-15?

If you need me to explain the subtelties of the English language to you, then further discussion is out I'm afraid.

If you want to lead me down the path of explaining individual word choices; while conveniently ignoring large swathes of what I said, I'll take it as an argument well and truly lost by you.

--------

If you want to persist with your argument, why don't you at least answer one conveniently ignored post:

If you are espousing armed teachers to protect children in schools, why didn't any of the armed security professionals in Vegas stop (or better, prevent) the killing there? Vegas is NOT a "soft target" (your words) as you say schools are.

Parkland happened last week, and you have already analysed it and come up with a solution (arm teachers).

Vegas happened last year, and your response is "we don't know enough about it yet". What a cop-out krok if ever I have heard it.

 

[Pneumonic]

If you need me to explain the subtelties of the English language to you, then further discussion is out I'm afraid.

If you want to lead me down the path of explaining individual word choices; while conveniently ignoring large swathes of what I said, I'll take it as an argument well and truly lost by you.

--------

If you want to persist with your argument, why don't you at least answer one conveniently ignored post:

If you are espousing armed teachers to protect children in schools, why didn't any of the armed security professionals in Vegas stop (or better, prevent) the killing there? Vegas is NOT a "soft target" (your words) as you say schools are.

Parkland happened last week, and you have already analysed it and come up with a solution (arm teachers).

Vegas happened last year, and your response is "we don't know enough about it yet". What a cop-out krok if ever I have heard it.

So, we have finally cleared up the mystery; you want to ban AR-15 but have a qualifier ..... only in civilized residential areas. I dare not ask you to define what you consider to be a "civilized residential area"

Re: arming teachers. I already voiced my position on arming teachers in a response to you a couple of pages ago in post #193. Here it is again

"I don't wish to see teachers armed in schools so, no. But, if it is enough of a concern, then I would like to see an armed specialist in the schools to prevent it from being a prime soft target zone open for the taking."

 

[Gordon Gray]

Does this sound better to you "sure I would be livid if they were murdered by a gun. Just as I would be livid if they were murdered by a vehicle, or if they were stabbed to death with a knife or if they were poisoned or if they were unfortunate to meet up with a suicide bomber, etc. But, in each case, I wouldn't blame the weapons involved and ask that they be banned. That's nonsensical."

You continue to be in denial that the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for mass murders.

I could research the number of deaths caused by knives, poison, cars, etc. in public areas / spaces (schools, concerts, night clubs, etc.) in the USA and am confident that they will pale in comparison to the number of innocent people injured / killed by the AR 15. But it would be a waste of my time because you will still be in denial.

And you avoided my question about visiting the parents. Oh well.

 

[Pneumonic]

You continue to be in denial that the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for mass murders.

I could research the number of deaths caused by knives, poison, cars, etc. in public areas / spaces (schools, concerts, night clubs, etc.) in the USA and am confident that they will pale in comparison to the number of innocent people injured / killed by the AR 15. But it would be a waste of my time because you will still be in denial.

And you avoided my question about visiting the parents. Oh well.

I'm not denying that the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass murders. This doesn't change the fact that I don't want to see it banned.

Not sure what the point is about visiting the parents of those killed by a gun. Why would you expect a gun owner to visit them? If I were the owner of, say a cube van, would you also expect me to visit the parents of anyone who dies as a result of some crazy who decides to mass murder a bunch of people by mowing them down with a cube van?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Not sure what the point is about visiting the parents of those killed by a gun.

Not just a gun but an AR-15. Why visit you ask? Because if you had the guts to do that (which I'm sure you don't), it would offer a real life alternative perspective on your position.

So you are from Canada. How many folks where killed by guns in your country in 2017?

Cube van? Again denial and deflection on your part.

PS: I agree with you that motor vehicles can kill people. In the USA and elsewhere, you are required to get a driver license before you can drive a car. What's the problem with requiring a similar license to own a gun in the USA?

 

[Pneumonic]

Not just a gun but an AR-15. Why visit you ask? Because if you had the guts to do that (which I'm sure you don't), it would offer a real life alternative perspective on your position.

So you are from Canada. How many folks where killed by guns in your country in 2017?

Cube van? Again denial and deflection on your part.

PS: I agree with you that motor vehicles can kill people. In the USA and elsewhere, you are required to get a driver license before you can drive a car. What's the problem with requiring a similar license to own a gun in the USA?

Again, you are being selective, very much so if you specify an AR15, about the weapon that does the murdering .... why is that? And why would you only require an owner of an AR-15 to visit the parents? So many other parents have to face devastating news of a child's senseless death afterall. Or are you only concerned with the parents of kids murdered by lunatics that use AR-15's? It just seems like such a bizarre requirement to me.

I have no idea how many gun murders happen in Canada. I do know that, like in the US (where I also am a citizen), I would not venture into many parts of Canada without being armed.

I think licensing of firearms is probably a good idea though, I doubt it would happen anytime soon. The crazies, however, should be prevented from easily getting a gun. The challenge is they would easily be able to secure a gun anyhow, or use a different weapon altogether, if they were hell-bent on murdering people.

 

[amey01]

And you avoided my question about visiting the parents. Oh well.

Avoids questions, makes wild mis-interpretations, adds words that aren't there, conveniently ignores words that are there.........all signs of someone who has comprehensively lost an argument, but refuses to stop kicking and screaming.

 

[amey01]

What's the problem with requiring a similar license to own a gun in the USA?

Agree.

As I've said before (but Pneumonic likes to conveniently ignore, and try to make this about banning things, or AR15s) - a sensible set of controls.

That sensible set of controls should include banning some types of guns, requiring "reason to own" and permits for other types, extensive training, storage controls, criminal history checks, cooling off periods, etc.

I have also suggested Pneumonic (and others) look at Australia's for an example - but ultimately what defines a "sensible set of controls" needs to be decided on by the USA, something which meets your country's needs and unique position.

But the uncontrolled and unabated free-for-all which you have now needs to end yesterday.

 

[Pneumonic]

Avoids questions, makes wild mis-interpretations, adds words that aren't there, conveniently ignores words that are there.........all signs of someone who has comprehensively lost an argument, but refuses to stop kicking and screaming.

How silly and patently false. Further, there is no win or lose in a gun control argument for there can be no right answer.

 

[Pneumonic]

Agree.

As I've said before (but Pneumonic likes to conveniently ignore, and try to make this about banning things, or AR15s) - a sensible set of controls.

That sensible set of controls should include banning some types of guns, requiring "reason to own" and permits for other types, extensive training, storage controls, criminal history checks, cooling off periods, etc.

I have also suggested Pneumonic (and others) look at Australia's for an example - but ultimately what defines a "sensible set of controls" needs to be decided on by the USA, something which meets your country's needs and unique position.

But the uncontrolled and unabated free-for-all which you have now needs to end yesterday.

We have controls already in place. It seems that they are aren't always being properly implemented but they are there. Besides licensing, which I have agreed might be a plausible addition to the existing control set, what controls do you propose that are different from the current laws that would prevent mass shootings?

As for banning ..... you have yet to answer the fundamental question that has been asked of you several times now ..... which gun(s) do you feel need to be banned?

 

[Gordon Gray]

I think that has been answered numerous times by myself and others in the recent posts. You must suffer from selective reading and denial. You just don't seem to "get it". Bye.

 

[amey01]

I think that has been answered numerous times by myself and others in the recent posts. You must suffer from selective reading and denial. You just don't seem to "get it". Bye.

+1. ..........Keep the status quo, and we'll revive the thread when another 30 innocent children are lying on the ground dead.