brandon
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,105
- Reaction score
- 5,395
Offline
T&P
Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterbrandon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
BullSheetBuddha
Well-known member
Offline
What I say is that the AR15 shouldn't be on the market.
M14
M14 Battle Rifle | MilitaryToday.com
The M14 battle rifle was adopted in 1959 and gradually replaced the M1 Garand in the US Army, US Marine Corps, and US Navy service. It was an accurate weapon with long range and superior penetration.
www.militarytoday.com
M16A1
M16 Assault Rifle | MilitaryToday.com
The famous M16 assault rifle was adopted by the US Army in 1964. The M16 is considered as one of the best assault rifles in the world.
www.militarytoday.com
Last edited:
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
Ok.
... which proves that the design of the AR-15 wasn't shaped by the old adage "whoever shoots the most lead wins", since the previous rifle shot more bullets, no?
BullSheetBuddha
Well-known member
Offline
I'll give it to you.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
The US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case which gun and domestic violence prevention groups are warning could be a matter of life and death for thousands of abuse victims and their families.
Tuesday’s hearing on United States v Rahimi is seen as one of the most consequential cases with which the nine justices will grapple this term. At stake is how far the new hard-right supermajority of the court will go in unraveling the US’s already lax gun laws, even as the country reels from a spate of devastating mass shootings.
Also at stake, say experts, are the lives of thousands of Americans, overwhelmingly women, threatened with gun violence at the hands of their current or former intimate partners.
The hearing will put the spotlight on a federal law that prohibits anyone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing guns. The justices are being asked whether the law is unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the second amendment right to bear arms.
The possibility that removing guns from those deemed a domestic violence threat could be ruled unconstitutional has spread alarm among groups studying the issue. Kelly Roskam, director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins center for gun violence solutions, has co-authored an amicus brief in the Rahimi case in which she sets out for the justices the implications of scuppering the law.
“There is no replacement in my mind for domestic violence civil protective orders,” Roskam said. “And I have no doubt that blocking them would place primarily women’s lives at risk.”
Between 2018 and 2020, 739 people were shot and killed each year by their intimate partner, according to the gun control group Brady. About 80% of the victims were women.…..
www.theguardian.com
Tuesday’s hearing on United States v Rahimi is seen as one of the most consequential cases with which the nine justices will grapple this term. At stake is how far the new hard-right supermajority of the court will go in unraveling the US’s already lax gun laws, even as the country reels from a spate of devastating mass shootings.
Also at stake, say experts, are the lives of thousands of Americans, overwhelmingly women, threatened with gun violence at the hands of their current or former intimate partners.
The hearing will put the spotlight on a federal law that prohibits anyone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing guns. The justices are being asked whether the law is unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the second amendment right to bear arms.
The possibility that removing guns from those deemed a domestic violence threat could be ruled unconstitutional has spread alarm among groups studying the issue. Kelly Roskam, director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins center for gun violence solutions, has co-authored an amicus brief in the Rahimi case in which she sets out for the justices the implications of scuppering the law.
“There is no replacement in my mind for domestic violence civil protective orders,” Roskam said. “And I have no doubt that blocking them would place primarily women’s lives at risk.”
Between 2018 and 2020, 739 people were shot and killed each year by their intimate partner, according to the gun control group Brady. About 80% of the victims were women.…..
US supreme court to hear case on domestic abuser’s right to own guns
Experts say United States v Rahimi may be matter of life and death for thousands of abuse victims, majority women, and their families
BullSheetBuddha
Well-known member
Offline
With threats on the rise, many American Jews are buying guns, seeking training | CNN
As three pistol-holding Jewish women aligned their muzzles with the outdoor targets at a California gun range, one of the shooters-in-training – Dani, a granddaughter to Holocaust survivors on both sides of her family – fired a single shot.
www.cnn.com
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Good article and something that should be talked about more
============
In the wake of the Maine mass shootings that left 18 people dead, Republican politicians are returning to a familiar talking point: the way to prevent these frequent massacres is not changing how easy it is for Americans to access guns – it’s locking up more people with mental health issues.
The Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, said after the shooting that he did not support expanding the “red flag” laws that make it easier to temporarily take guns away from people who have threatened to hurt themselves or others. Instead, he argued on CNN, an “involuntary commitment” of the shooter would have “done the trick”.
In 2018, then-president Donald Trump responded to a school shooting in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 people dead, in part by tweeting about why “a sicko” like the shooter should have been brought to a “mental institution”.
Mental health experts have spent years trying to fact-check politicians who blame mass shootings on mental illness, an equation they have called misleading, counterproductive and cruel.
Among them is Dr Paul Appelbaum, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and one of the authors of a landmark study challenging assumptions about the connections between mental illness and violence risk.
“The primary misconception that exists among many members of the public is that gun violence, particularly mass shootings, results primarily from mental illness, and in fact that’s not true,” Appelbaum said.
This widespread belief has “diverted attention from ways of making it harder for people to get guns”, he said, and instead focused attention on mental health interventions unlikely to prevent much violence.
The conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
What’s the best estimate for how much violence in the United States is linked to mental illness?
Jeff Swanson at Duke published a study that estimated somewhere around 4% of violence was attributable to mental illness, which meant if you could get rid of all the violence that was caused by or related to mental illness, we’d still be left with 96% of the violence in this country. There are lots of reasons to want to provide good mental healthcare, but violence reduction is, in my view, pretty low on the list.
What do we know about the perpetrators of mass shootings in terms of mental illness?
We know two things: the vast majority of mass shooting perpetrators are not suffering from a serious mental illness. We also know that people with serious mental illness are somewhat overrepresented among mass shooters. Another way of saying that is: there’s an increased risk of mass violence by people with serious mental disorders, but nonetheless the vast majority of such incidents are not linked to serious mental illness.
What about other risk factors for violence?
What’s important to say, before we narrow the focus to mental illness, is that none of those factors are as powerfully related to violence as some common characteristics that exist across people with mental illness and without mental illness. Age: young people are much more likely to be violent than older people. Men are much more likely to be violent than women. People who use alcohol and other disinhibiting substances are much more likely to be violent than people who don’t. Prior violence is strongly associated with future violence.
Then there are things like unemployment or job instability, which is associated with violence as well.
In a major study that I was involved in, there were over 130 variables that we found to be significantly associated with violence, and the most strongly associated ones were substance use and antisocial personality disorders, a formal diagnosis that involves a lifelong pattern of disregard for the interests of others: exploitation, manipulation of others, lack of concern for others, not being sensitive to rules.
“Sociopathy”, “psychopathy”, antisocial personality, more or less refer to the same cluster of symptoms, the same groups of people who disregard legal and social norms and have difficulty restraining their impulses. It’s not what most people think of as a serious mental illness.……
What are the effects of this perception that mental illness is linked to violence?
There’s always been stigma. That’s exacerbated by the drumbeat of stories about a link between mental illness and violence. After high-profile mass violence, when for a short period of time there seems to be a window of opportunity to achieve some sort of policy change, you will notice that among the groups that most vociferously point to mental illness is the National Rifle Association. A little bit of money is appropriated for some sort of expansion of mental health services. But people are not talking about universal background checks or getting rid of assault weapons or restricting the size of magazines. They’re not talking about things that would really be effective in terms of reducing the number of deaths that would occur every year.….
www.theguardian.com
============
In the wake of the Maine mass shootings that left 18 people dead, Republican politicians are returning to a familiar talking point: the way to prevent these frequent massacres is not changing how easy it is for Americans to access guns – it’s locking up more people with mental health issues.
The Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, said after the shooting that he did not support expanding the “red flag” laws that make it easier to temporarily take guns away from people who have threatened to hurt themselves or others. Instead, he argued on CNN, an “involuntary commitment” of the shooter would have “done the trick”.
In 2018, then-president Donald Trump responded to a school shooting in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 people dead, in part by tweeting about why “a sicko” like the shooter should have been brought to a “mental institution”.
Mental health experts have spent years trying to fact-check politicians who blame mass shootings on mental illness, an equation they have called misleading, counterproductive and cruel.
Among them is Dr Paul Appelbaum, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and one of the authors of a landmark study challenging assumptions about the connections between mental illness and violence risk.
“The primary misconception that exists among many members of the public is that gun violence, particularly mass shootings, results primarily from mental illness, and in fact that’s not true,” Appelbaum said.
This widespread belief has “diverted attention from ways of making it harder for people to get guns”, he said, and instead focused attention on mental health interventions unlikely to prevent much violence.
The conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
What’s the best estimate for how much violence in the United States is linked to mental illness?
Jeff Swanson at Duke published a study that estimated somewhere around 4% of violence was attributable to mental illness, which meant if you could get rid of all the violence that was caused by or related to mental illness, we’d still be left with 96% of the violence in this country. There are lots of reasons to want to provide good mental healthcare, but violence reduction is, in my view, pretty low on the list.
What do we know about the perpetrators of mass shootings in terms of mental illness?
We know two things: the vast majority of mass shooting perpetrators are not suffering from a serious mental illness. We also know that people with serious mental illness are somewhat overrepresented among mass shooters. Another way of saying that is: there’s an increased risk of mass violence by people with serious mental disorders, but nonetheless the vast majority of such incidents are not linked to serious mental illness.
What about other risk factors for violence?
What’s important to say, before we narrow the focus to mental illness, is that none of those factors are as powerfully related to violence as some common characteristics that exist across people with mental illness and without mental illness. Age: young people are much more likely to be violent than older people. Men are much more likely to be violent than women. People who use alcohol and other disinhibiting substances are much more likely to be violent than people who don’t. Prior violence is strongly associated with future violence.
Then there are things like unemployment or job instability, which is associated with violence as well.
In a major study that I was involved in, there were over 130 variables that we found to be significantly associated with violence, and the most strongly associated ones were substance use and antisocial personality disorders, a formal diagnosis that involves a lifelong pattern of disregard for the interests of others: exploitation, manipulation of others, lack of concern for others, not being sensitive to rules.
“Sociopathy”, “psychopathy”, antisocial personality, more or less refer to the same cluster of symptoms, the same groups of people who disregard legal and social norms and have difficulty restraining their impulses. It’s not what most people think of as a serious mental illness.……
What are the effects of this perception that mental illness is linked to violence?
There’s always been stigma. That’s exacerbated by the drumbeat of stories about a link between mental illness and violence. After high-profile mass violence, when for a short period of time there seems to be a window of opportunity to achieve some sort of policy change, you will notice that among the groups that most vociferously point to mental illness is the National Rifle Association. A little bit of money is appropriated for some sort of expansion of mental health services. But people are not talking about universal background checks or getting rid of assault weapons or restricting the size of magazines. They’re not talking about things that would really be effective in terms of reducing the number of deaths that would occur every year.….
GOP blaming mental illness for gun violence is counterproductive and cruel, say experts
Dr Paul Appelbaum, a psychiatrist, challenges assumptions about the connections between mental health and violence risk
So, the new test of overturning a gun law is if a similar law was on the books when the second amendment was written?The US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case which gun and domestic violence prevention groups are warning could be a matter of life and death for thousands of abuse victims and their families.
Tuesday’s hearing on United States v Rahimi is seen as one of the most consequential cases with which the nine justices will grapple this term. At stake is how far the new hard-right supermajority of the court will go in unraveling the US’s already lax gun laws, even as the country reels from a spate of devastating mass shootings.
Also at stake, say experts, are the lives of thousands of Americans, overwhelmingly women, threatened with gun violence at the hands of their current or former intimate partners.
The hearing will put the spotlight on a federal law that prohibits anyone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing guns. The justices are being asked whether the law is unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the second amendment right to bear arms.
The possibility that removing guns from those deemed a domestic violence threat could be ruled unconstitutional has spread alarm among groups studying the issue. Kelly Roskam, director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins center for gun violence solutions, has co-authored an amicus brief in the Rahimi case in which she sets out for the justices the implications of scuppering the law.
“There is no replacement in my mind for domestic violence civil protective orders,” Roskam said. “And I have no doubt that blocking them would place primarily women’s lives at risk.”
Between 2018 and 2020, 739 people were shot and killed each year by their intimate partner, according to the gun control group Brady. About 80% of the victims were women.…..
US supreme court to hear case on domestic abuser’s right to own guns
Experts say United States v Rahimi may be matter of life and death for thousands of abuse victims, majority women, and their families
Can they make a law that people of African decent can't own firearms and have Clarence Thomas rule on it using this test of his?
I don't want the law to pass. I'd like to see him talk his way around the issue.
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
'murica
Annnd…another reason why there is a maturity problem surrounding gun ownership.
Big_L
New member
Offline
From what I've heard they are not. https://stateline.org/2022/08/30/gu...als should offer,for assault weapons, he said.
Big_L
New member
Offline
I have plenty of reasons to belive this. I just posted an article that gave some prices given to individuals who turned their weapons in.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Full text
======
I may stand alone in my thoughts as the Washington Post introduces new photos of the Robb Elementary Massacre, the shooting that took my son Uziyah’s life.
With nothing but love and respect to every family out there, from anybody who lost a loved one at our shooting, to the others displayed in this article, I disagree with not showing the public.I disagree with the public turning a blind eye to the reality that is America.
I’ve waited nearly two years for information and our city, state, and governent still refuse to give us any.
While these photos are disturbing and truly shocking, it lets you see just a modicum of the scenes that constantly invade my thoughts and nightmares.
The blood you see in the photo’s are the result of children's lifelines, painting the floor because our government deems my son's life less than a gun. The body bags containing 10 year olds is a hallway our congress passes through daily, looking away in disgust.
You’ll see a massive bullet hole through a door. The impact is astonishing, even more so when you put into perspective that what you see is a steel door. Now, envision that in a 10 year olds body. For myself, I don’t have to. I’ve seen what it does. One single bullet struck Uziyahs spine and blew out his stomach.
I firmly believe that the Washington Post is not publishing these for shock value or click bait. They have delivered astonishing articles on the effects of mass shootings before, namely “The Blast Effect” which shows just how these bullets blow a body apart.
Instead I view these as a warning. A warning to our nation that if we do not stand together, put our foot down and demand our government to do something, then it will be your loved ones body in that bag. Your loved ones blood smeared from being dragged out. Your loved ones funeral.
I think the public should see. I hope its a gut punch. I hope that you feel just a twinge of that pain. And then I hope you envision your child losing their life in school, and maybe then, will it light the fire up under your arse to demand for better.
I know that we post photos of Uziyah smiling and happy. Thats who he was in life. An energizer bunny who’s foot was always on the gas and never on the break.
But thats not who he was in his final moments.
He was terrified. He was distraught. My little boy wasn’t smiling.
And yours won’t be either.
As I’ve said before, and will continue to say…..It’s not a matter of if it will happen to you, its a matter of when.
So view the article.
Breathe it in.
Smell the gunfire.
See the destruction.
See the pain.
Big_L
New member
Offline
Nobody uses the full auto mode, you just waste ammo. When I carried a M16, I used semi only. The M4 doesn’t have auto, just 3 round burst, which I didn’t use either.
BullSheetBuddha
Well-known member
Offline
I didn't say anything about how often full auto is used or isn't used. I carried an M16 and rarely carried it on full auto. What I said was. "If they hadn't cared about how much lead the M16 could pour out then they wouldn't have had a full auto switch."
Anyway, that debate with SystemShock is over.
Last edited:
Big_L
New member
Offline
Well, I think "they" cared more about accurately getting shots on target. I saw it and added my opinion.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
A zealous gun rights group, even more uncompromising than the once formidable National Rifle Association, is emerging as a force in US politics with a mission to oppose efforts at gun control and ease further America’s already lax regulations on firearms.
Last year the Gun Owners of America (GOA) spent $3.3m on lobbying, a record sum for the hardline foe of gun control that now claims over 2 million members and activists, and has previously operated in the shadows of the larger NRA.
The GOA’s record lobbying spending in 2022 was spurred in part by a rise in its annual revenues, which more than tripled from $2.3m in 2016 to $8.7m in 2021, according to tax records.
The GOA is an adamant enemy of gun control measures of all stripes, and proudly calls itself the “no compromise” gun lobby. Its surge in lobbying spending reflects one way it has capitalized on the financial and legal problems of the once 5 million-member NRA in the hopes of expanding the GOA’s political clout, say gun experts.
“The GOA was formed in the 1970s because they believed the NRA was too liberal,” said Robert Spitzer, the author of several books on guns and a professor emeritus at Suny Cortland in New York. “True to its creed, the GOA has opposed every manner of gun law and attacked the NRA at every turn.”
The GOA’s anti-gun control posture was underscored by its opposition to a bipartisan compromise gun control bill in 2022 that closed some gun law loopholes, including for prospective buyers under 21, and implemented gun violence prevention policies, becoming the first gun control bill enacted since 1994.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act garnered just 29 Republican votes in Congress, but the GOA this year in an alert to its members warning of pending legislative threats suggested those votes were “cowardly”.
The GOA’s lobbying efforts in 2022 were notable in another way: it was the only gun rights group to increase its spending in 2022 according to OpenSecrets, and surpassed the NRA’s lobbying expenditures of $2.6m last year, a drop of over $2m from the NRA’s 2021 total.…….
www.theguardian.com
Last year the Gun Owners of America (GOA) spent $3.3m on lobbying, a record sum for the hardline foe of gun control that now claims over 2 million members and activists, and has previously operated in the shadows of the larger NRA.
The GOA’s record lobbying spending in 2022 was spurred in part by a rise in its annual revenues, which more than tripled from $2.3m in 2016 to $8.7m in 2021, according to tax records.
The GOA is an adamant enemy of gun control measures of all stripes, and proudly calls itself the “no compromise” gun lobby. Its surge in lobbying spending reflects one way it has capitalized on the financial and legal problems of the once 5 million-member NRA in the hopes of expanding the GOA’s political clout, say gun experts.
“The GOA was formed in the 1970s because they believed the NRA was too liberal,” said Robert Spitzer, the author of several books on guns and a professor emeritus at Suny Cortland in New York. “True to its creed, the GOA has opposed every manner of gun law and attacked the NRA at every turn.”
The GOA’s anti-gun control posture was underscored by its opposition to a bipartisan compromise gun control bill in 2022 that closed some gun law loopholes, including for prospective buyers under 21, and implemented gun violence prevention policies, becoming the first gun control bill enacted since 1994.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act garnered just 29 Republican votes in Congress, but the GOA this year in an alert to its members warning of pending legislative threats suggested those votes were “cowardly”.
The GOA’s lobbying efforts in 2022 were notable in another way: it was the only gun rights group to increase its spending in 2022 according to OpenSecrets, and surpassed the NRA’s lobbying expenditures of $2.6m last year, a drop of over $2m from the NRA’s 2021 total.…….
As the NRA fades, a more zealous US pro-gun group rises as a lobbying power
Gun Owners of America, formed in belief NRA was ‘too liberal’, spent $3.3m lobbying against gun control and boasts 2m members
BullSheetBuddha
Well-known member
Offline
I wasn't debating the accuracy, or not, of the M16.
Last edited:
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.