No thoughts and prayers today?

Ponzio

Ponzio

Audioholic Field Marshall
For those poor 29 dead folks in Dayton and El Paso?

Or have we just become so numb to this disease, that seems to afflict this country more than any other in the world?

Carry on! [shakes head in disgust].
 
Last edited:
T

Trell

Senior Audioholic
It is so sad to once again see mass murder committed in USA by a gun man, and it's even sadder that most likely there will only be thoughts and prayers with no action to sensible gun controls. Rinse and repeat until the next mass murder big enough to make the headlines.

I live in (Western) EU where there are much stricter gun controls with far fewer guns in private ownership, so the violence is far less deadly when it happens. Not only that, but suicide rates are lower because of fewer guns available. USA tops statistics of deaths and serious wounds among youth caused by guns.

Where I live people hunt and that is fine as long as there are reasonable gun controls and compulsory training (tests). I do not hunt nor own any guns even though I've done military service. Why? I do not hunt nor am I a member of a shooting club.
 
H

Hetfield

Audioholic General
For those poor 29 dead folks in Dayton and El Paso?

Or have we just become so numb to this disease, that seems to afflict this country more than any other in the world?

Carry on! [shakes head in disgust].
I'm tired of thoughts and prayers, I want action. Assault weapons ban, 50 billion dollar voluntary assault weapon buy back, magazines/clips limit of 5. I'll take 10 but should be 5.
A task force of thousands going over these but job forums looking for or trying to find these pukes. Judges to oversee that just to be sure it's not being overused.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Slumlord
I think these post tend to end in a flaming row.

However the answer though not currently popular is what I think the answer is.

Making it harder to get guns will do little to nothing to stop this.
We have to face the fact it is time to abolish the Second Amendment via Constitutional change.

We need to make really tough lasting change. That means than only a select few tactical police units and the military should be armed. Regular police should be unarmed.

All guns need to be turned in by everyone else. There needs to be severe and harsh penalties for anyone not authorized in possession of a gun.

Nothing less than this will stop the carnage.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I think these post tend to end in a flaming row.

However the answer though not currently popular is what I think the answer is.

Making it harder to get guns will do little to nothing to stop this.
We have to face the fact it is time to abolish the Second Amendment via Constitutional change.

We need to make really tough lasting change. That means than only a select few tactical police units and the military should be armed. Regular police should be unarmed.

All guns need to be turned in by everyone else. There needs to be severe and harsh penalties for anyone not authorized in possession of a gun.

Nothing less than this will stop the carnage.
I agree; the 2nd Amendment needs to get rewritten to exclude private ownership of guns without very stringent licensing, background checks, and training. And let's say we changed or dropped the 2nd Amendment, there are over 300 million guns in the US today. Even if we got a 99% return rate, there would still be over 3 million left on street. I'm thinking it's a lost cause.
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
And let's say we changed or dropped the 2nd Amendment, there are over 300 million guns in the US today. Even if we got a 99% return rate, there would still be over 3 million left on street. I'm thinking it's a lost cause.
Sure, you can stay scared of large numbers, or you can rationalize that and realize you would be going from one gun for every man, woman and child, to a scarce level of availability of less than 1% of the population.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Ninja
I think these post tend to end in a flaming row.

However the answer though not currently popular is what I think the answer is.

Making it harder to get guns will do little to nothing to stop this.
We have to face the fact it is time to abolish the Second Amendment via Constitutional change.

We need to make really tough lasting change. That means than only a select few tactical police units and the military should be armed. Regular police should be unarmed.

All guns need to be turned in by everyone else. There needs to be severe and harsh penalties for anyone not authorized in possession of a gun.

Nothing less than this will stop the carnage.
The arguments made by the hard-pro-2nd amendment fans are disingenuous at best. Bump stocks, High capacity magazines, and access to military-grade tactical weaponry is so bizarrely misguided as to be laughable. Yet its quite the opposite; somehow the arguments are made, and accepted, that we have the right to this! :confused:
I grew up with guns. My father was a target shooter, and so was I. We never hunted. He is a member of the NRA, as am I, considering he bought me a lifetime membership back in the days of it being a responsible organization teaching firearms safety and responsible ownership.
It is a very sad thing that organization has become.
I struggle with the need to go quite so far. (Though my fondest memories are of using an old Colt AR-15 on the range, it is not really a tool for the common man. That said, I was too little to use my Dad's M-1 Garand, but could handle the smaller rounds of the AR.) Rifles made for target shooting and hunting are fine. Yes they need to be registered, and owners should pass proficiency tests for the right to continue owning and OCCASIONALLY baring arms. You don't need to go to church with a Colt, or get coffee with Smith & Wesson.
But even going as drastic as suggested previously will not remove the threat or possibility of anything untoward happening again in the future.
This is the saddest point of all.
And because of that we are yet doomed to wash, rinse, and repeat.
Maybe one day...
But until the leadership of the NRA experiences a personal crisis the likes of some of the worst we've known in the past... we have little hope.
I find myself now talking about a societal paradigm shift for the second time in as many days.
Where, and when will it all end? (The gun conversation, or me talking about a paradigm shift? :p )

If a congressional softball game couldn't solve it, how many more schools, houses of worship, parades celebrating non-violence... will it take?

Our constitution wasn't written with the forethought to consider the future we call now. Their primary goal was to avoid the kind of governments that were fled in Europe to found America (or in some cases, where people were just sent away). In attempting to adapt and apply their intentions to today, you end up with the same kind of situation (and results) that lead people to argue over interpretations of biblical verse... or the quran... or song lyrics. Instead of a reasonable application of Utilitarianism, we now have a leadership class that pits "my way or no way" against the other's same reason of being.

Where do we go from here?
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
One point to consider is that there countries out there with widespread gun ownership but without all the violence. So there is another factor in these mass shootings aside from the availability of guns. It has been argued that it is a cultural fetishization of violence that is particularly severe in the USA. I think that even if you got rid of guns, you still have the underlying sickness. You only cure one symptom and not the disease. But the disease manifests itself in so many other ways that mass shootings are just a minor symptom in comparison to the quantity of suffering that is also caused by the idolization of violence.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Sure, you can stay scared of large numbers, or you can rationalize that and realize you would be going from one gun for every man, woman and child, to a scarce level of availability of less than 1% of the population.
I'm not "scared". And IMO it would be exceedingly difficult to get 99%. Let's explore an analogy. Cocaine and heroin are egregiously illegal. If you're caught selling or using these drugs it's a felony and you end up in prison, yet there's something like one million people per year trying cocaine. The US has been fighting a long term "war on drugs" to the tune of $50B/year, and 45% of felony convictions are for drug offenses. And for all of that heroin and cocaine use is not in decline. And I think it is obvious that the number of people who feel they must own guns is greater than the number of people who want to use heroin and cocaine. So while I'm with TLSGuy in spirit, I'm not hopeful for a positive outcome. It just isn't realistic in the US, IMO.
 
Ponzio

Ponzio

Audioholic Field Marshall
The US has been fighting a long term "war on drugs" to the tune of $50B/year, and 45% of felony convictions are for drug offenses. And for all of that heroin and cocaine use is not in decline.
The "war on drugs", that's rich. Another oxymoron that the politicians, on both sides, have foisted on the general public.

How many battles must the US lose before it sues for peace? A bloody waste of money with no end in sight and the corpses and lives ruined are strewn all over the streets. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition?
 
Last edited:
Phase 2

Phase 2

Audioholic Chief
Guns, don't kill, people kill people.
Gun can't pull a trigger only a person can. Blame the weapon all you want. People been killing since the dawn of time. They'll just find another way to kill. Don't believe me? Just look back at WW2, Nazis used gas to kill 6 million.
 
eddified

eddified

Audiophyte
I’m saddened by the mass shootings. I’m also saddened by the way the shooters seek fame—and here’s the kicker— they get it... to an extent. They LIKE having their name all over the news. And we keep giving the “fame” to them. So sad.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Warlord
I’m saddened by the mass shootings. I’m also saddened by the way the shooters seek fame—and here’s the kicker— they get it... to an extent. They LIKE having their name all over the news. And we keep giving the “fame” to them. So sad.
Actually, I believe the names of the shooters are not being used publicly any more - at least in none of the news I have heard. Only "21 year old male" for the shooting in the WalMart in El Paso.
 
Ponzio

Ponzio

Audioholic Field Marshall
It seems “thoughts and prayers” are out this time folks.

The new Republican talking point … the Democratic pro-gun lobby has cravenly decided to disappear … is the sorrow and outrage about these “poor” gunmen’s “mental” state. That’s the problem. Got it? Not the easy access and paper-tissue thin laws governing gun control that they legislated.

Trump’s chief-of-staff Mick Mulvaney started spearheading the new talking points on the Sunday morning news shows.

"This was a sick person, the person in Dayton was a sick person," Mulvaney told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in an interview Sunday. "No politician is to blame for that. The person who was responsible here are the people who pulled the trigger. We need to figure out how to kind of create less of those kinds of people as a society and not trying to figure out who gets blamed going into the next election. There's no benefit here to trying to make this a political issue, this is a social issue."

See, this is your fault, not them.

Don’t be surprised if that’s what you hear all this week from other pro-gun politicians and talking heads. And of course they’re depending on the average American’s attention span of a flea to wander off … information/emotional overload … and we’re back to square one, where nothing gets done. :mad:
 
Last edited:
H

Hetfield

Audioholic General
Just a month or two before in Florida he had a rally when someone yelled out "shoot them" and instead of being completely appalled and condemning that kind of talk he laughed about it and made a joke.

HE IS DIRECTLY TO BLAME.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
One point to consider is that there countries out there with widespread gun ownership but without all the violence. So there is another factor in these mass shootings aside from the availability of guns. It has been argued that it is a cultural fetishization of violence that is particularly severe in the USA. I think that even if you got rid of guns, you still have the underlying sickness. You only cure one symptom and not the disease. But the disease manifests itself in so many other ways that mass shootings are just a minor symptom in comparison to the quantity of suffering that is also caused by the idolization of violence.
I don't get your logic. Because there are so many other means of inflicting violence on society, there's little point in restricting access to the one of the deadliest means? The one with probably the least alternate purposes?
 
H

Hetfield

Audioholic General
I believe the guy or one of these shooters had a 100 round mag/clip. Tell me how many deer are people shooting at in the woods with that? What Hunter needs a 100 round clip?
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top