Well, no, the problem is people are getting shot with automatic/semi-automatic rifles. Because a layman or a lazy media identifies something easily as "Assault Rifle" is almost moot. They're still dead. I mean, really, who gives a shit? These people are still fucking dead. Who cares about the intricacies of what kind of rifle was used? Sure as shit wasn't a single shot bolt action hunting rifle. Either way, absolutely no preventative measure could have been taken in Dallas. The guy was (so far) golden on the legality front. Edited for typo/clarification.
I've shot an SKS, those things kick hard, powerful for sure. The weapon shouldn't be focused on, it should be the actions and motivations of the shooter(s).
I love me some gun porn. I have stated numerous times here that limiting the 2nd amendment in any way will be problematic. The weapon used should be considered in all arguments. When you start talking less about solving the problem of mass shootings, which we pretty much can't/won't, it becomes more about mitigating the loss of life they accrue. Because it is very easy to walk into a store and grab a weapon designed for war (Yes, yes, the last couple were not technically ARs). Someone with a low capacity clip, a bolt action rifle, etc, might impede a *mass* killer's efficacy. Instead of 50 dead, 30. Then of course, the shooters all become snipers, instead of barging in guns blazing. However, there are 300 million guns in circulation. Soooo...? Just go to a pawn shop to get your rifle? This whole argument just goes in circles. Gun violence is the one issue that will never change in this country.
You're making my point about lack of education here. It was not an automatic rifle. If you're going to enter this discussion, let's do it with facts, not hyperbole. The difference that the facts make is how to attack the problem. The import ban of 1989 didn't even cover the SKS. The 1994 regulations classified weapons based mostly on cosmetic features, not cartridge power. Wow, if you thought the SKS was powerful you have very limited firearm experience. My 5'3" wife loves to shoot the SKS because "the kick is so low." And if we're talking about sniper rifles, the SKS is a pretty shitty choice compared to even something like a .308 or .30-06, traditional hunting rounds.
"Bolt action" is just an example of something, *anything* to impede a shooter getting as many targets. Lee Harvey did just fine in 6 seconds with one. A trained gunman would have no problem using one. Semi automatic. MY MISTAKE, Rain Man. We're having a nice, constructive chat here. Thank you for basically insulting us because we don't know the exact specifics of every firearm.
I've shot maybe a half dozen times, mostly handguns like Beratta's, some revolvers, but yea my experience is very limited.
Like I said, if you're going to enter the discussion, let's use facts, not emotionally charged inaccurate terms. That's how we got the 1994 law - "these guns look dangerous!" * *b edit
I do shoot. Often. But thanks for clarifying you don't actually want to discuss what we as a country can do to come to a compromise.
Let's cut that shit off at the pass right now, shall we? And as to a discussion, I firmly believe that accurate details are a key component of ANY discussion, especially when talking about gun control, and the specifics around how a number of people want to enact/enforce that control. Automatic is a BIG difference from semi-automatic when it comes to legislation and the various gun control narratives floating around, so it is well worth pointing out. You're the one that got your details wrong, so let's not piss on people who correct you.
I am more than willing to discuss what we can do. Go back and read my first post today - I pointed out how a gun supporter was wrong and the situation probably wasn't the way he described it. I am trying to have an honest discussion though. So what do you think we can do that would help reduce these types of crimes?
Real compromise? Offer anything besides further limiting currently legal activities and Im willing to listen, not that Ill agree on the suggestions, but Ive yet to hear gun control advocates suggest anything in the way of comprimise that benifits gun owners outside of the fact that their restrictions could be worse. As I remember it an amendment to the last universal background check bill to allow nationwide reciprocity shot down by Dems. They demand the right compromise but will stonewall any, every, suggestion on the flip side. I don't know why everyone's still arguing about this. Trump is going to blow the whole fucking thing and ruin the down ticket races too. Hilldog could get her pick of federal laws and supreme court nominations and the gun culture as we know it will be bled dry in a generation. California is setting up these exact type plans now to make gun ownership for lawful purposes as onerous as possible, they want to be the national model. If Hillary appoints 1-2 more Judges it's just a waiting game then until the Dems can win the other two branches. Make all semi autos NFA, non transferable like Cali is doing now (no more inheriting), etc. A soft confiscation as it were.
I have pondered the Dallas question a bit, and arrived at this conclusion: We declared war on poverty, drugs and terrorism. That war was carried out by the police and since poverty and drugs seem to, for whatever reason, fall disproportionately on the black communities, they have answered that war. We have created a para-military force, put them on the streets with no accountability for the damage they cause, and we as a society are not much better off for the results they achieve. Seriously, does anyone think heroin or cocaine is hard to find? Does anyone feel comfortable standing next to a uniformed cop, or having one drive behind you? I purposely avoid these guys when I am in the gym, or when I go out to lunch, because I very emphatically do NOT want to be on their radar for any reason whatsoever. And I haven't done drugs or even drank for fucking years. I distrust our government significantly (for a liberal, that's not easy to do), and I distrust the police astoundingly. This isn't policing a community, this is war and you can't expect people in a war zone, to be molested by an invading army and not respond. These cops shoot people, tase them, choke them, shoot their dogs, break into their homes, traumatize their children, disrespect their family structure and are an entirely disruptive force. I don't give a flying fuck what someone has done, we have judges, juries and entire elaborate systems to punish criminals. The cops do not, nor should they ever, have that responsibility. And yet, they dole out beatings, shootings, assaults, and even theft (asset forfeiture, google it), as casually as though the people they dealt with were enemy combatants and not civilians. The fact that American police are so heavy-handed is the single greatest threat to civil liberty I can imagine. Someone can kick in my door, shoot my dog, assault me, rip up my belongings and then not be held accountable for a fucking thing? I'm amazed more cops aren't killed out of pure revenge. So, yes...shootings like Dallas, while utterly indefensible and tragic, will happen because...we essentially delcared war on our own citizenry and we Americans do NOT fuck around when it comes to war. For all the people who claim their 2nd amendment right is to defend themselves against tyranny...well, this is what that looks like. Shooting cops. I don't believe that's an admissible argument anymore, since the cop's response was a Goddamned killer robot. I do not count myself as one of the people comfortable with that. I also despise the people spouting off about liberty and what not, without acknowledging the people whose rights are being trampled are inevitably members of a minority, poor and most likely to be a victim of a crime themselves. So, yes...his 2nd amendment right guaranteed him the ability to do what he believed was fighting tyranny and oppression, where we all examine this as a senseless tragedy...I think, no, he believed his culture was in a war and he acted accordingly. I'm not suggesting his views were correct or justified, but I am certainly saying that I understand how he would arrive at that conclusion. Fuck, drive through West Baltimore and talk to people about their neighborhood and your opinions of life under police occupation will change. I don't believe you can prevent ANY American from acquiring a gun, going to a public place and shooting people. There are 300 million guns (that we know of) and there are billion dollar industries producing them right here at home. Preventing the act itself would be nigh impossible. Too many guns, too many grievances, and there will never be enough security to "police" everywhere this could happen. I think you prevent this from happening by removing the label and stigma around criminality, end the drug war in a way that results in less drugs being consumed, as opposed to criminality by possession and return to policing the community. A police officer in downtown Baghdad might need an MRAP, but one in Baltimore or Dallas who thinks he does is a fucking problem.
Sources: DPD headquarters on lockdown, SWAT deployed for 'serious threat' Live stream: http://www.wfaa.com/news/reports-dpd-under-lockdown-swat-deployed-following-serious-threat/268431154
Jason Whitely @JasonWhitely 3 minutes ago #UPDATE: @DallasPD received an anonymous threat against law enforcement across the city, taken measures to heighten security, DPD says.
Anyone see this? https://theconservativetreehouse.co...lse-media-narrative-now-driving-cop-killings/ "Ms. Diamond Reynolds narrates the now viral Facebook video with several false statements. Reynolds claimed they were pulled over for a broken tail light, false. Ms. Reynolds also claims her boyfriend, Castile, was holding a concealed carry permit for a firearm that was resting on his left thigh. This also appears to be false. According to a question presented to the local county sheriff who oversees the Concealed Carry Permit process, Mr. Castile had never requested a concealed carry permit from their office." "Lastly, it appears the family circle around Philando Castile is moving quickly to raise funds from the event. There are currently at least THREE Go-Fund-Me Donation, accounts set up by entities within the familial circle, currently running to raise money: Lavish “Diamond” Reynolds has raised $16,564 so far with a goal of $50,000 . The “Family” has raised $149,720 so far, exceeding their goal of $100,000. Big Sister “Allysza” has raised $55,866 so far, with a goal of $80,000. GRAND TOTAL $222,150 raised under various Philando Castile Go-Fund-Me Accounts." Something didn't feel right about that video. If her daughter was in the car, why wasn't she a little more concerned about her well being? If you were in the same situation would you have picked up your phone and started video taping or tried to comfort your child? Even her tone in the video seems off. There is no real emotion.
I know horse racing is pretty big in the US but I'm not sure about Greyhounds, over here in Aus it is massive and there has been a lot of discussion about the systemic issues of corruption, cheating and animal cruelty that pervade the sport. Steeplechase has been banned in all but two states here and last week the Premier of NSW banned Greyhound racing with effect July 1st next year. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-07/greyhound-racing-to-be-banned-in-new-south-wales/7576816 What are everyone's thoughts on the sport in general?
Those things top out at like 75 MPH, so watching a bunch of buses driving in circles seems kinda boring. The crashes are probably cool, though.