Colorado is an antigun state.

[danny]

Don’t forget sling shots and BB guns! Wait for the Knife Bill. It’s probably being written as we speak. Having a sharp pointy knife at a gathering of people is DANGEROUS!
HERE’s a new story for you! Libs on the loose making the world safer!
View attachment 1651383

It looks like they are way too far away from the target.

Danny

 

[danny]

School shootings predate the founding of the republic. What’s changed is the sensationalized reporting, the dramatization of the event, and the “common sense approach” of dealing with the distinct possibility that it might happen.



If people really educated themselves of the history of school violence, maybe they would figure out it’s the people, not the tool that is the problem.

This is worth a read and the source for the above quote.

History of School Shootings in the United States | K12 Academics

1700s The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed...

www.k12academics.com

Sorry .. If you believe that the anti-gun liberals will drop their anti-gun crusades if someone could show them how problem individuals are the problem, not firearms, you are wrong. Donald Trump, as an example, could find a way to stop all shootings, including school shootings, and this same crowd will still be pushing for anti-gun legislation, and preferably an all out ban and collection scheme.

Danny

 

[dellet]

Sorry .. If you believe that the anti-gun liberals will drop their anti-gun crusades if someone could show them how problem individuals are the problem, not firearms, you are wrong. Donald Trump, as an example, could find a way to stop all shootings, including school shootings, and this same crowd will still be pushing for anti-gun legislation, and preferably an all out ban and collection scheme.

Danny

I have no idea what you’re talking about. You’ve quoted me and it’s simply not possible for any rational thinker to draw the conclusion you have from what you quoted.

 

[Jim Ziegler]

I have always believed that gun control is not about protecting people but about taking away the peoples ability to appose the government. Mass killings will never go away as long as we have mental issues and political unrest. When guns are not available people move on to bombings, have you ever been in an environment where bomb threats are a daily or weekly thing? I have. Also look at using vehicle's to kill and maim. How many times in the last several years have people used vehicles to mow down many people at a time? Do you see liberals rising up to ban vehicles? No because they need their vehicles but also that does not fit the agenda. How many people are killed with bats, knives and many other items. Never a peep about banning those items.

It dang sure isn't about getting criminals off the streets. They introduced a bill here in Colorado that would make any gun theft a felony, but the libs killed it because they said it would target Blacks and Latinos. Well guess what, it's mostly Blacks and Latinos that steal guns!!

 

[precision1]

It still proves more guns are better.......


A armed society is a honest society


You don't draw a weapon down here you'll get killed.everyone carries.

 

[RexRugged]

dellet you stated above: "President Johnson a firm supporter for civil rights, when pressed why he, a Texan, supported the movement famously referred to using welfare to secure the black vote for something like the next 150 years. The politically motivated destruction of the American family has officially begun." This is absolute BS you have fell for.

This is a I think a good example of how people remember things to suit their wants, a common thing these days. Here is what you are referring to I believe: "This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny." https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...tol-rotunda-the-signing-the-voting-rights-act

 

[RexRugged]

dellet you wrote:

War sucks. The media decides who the villain is. It was impossible to imbed American journalists into Viet Cong units. So the media did the only thing they could. “If it bleeds it leads” was the status quo. For the first time in history child victims of war were broadcast nightly in living color for all to see. During WWII, newsreels largely chose to show dead American soldiers. Propaganda to build an anger against the enemy. The next generation of journalists could have taken the upper road and shown both sides of the war, but instead used the same propaganda techniques as before. The difference was that they chose to use that propaganda against their own people. Instead of demonizing the enemy, they chose to demonize their own sons. Largely for political gain and influence peddling. The study of William Randolph Hearst is appropriate to under stand the role media plays in inciting and prolonging wars as well as influencing politics.

The above is known as "cherry picking" I lived through that time already an adult. I could see the changed in what the newsrooms were doing. Maybe you should go here and read a bit of the other perspective:

Vietnam War and the media | History, Walter Cronkite, Photographers, & Facts | Britannica

Vietnam became a subject of large-scale news coverage in the United States only after substantial numbers of U.S. combat troops had been committed to the war in the spring of 1965. Prior to that time, the number of American newsmen in Indochina had been small—fewer than two dozen even as late as

www.britannica.com

Pretty hard to put lipstick on Lt. Calley and completely wrong to leave out Col. Oran Henderson at My Lai as well. He went on to "fame" in central America.

But just so we understand each other I agree you can't change a person's POV with just facts, they'll just dig into their position more. My point is Vietnam changed forever some people's perspective about government and guns neither for the better.

 

[William Vogel]

I don't think this is what liberals want. If you could come up with a way to stop the mass shootings, especially school shootings, the pressure against guns would all but cease. Fact is there never was a great deal of pressure against guns, not like there is today, until the mass shooting started. I know this is not a popular thing to say but I have not heard a substantial argument to make me see things differently. I wish I could.

The mass shootings are here to stay because that egg was cracked. The people are the problem not the tool they use. It’s sad that the only “assault rifle” that’s real is still legal, a M1 Garand. Watch what happens when someone uses one of those.
I understand the new law is on purchases, what about ownership?

 

[William Vogel]

dellet I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Here is my response it's obvious you are an educated and thoughtful person:
I will only speak in general terms, because changing a mind with facts, is generally impossible, until you can change the thinking process. In the studies you provided it paints a very clear picture of when the problem of mass shootings started. Mid 1960’s. What’s really interesting about the date of 1966 being the dividing line is that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was in its infancy. That should make it painfully obvious that gun control and gun violence are seemingly tied together with an inverse relationship. More control, more shootings.



Other factors are in play here one being age. Young shooters aren’t affected in such a way since they weren’t alive then. I think other factors are more pertinent such as parenting and social media in the 21st century.

Then look at the social changes that occurred in the same time frame. Nothing sums this up better than to have a Kennedy in the Trump Whitehouse. It’s not because the Kennedy moved his political views to the right.



Nothing here but politics and not conducive to a good discussion.

The studies you linked to do not include gang violence. Gang violence is not included because of racial overtones. Dead gang bangers don’t pull on heart strings, and most gang bangers are not white. Dead white children selll. It’s the same thing that is painfully obvious when a young white girl disappears vs a young black girl or should we choose to point out the elephant in the room, the hundreds of young girls who are trafficked through the reservation system. Pretty white girls get head lines when they disappear. Media manipulation of facts and minds.



Gang violence whether gangsters or gangbangers is a different issue altogether since both are the criminal mechanization's of business criminal but for business/control reasons.

Those that use mass shootings, more specifically school shootings, are carefully using a social subset of the population as a means to an end. People who refuse to acknowledge the social engineering going on in the media, have their head in the sand.



Well both sides have their soldiers in that war.

Another fact conveniently ignored is that the rate of mass shootings growing exponentially since 1966 also mirrors the growth of the media and access to it. The number of televisions per household since 1966 and the news cycle has gone from not quite one per household with news available at 6am, 6pm, and 11pm. To now more than one media device per person, many individually carried 24/7 with media access available the same.



I suspect the computer with its ancillary internet and movies have had a far larger impact.

In the link I posted the New York Times posted an article almost 150 years ago about the growing numbers of youths forming there own “James gang” requiring police response all over the east coast. It was freely admitted then that this was caused by stories in the press. Now in our enlightened liberal modern lifestyle, media does not influence children. Just ask anyone in the media.



I find this to be somewhat illusive in its impact since I believe social media is far more responsible and nearly all the bigger platforms are owned and run by stout conservative people whose biggest concern is money.

The Dreaded AR15 was available to anyone who wanted one by mail order prior to 1968. Now people want to ban it and rifles like it. The rifle is exactly the same now as it was then. Only the people are different.



And it was the design winner for the military as a weapon most useful for paratroopers.

So if the problem is guns, an inanimate object that existed prior to 1966 when the exponential growth of mass shootings started, an item that has no mind to change, that was freely available to all members of society and has not changed, can not be the source of the change. That leaves the animate object as the culprit, which also existed prior to 1966, and has clearly changed its thought process.



I’ve never said the problem was the gun itself but the industry that cares not a wit other than making money.

Quite simply since 1966, the style of firearms available has not significantly changed. Access to those same firearms has become more and more restrictive. So blaming the firearm is an exercise in futility, and is a good indicator gun control does not work. If you accept that simple fact, then you must concede that the problem is the human.



Again not the firearm but the culture as we have already discussed.

If the problem is the human, you need to research what changed them. Since we have a specific date in time, 1966, we quite simply have to look at what happened in the few years preceding and since. Here’s what becomes painfully obvious. I don’t like the terms liberal and conservative, they are floating definitions. Sadly we are mostly stuck with them. So here’s the question.

Is the United States generally more conservative or liberal since roughly 1950?

Followed up with, Does that change seem to correlate with the time frame of the exponential rise is mass shootings?




I’m a liberal and I do not want to eliminate firearms and neither do my liberal friends. This is a false assumption.

This has been going on for more than 100 years. It won’t change in the next 100. The big difference is that a fire arm can not alter a mind and cause someone to do something stupid with a drug. But all too often we find out that mass shooters have been using a mind altering drug, recreational or prescribed, before doing something really stupid with a gun.

Is it possible to pin an approximate date on the rise of recreational drug use?
Would that date in any way match up to the given date of 1966 for the start of the rise in mass shootings?



Like I said before your correlation leaves out the biggest factor of all I believe Vietnam!

The Kennedy assassination is what changed history, trust and loyalty. Vietnam wasn’t going to happen. The people didn’t want the war and when Kennedy fell, Johnson signed the deal. That’s what happened to the young people.

 

[Kracken McGraw]

dellet you stated above: "President Johnson a firm supporter for civil rights, when pressed why he, a Texan, supported the movement famously referred to using welfare to secure the black vote for something like the next 150 years. The politically motivated destruction of the American family has officially begun." This is absolute BS you have fell for.

This is a I think a good example of how people remember things to suit their wants, a common thing these days. Here is what you are referring to I believe: "This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny." https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...tol-rotunda-the-signing-the-voting-rights-act

We know what your saying, but I’m pretty sure that’s the words that came out of that sorry President Johnson’s mouth.

 

[skinnj1]

The Dreaded AR15 was available to anyone who wanted one by mail order prior to 1968. Now people want to ban it and rifles like it. The rifle is exactly the same now as it was then. Only the people are different.



And it was the design winner for the military as a weapon most useful for paratroopers.

@RexRugged to your bolded statement- I ask what is your point?

Firearms design and military applications have been intertwined since the advent of firearms in the 10th Century. Peter Paul Mauser's bolt actions , Samuel Colt's Revolver's, Daniel Wesson's volcanic pistol, (if I start listing John Moses Browning developments we will be here a while) all represent relatively recent technology advances that was useful to the military and the individual firearm user.

Research the National Trophy Infantry Team Match (NTIT , aka Rattle Battle) at Camp Perry. Prior to the the National Firearms Act of 1934, civilian teams brought their OWN 1918 BAR'S and competed against service teams on a level playing field in a shooting match that reflected the infantry squad tactics of the day. With the passing of this first major gun control act, civilians had a much harder time competing- even though the Army let them rent BAR'S at the nationals, without the time to practice the employment of the strategy and communication necessary for the match - it made it really hard for them to stand a chance at winning until the format of the match changed to no longer include a machine gun.

 

[skinnj1]

I’ve never said the problem was the gun itself but the industry that cares not a wit other than making money.

I am genuinely interested in how you equate the gun industry as part of the problem- Care to elaborate?

 

[RexRugged]

We know what your saying, but I’m pretty sure that’s the words that came out of that sorry President Johnson’s mouth.

Well then to quote a famous President: "Trust but verify." Otherwise all you have offered is an opinion unsupported by fact. I'm split about LBJ as is most everyone. But Doris Kearns Goodwin does a pretty decent job of portraying the man's character and why in her book Leadership. "salu populi suprema lex esto" -Cicero

 

[RexRugged]

@RexRugged to your bolded statement- I ask what is your point?

Firearms design and military applications have been intertwined since the advent of firearms in the 10th Century. Peter Paul Mauser's bolt actions , Samuel Colt's Revolver's, Daniel Wesson's volcanic pistol, (if I start listing John Moses Browning developments we will be here a while) all represent relatively recent technology advances that was useful to the military and the individual firearm user.

Research the National Trophy Infantry Team Match (NTIT , aka Rattle Battle) at Camp Perry. Prior to the the National Firearms Act of 1934, civilian teams brought their OWN 1918 BAR'S and competed against service teams on a level playing field in a shooting match that reflected the infantry squad tactics of the day. With the passing of this first major gun control act, civilians had a much harder time competing- even though the Army let them rent BAR'S at the nationals, without the time to practice the employment of the strategy and communication necessary for the match - it made it really hard for them to stand a chance at winning until the format of the match changed to no longer include a machine gun.

Only that the AR-15 rifle was in real life and with historical evidence to support, an actual assault rifle meant for war to be carried by paratroopers designed and made by the Armalite Rifle company. The design was to meet military requirements. That is just a verifiable fact and will not change to meet anybodies narrative. I wish people on both sides were accurate with their words.

 

[Kracken McGraw]

Well then to quote a famous President: "Trust but verify." Otherwise all you have offered is an opinion unsupported by fact. I'm split about LBJ as is most everyone. But Doris Kearns Goodwin does a pretty decent job of portraying the man's character and why in her book Leadership. "salu populi suprema lex esto" -Cicero

I thought they did have his words of that on tape. Maybe someone here will know.

 

[RexRugged]

I am genuinely interested in how you equate the gun industry as part of the problem- Care to elaborate?

I'll not go into it too deeply---I could. The very first thing I would point to, and it is small for sure but a great example of my concern---the PINK GUN. I mean GD real life ain't no damn cartoon, guns aren't for kids or idiots, and they shouldn't be some kind of gender fashion show. My dead uncles who fought in Europe and the Pacific would friggin throw up! But they were real, knew guns very, very well and were not styling!

 

[RexRugged]

I thought they did have his words of that on tape. Maybe someone here will know.

And I believe that is as far as it will get by an honest person, the reason for the word "verify"

 

[skinnj1]

Only that the AR-15 rifle was in real life and with historical evidence to support, an actual assault rifle meant for war to be carried by paratroopers designed and made by the Armalite Rifle company. The design was to meet military requirements. That is just a verifiable fact and will not change to meet anybodies narrative. I wish people on both sides were accurate with their words.

A Brown Bess musket, spencer repeating rifle, a trapdoor springfield, a m98 mauser were all "assault rifles" in their day representing state of the art infantry technology for a period of time.

 

[skinnj1]

I'll not go into it too deeply---I could. The very first thing I would point to, and it is small for sure but a great example of my concern---the PINK GUN. I mean GD real life ain't no damn cartoon, guns aren't for kids or idiots, and they shouldn't be some kind of gender fashion show. My dead uncles who fought in Europe and the Pacific would friggin throw up! But they were real, knew guns very, very well and were not styling!

So painting a gun pink is BAD- is that only when a gun manufacturer does it or how about when a benchrest shooter does it? Please explain why that it is "BAD" that a gun is pink/purple/whatever especially if it is OK in some circumstances but not others. Is the pastel firearm intrinsically worse than a 1800's colt with shiny nickel plating and mother of pearl grips made by some well heeled gent of that time whose esthetics do not agree with mine?

I am still perplexed on how you blame the gun industry and would love to have you articulate how they are at fault.

 

[Kracken McGraw]

And I believe that is as far as it will get by an honest person, the reason for the word "verify"

I’ll just leave it as I’m not sure LBJ was a honest person himself.