“Multiple” people shot in Detroit’s Lafayette Park

The Pantry wrote:Per WDIV: Drive-by. 3 shot. 2 dead.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

I'm sure the 'pro-life' christian GOP and the NRA - America's Terrorist Organization -  are looking forward to some good fundraising off this.

oh, thoughts and prayers.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:No one wants your 12 gauge or 30.06.

Military shit needs to go away.

The Pantry wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

I'm sure the 'pro-life' christian GOP and the NRA - America's Terrorist Organization -  are looking forward to some good fundraising off this.

oh, thoughts and prayers.

You always have such a great take on the problem.

I vote we put you in charge of confiscating every non-military handgun, shotgun, rifle, automatic weapon in the United States.

GRR Spartan wrote:It’s not even the hottest days of the summer yet.

But we don’t need gun control of any kind

The Pantry wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:It’s not even the hottest days of the summer yet.

But we don’t need gun control of any kind

Already many gun control laws in place.

Please. Enlighten all of us with your proposed gun control thoughts/methods

Trapper Gus wrote:

The Pantry wrote:Already many gun control laws in place.

Please. Enlighten all of us with your proposed gun control thoughts/methods

Make all multi shot guns illegal and melt them down.

The Pantry wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Make all multi shot guns illegal and melt them down.

Please. Explain how that could be possible.

You libs have grand ideas but are always talking out your ass.

In 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement after a mass shooting in Tasmania in April of that year. In that incident, a 28-year-old man, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot and killed 35 people, and injured 18 others, in what was known as the Port Arthur Massacre.

Under the 1996 law, Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. It also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the 1996 law.

During the buyback program, Australians sold 640,000 prohibited firearms to the government, and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent.

In 2002, Australia further tightened gun laws, restricting the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

Since 1996, the number and rate of homicides — defined as murder and manslaughter — has fallen.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:It couldn’t be like that here, I think we can all acknowledge that people are far too conditioned to be scared shitless of invisible boogeymen here to voluntarily give things like that up.

But, a lot of the time the shooter types legally bought their weapons within a month or two of the shooting. Not every time, but a lot of the time. So stop the flow and ban new sales. People that already have them can keep them, but no more new ones. That’d be a fine place to start

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:It couldn’t be like that here, I think we can all acknowledge that people are far too conditioned to be scared shitless of invisible boogeymen here to voluntarily give things like that up.

But, a lot of the time the shooter types legally bought their weapons within a month or two of the shooting. Not every time, but a lot of the time. So stop the flow and ban new sales. People that already have them can keep them, but no more new ones. That’d be a fine place to start

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:It couldn’t be like that here, I think we can all acknowledge that people are far too conditioned to be scared shitless of invisible boogeymen here to voluntarily give things like that up.

But, a lot of the time the shooter types legally bought their weapons within a month or two of the shooting. Not every time, but a lot of the time. So stop the flow and ban new sales. People that already have them can keep them, but no more new ones. That’d be a fine place to start

Pretty sure there were not that much of a difference in attitudes.

The government passed a law and people complied.

Sure, it may take a couple of years to round up the lawbreakers, but in 5 years the guns would be 99% gone.

The Pantry wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Pretty sure there were not that much of a difference in attitudes.

The government passed a law and people complied.

Sure, it may take a couple of years to round up the lawbreakers, but in 5 years the guns would be 99% gone.

You're delusional.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:It couldn’t be like that here, I think we can all acknowledge that people are far too conditioned to be scared shitless of invisible boogeymen here to voluntarily give things like that up.

But, a lot of the time the shooter types legally bought their weapons within a month or two of the shooting. Not every time, but a lot of the time. So stop the flow and ban new sales. People that already have them can keep them, but no more new ones. That’d be a fine place to start

Pretty sure there were not that much of a difference in attitudes.

The government passed a law and people complied.

Sure, it may take a couple of years to round up the lawbreakers, but in 5 years the guns would be 99% gone.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I am not going to pretend to be an expert on 1990’s Australia but I would wager there is a significant difference in attitudes

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I am not going to pretend to be an expert on 1990’s Australia but I would wager there is a significant difference in attitudes

Pretty sure a significant number of US people agree with regulations, including bans, on some guns.

We just have 6 crazy people on a court who are playing politics.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Pretty sure a significant number of US people agree with regulations, including bans, on some guns.

We just have 6 crazy people on a court who are playing politics.

Australia didn’t pass token regulations tho

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Australia didn’t pass token regulations tho

No, they did something similar to the US assault rifle ban the US passed. Then later they tightened that up a bit.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

No, they did something similar to the US assault rifle ban the US passed. Then later they tightened that up a bit.

Things are different here than in the 90s too. Are you seriously taking the position that a person, today in the year of our lord 2022, who bought enough into the propaganda that they needed an AR15 will react to passing a law by saying “shucks it was fun but I guess I gotta turn this in”?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Things are different here than in the 90s too. Are you seriously taking the position that a person, today in the year of our lord 2022, who bought enough into the propaganda that they needed an AR15 will react to passing a law by saying “shucks it was fun but I guess I gotta turn this in”?

Some would & some would not. We can look at what happened after the assault rifle ban to see, and fwiw there were probably just as many, per capita, gun nuts then.

Stopping most sales by gun shops and manufacture or importing of the guns would be part of this, so that ends most added guns.

Increased penalties for using an outlawed gun is a motivation too.

Throwing up our hands and saying there is nothing we can do is not going to solve the issue, and the issue is guns, not any other excuse.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Some would & some would not. We can look at what happened after the assault rifle ban to see, and fwiw there were probably just as many, per capita, gun nuts then.

Stopping most sales by gun shops and manufacture or importing of the guns would be part of this, so that ends most added guns.

Increased penalties for using an outlawed gun is a motivation too.

Throwing up our hands and saying there is nothing we can do is not going to solve the issue, and the issue is guns, not any other excuse.

You’re vastly underestimating the number and ferocity of gun nuts out there.

And who said do nothing? I didn’t say do nothing. In this very thread I said what to do. Are your responses just pre scripted or something? I just don’t think that banning them entirely is going to make much of a difference with people that already have them, and I’m also not sure that people that already have them are really the issue anyway. If you can get rid of new sales by comforting the people that can’t sleep at night without a gun next to them because they’re scared of a monster in their closet, then that is a start. Telling them they have to get rid of that is not realistic.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:They’re not interested in compromise and it’s a war but if you pass a law they’ll give up and move on and that will be that

Okay yeah sure whatever man

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

You’re vastly underestimating the number and ferocity of gun nuts out there.

And who said do nothing? I didn’t say do nothing. In this very thread I said what to do. Are your responses just pre scripted or something? I just don’t think that banning them entirely is going to make much of a difference with people that already have them, and I’m also not sure that people that already have them are really the issue anyway. If you can get rid of new sales by comforting the people that can’t sleep at night without a gun next to them because they’re scared of a monster in their closet, then that is a start. Telling them they have to get rid of that is not realistic.

The difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you are creating a compromise you believe might work.  I have watched this issue for 60 years and I am telling you the other side is not interested in the comprise.

I am presenting what the solution is and as nicely as possible fighting as hard as I can for it.

the problem with liberals is they want to work with the other side to compromise while the other side is like "fuck you dudes".

This is a war, and we have to understand what it is.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you are creating a compromise you believe might work.  I have watched this issue for 60 years and I am telling you the other side is not interested in the comprise.

I am presenting what the solution is and as nicely as possible fighting as hard as I can for it.

the problem with liberals is they want to work with the other side to compromise while the other side is like "fuck you dudes".

This is a war, and we have to understand what it is.

You aren't going to get anywhere by demanding they hand them over.  You will not win over enough support for that.

You can't go from 0 to 100

You either incrementally attack the problem, or you win over enough support in the party to pack the court and turn the country on its head by nominating justices that are just as bad as the ones on the right but for the left. And use them to take it all away. Just not going to happen.

We desperately need to figure out a way to stop ceding ground to the religious extremists on the right. That's our first problem. To do that, we need to vote. In all elections. They constantly are chipping away at this country, we're almost to the point where we are no longer America.