This is an older article but still a great one...

[Maidenrules29]

America has two gun cultures: Don'''t blame law-abiding gun owners for murders | Fox News

 

[Rich2018]

"Of course we’ll never stop all murderers, whether they are committed by terrorists, bank robbers or the mentally ill. But it would help if we could channel our attention and resources toward criminals and the mentally ill who are a danger to themselves or others – not the good citizens who live across this great nation."


And that way gun owners get to keep their precious guns.

So the solution is prevention...if we could identify all the mass shooters before they committed their shooting, the gunowners would have a case to keep their guns


But we can't.

 

[RF667799]

"Of course we’ll never stop all murderers, whether they are committed by terrorists, bank robbers or the mentally ill. But it would help if we could channel our attention and resources toward criminals and the mentally ill who are a danger to themselves or others – not the good citizens who live across this great nation."


And that way gun owners get to keep their precious guns.

So the solution is prevention...if we could identify all the mass shooters before they committed their shooting, the gunowners would have a case to keep their guns


But we can't.

They'll just have to carry out their murders with shotguns in compliance with your proposed gun ban.

 

[Rich2018]

They'll just have to carry out their murders with shotguns in compliance with your proposed gun ban.

And accordingly they'll be significantly less gun crime - especially mass shootings.

The UK has had one (possibly two) mass shooting with shotguns since 1997.

 

[RF667799]

And accordingly they'll be significantly less gun crime - especially mass shootings.

The UK has had one (possibly two) mass shooting with shotguns since 1997.

Taking a pistol out of the hand of our mass shooters and replacing it with a shotgun is unlikely to inhibit them. If you disagree maybe you can explain why.

 

[TurtleDude]

And accordingly they'll be significantly less gun crime - especially mass shootings.

The UK has had one (possibly two) mass shooting with shotguns since 1997.

they had almost none before those bans either. worthless analogy

 

[Rich2018]

Taking a pistol out of the hand of our mass shooters and replacing it with a shotgun is unlikely to inhibit them. If you disagree maybe you can explain why.

A shotgun is less portable and offers a far lower capacity.

(British gun laws specify a capacity of not more than 3 IIRC)

A shotgun is also a lot less concealable when trying to take it into a church or school etc.

 

[Rich2018]

they had almost none before those bans either. worthless analogy

Not too many mass shootings in the USA with double or single barreled shotguns either.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not too many mass shootings in the USA with double or single barreled shotguns either.

there aren't that many shootings with semi auto rifles either but the bannerrhoids want to ban them. Face it, how many times a firearm is used illegally has really little relationship to the desires of those who are afraid of guns to ban it

 

[Rich2018]

there aren't that many shootings with semi auto rifles either but the bannerrhoids want to ban them. Face it, how many times a firearm is used illegally has really little relationship to the desires of those who are afraid of guns to ban it

I think Stephen Paddock's mass shooting was enough

But there was the Pulse Night Club shooting

The 2016 Dallas mass shooting

The DC Sniper

The 2019 El Paso shooting


How many more do you want ?

 

[TurtleDude]

I think Stephen Paddock's mass shooting was enough

But there was the Pulse Night Club shooting

The 2016 Dallas mass shooting

The DC Sniper

The 2019 El Paso shooting


How many more do you want ?

its people like you who want those shootings since you see them as ammunition advance your gun banning desires. Lets examine Paddock

former IRS employee with a net worth of 10 million

had an active pilots' license and two planes.

spent three years planning the massacre including surveilling other venues with lots of targets

tell us-what law would have stopped him?

 

[RF667799]

A shotgun is less portable and offers a far lower capacity.

(British gun laws specify a capacity of not more than 3 IIRC)

A shotgun is also a lot less concealable when trying to take it into a church or school etc.

A cut down shotgun is plenty portable. A shotgun offers a respectable sustained rate of fire. Such a weapon is well suited for a couple drug dealers and their troops to blast away at each other- which is the scenario constituting most mass shootings. Also very useful in an armed robbery.. especially since the victim- in accordance with the Rich Gun Ban- can be safely assumed to have no effective means to defend himself.

Nope. I'm not seeing that your plan to replace handguns with shotguns is going to accomplish a great deal other than having blood and gore splashed around a bit more.

 

[Rich2018]

its people like you who want those shootings since you see them as ammunition advance your gun banning desires. Lets examine Paddock

former IRS employee with a net worth of 10 million

had an active pilots' license and two planes.

spent three years planning the massacre including surveilling other venues with lots of targets

tell us-what law would have stopped him?

I'll remind you what you said:

there aren't that many shootings with semi auto rifles either....

I gave you 5 fairly recent examples without having to do any research. Instead of conceding that yes, there are a few examples of semi-auto rifles being used to commit a mass shooting with, you intentionally shift the goal posts by focusing on just ONE such incident.

And furthermore, make some claim that no law could prevent him from committing a mass shooting because he was rich. So why don't rich people in countries where semi-auto rifles are banned commit mass shootings ?


And more directly, what about the other examples committed by men who WEREN'T millionaires ?

 

[Rich2018]

A cut down shotgun is plenty portable. A shotgun offers a respectable sustained rate of fire. Such a weapon is well suited for a couple drug dealers and their troops to blast away at each other- which is the scenario constituting most mass shootings. Also very useful in an armed robbery.. especially since the victim- in accordance with the Rich Gun Ban- can be safely assumed to have no effective means to defend himself.

Nope. I'm not seeing that your plan to replace handguns with shotguns is going to accomplish a great deal other than having blood and gore splashed around a bit more.

Nope, a shotgun is not portable any way you cut it - unless you're referring to sawed off shotguns which are illegal.

A shotgun has nothing like the rate of fire as a semiautomatic gun. At least the ones I'm talking about that comply with British gun law. It's nonsense to say that they do.


But let's entertain your fantasy world for just a second and imagine that the US adopts gun control similar to that in the UK. If mass shootings still were significant with say pump action shotguns linted to a capacity of 3 rounds/shells, I'd ban those as well. But the evidence from the UK, suggests that wouldn't be the case.

If you disagree, help me understand why mass shootings would still continue at similar levels as today, with the shooters using shotguns.

 

[RF667799]

Nope, a shotgun is not portable any way you cut it - unless you're referring to sawed off shotguns which are illegal.

A shotgun has nothing like the rate of fire as a semiautomatic gun. At least the ones I'm talking about that comply with British gun law. It's nonsense to say that they do.


But let's entertain your fantasy world for just a second and imagine that the US adopts gun control similar to that in the UK. If mass shootings still were significant with say pump action shotguns linted to a capacity of 3 rounds/shells, I'd ban those as well. But the evidence from the UK, suggests that wouldn't be the case.

If you disagree, help me understand why mass shootings would still continue at similar levels as today, with the shooters using shotguns.

It's your fantasy world, certainly not mine. If you ever get around to reading and comprehending the post to which you responded, get back with me.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Guys we have gotten away from the main point of why I posted the article. There are law abiding citizens with guns and there are thugs with guns. ( yes Rich, I know that some of those "law abiding citizens " become bad guys) The law abiding just want to have their guns to protect themselves against the criminals who use their guns to victimize people. The bigger question is how do we prevent people from becoming bad guys in the first place? It would be great if there was no crime right? Why is there crime and how do we raise good kids who dont turn out this way?

 

[Rich2018]

It's your fantasy world, certainly not mine.

You said:

A cut down shotgun is plenty portable.

A shotgun offers a respectable sustained rate of fire.

Both statements from someone who knows nothing about guns and who inhabits his own fantasy world

If you ever get around to reading and comprehending the post to which you responded, get back with me.

You seem to have "forgotten" to read:


"If you disagree, help me understand why mass shootings would still continue at similar levels as today, with the shooters using shotguns"


I assume you have no answer.

 

[Rich2018]

Guys we have gotten away from the main point of why I posted the article. There are law abiding citizens with guns and there are thugs with guns. ( yes Rich, I know that some of those "law abiding citizens " become bad guys) The law abiding just want to have their guns to protect themselves against the criminals who use their guns to victimize people. The bigger question is how do we prevent people from becoming bad guys in the first place? It would be great if there was no crime right? Why is there crime and how do we raise good kids who dont turn out this way?

Perhaps society will develop into some kind of utopia where there is no crime.

Right no we have a poor alienated demographic who a lazy perhaps but see no future for themselves.


You will never solve crime.


And I take issue with your statement. IMO gun owners don't buy guns to protect themselves, the buy guns because they like guns.
The have a gun as some kind of psychological crutch to compensate for perceived failings elsewhere, and owning a gun makes them feel better about themselves, more important, more powerful.

 

[RF667799]

You said:







Both statements from someone who knows nothing about guns and who inhabits his own fantasy world






You seem to have "forgotten" to read:


"If you disagree, help me understand why mass shootings would still continue at similar levels as today, with the shooters using shotguns"


I assume you have no answer.

The answer is in my original post:

A cut down shotgun is plenty portable. A shotgun offers a respectable sustained rate of fire. Such a weapon is well suited for a couple drug dealers and their troops to blast away at each other- which is the scenario constituting most mass shootings. Also very useful in an armed robbery.. especially since the victim- in accordance with the Rich Gun Ban- can be safely assumed to have no effective means to defend himself.

You are trying to deflect from the consequences of your proposed gun ban by:

1. Making the completely stupid claim that a shotgun is not portable. (A cut down shotgun even more so.)

2. Demonstrating you have little to no inkling of the idea of sustained rate of fire or how it would apply to shotguns.

I believe this attempt at deflection on your part shows you realize how utterly ridiculous is your Rich Gun Ban that would replace handguns with shotguns in the hands of murderers.

Let's just take #1 for now lest you go even further into the deflection you are known for.

Portable | Definition of Portable by Merriam-Webster

Definition of portable (Entry 1 of 2)

1a : capable of being carried or moved about
//a portable TV

b : characterized by portability
//a portable pension

Now kindly support your contention that a shotgun is not portable.

 

[Rich2018]

The answer is in my original post:

You are trying to deflect from the consequences of your proposed gun ban by:

1. Making the completely stupid claim that a shotgun is not portable. (A cut down shotgun even more so.)

No it's not - nothing like as man portable and concealable as a hand gun.
It's stupid to suggest they are.

Unless, as I stated, you're talking about sawed off shotguns which are illegal

2. Demonstrating you have little to no inkling of the idea of sustained rate of fire or how it would apply to shotguns.

No, it shows you have not experience between firing a semi-auto rifle and a double barreled shotgun.
You really don't know much about guns at all do you ?


You're trying to move the goal posts

Now kindly support your contention that a shotgun is not portable.

Sure it is...just sling it over your shoulder and walk down the street.


That would be illegal....try carrying it concealed.

 

[RF667799]

No it's not - nothing like as man portable and concealable as a hand gun.
It's stupid to suggest they are.

Unless, as I stated, you're talking about sawed off shotguns which are illegal




No, it shows you have not experience between firing a semi-auto rifle and a double barreled shotgun.
You really don't know much about guns at all do you ?


You're trying to move the goal posts







Sure it is...just sling it over your shoulder and walk down the street.


That would be illegal....try carrying it concealed.

To be clear, you concede that you were wrong to say that a shotgun is not portable?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Perhaps society will develop into some kind of utopia where there is no crime.

Right no we have a poor alienated demographic who a lazy perhaps but see no future for themselves.


You will never solve crime.


And I take issue with your statement. IMO gun owners don't buy guns to protect themselves, the buy guns because they like guns.
The have a gun as some kind of psychological crutch to compensate for perceived failings elsewhere, and owning a gun makes them feel better about themselves, more important, more powerful.

I must take issue with that sir.

I never owned any guns until about 4 years ago. I dont "like" guns and I'm originally from Texas born and raised. My life is great. 2 great kids and my wife and I are going on 30 years of marriage and have good careers. I dont need a gun as a crutch to feel important. We live in San Bernardino Ca, and due to our elderly parents not wanting to be displaced we cannot leave. There has been alot of violent crime in our city not to mention the passing of prop 47 which turned a bunch of felonies into misdemeanors and also let a lot of bad guys out of prison. I have guns strictly to defend myself out on the street and at home. You yourself have said that you have a CCW permit why is that? Because you like guns or because you want to defend yourself, or were you just saying that you had one to troll everybody?

 

[Rich2018]

To be clear, you concede that you were wrong to say that a shotgun is not portable?

No, because a shotgun is not legally portable.


ie: You can't just sling it over your shoulder and walk down the street (at least you couldn't after a gun ban).


Your attempt at moving the goal posts fails.

 

[RF667799]

No, because a shotgun is not legally portable.


ie: You can't just sling it over your shoulder and walk down the street (at least you couldn't after a gun ban).


Your attempt at moving the goal posts fails.

It is beyond me how I've managed to carry shotguns from place to place all these years considering they aren't portable....

Oh wait. Turns out they ARE portable. You're just blindly flailing about trying to avoid a concession on your very first point. In that you have already been given the definition of "portable" you are dishonestly flailing about as well.

Definition of portable (Entry 1 of 2)

1a : capable of being carried or moved about
//a portable TV

b : characterized by portability
//a portable pension

BTW: Despite your accusation, you should know that your above post is a very good example of "moving the goalposts." Your problem is that I am insisting you keep them where you originally placed them.

 

[Rich2018]

I must take issue with that sir.

I never owned any guns until about 4 years ago. I dont "like" guns and I'm originally from Texas born and raised. My life is great. 2 great kids and my wife and I are going on 30 years of marriage and have good careers. I dont need a gun as a crutch to feel important. We live in San Bernardino Ca, and due to our elderly parents not wanting to be displaced we cannot leave. There has been alot of violent crime in our city not to mention the passing of prop 47 which turned a bunch of felonies into misdemeanors and also let a lot of bad guys out of prison. I have guns strictly to defend myself out on the street and at home. You yourself have said that you have a CCW permit why is that? Because you like guns or because you want to defend yourself, or were you just saying that you had one to troll everybody?

Be careful with that accusation, using that word will get you banned

I have a CCW because it makes sense to get one before you buy a gun. Like getting a driver's license before buying a car.


I've never been to San Bernardino so I can't comment on the laws there - but if you think you need a gun to be secure in walking the streets there, you're living in the wrong place or you're unduly paranoid.


It's interesting that gun owners will claim that the UK has seen a rise in crime, above US levels, since the gun ban to suggest that banning guns cause crime to go up. Yet will cite high US crime to justify their guns.
Sorry sir, I don't believe you.