The diary of Anne Frank is falling behind

[KitaYama]

It's only a mass murder machine if the user uses it that way. Recently in the US and Canada, a vehicle was used as a mass murder machine by driving the vehicle into a crowd of people. In the 1980s, in my home state, some pyscho, who was never caught, used Tylenol as a mass killing machine. And let's not forget 9/11/2001, Osama bin Laden used four 747s to kill over 3000 people in NYC, PA, and The Pentagon.

I really don't understand your logic. How many times a vehicle was used for a mass murder? How many time in human history a 747 was used to kill so many people? Only once or twice?
Are you again comparing a machine gun that is designed to be used in war scenes and kill, with something that is designed for travel and is mis-used?

As Pat says, people kill.

Yes. that's true. But put a Bazuka in his hand and see how easier he kills. Put a knife in A's hand and an AR-15 in B's hand. And ask them to start killing. See which one wins the game. Yes, it's people who kill. The problem is how convenient you make it for them to kill.

AR does not stand for automatic weapon.

Does it really makes any difference what it stands for and is it Automatic or semi-Auto?
It's a weapon designed to be used in military.
You pick some mistakes in my comment and put your stress on them. Did you realize what was my point? Cruz fired 180 bullets. All classrooms where empty or with aa few students. He could have killed 180 people if he could find a full classroom. Does it make any difference if A-15 is semi and not automatic?

From How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters’ Weapon of Choice

THE AR-15 ASSAULT rifle was engineered to create what one of its designers called “maximum wound effect.” Its tiny bullets – needle-nosed and weighing less than four grams – travel nearly three times the speed of sound. As the bullet strikes the body, the payload of kinetic energy rips open a cavity inside the flesh – essentially inert space – ...........
Versions of the AR-15 have been the U.S. military’s standard-issue assault rifle in every war since Vietnam. But only in the past dozen years have semi-automatic models become a fixture of American life. Gun-makers – emboldened by Congress and cloaked in the Second Amendment – have elevated the AR-15 into an avatar of civilian manhood, independence and patriotism. In the process, this off-patent combat rifle has become an infinitely customizable weapon platform that now accounts for nearly one in five guns sold in America. The federal government has deemed them “semi-automatic assault rifles” with magazine capacities that serve “no sporting purpose.” But the National Rifle Association now simply calls the AR-15 “America’s Rifle.”

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Until you add a 3d printed bump stock.

But normally it isn't. Just like texting isn't dangerous unless you're driving while doing it. Then your vehicle is a dangerous weapon.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I really don't understand your logic. How many times a vehicle was used for a mass murder? How many time in human history a 747 was used to kill so many people? Only once or twice?
Are you again comparing a machine gun that is designed to be used in war scenes and kill, with something that is designed for travel and is mis-used?


Yes. that's true. But put a Bazuka in his hand and see how easier he kills. Put a knife in A's hand and an AR-15 in B's hand. And ask them to start killing. See which one wins the game. Yes, it's people who kill. The problem is how convenient you make it for them to kill.



Does it really makes any difference what it stands for and is it Automatic or semi-Auto?
It's a weapon designed to be used in military.
You pick some mistakes in my comment and put your stress on them. Did you realize what was my point? Cruz fired 180 bullets. All classrooms where empty or with aa few students. He could have killed 180 people if he could find a full classroom. Does it make any difference if A-15 is semi and not automatic?

From How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters’ Weapon of Choice

We're you in the military? The military my husband was in didn't use an AR15. It's irritating that armchair weapons experts try to school actual armchair experts. You take the barrel and handle off the AR15 and you have a semi automatic sidearm. Shooting 180 rounds requires over ten magazines. Over 3000 people killed in one morning by weaponizing a passenger airplane.

The majority of these mass shooters were on the FBIs radar and they did nothing. The Parkland shooter was the result of a whacko alcoholic, drug addicted birth mother. Name more than one mass shooter that didn't have a history of mental illness. The Parkland shooter's adoptive mother knew he had a mental illness but was criminally negligent in allowing him access to her firearms. Gun laws prohibit allowing access to those who shouldn't and those who do should face the same charges. Unless they become the first victims and believe me I won't mourn them.

 

[moke123]

Shooting 180 rounds requires over ten magazines.

Not quite.

the parkland shooter:

The shooter had fired about 150 times when he dropped his AR-15-style rifle and escaped from school property by blending in with fleeing students. He left 180 rounds of ammo unused, the official said.

 

[moke123]

Then your vehicle is a dangerous weapon.

Yea and you have to be trained, pass a test, and be licensed to do so. Then you have to renew it every few years to ensure you are still capable of using a vehicle.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Yea and you have to be trained, pass a test, and be licensed to do so. Then you have to renew it every few years to ensure you are still capable of using a vehicle.

And yet that never stopped a single criminal from using them in the commission of a crime. The left loves to create new laws while ignoring current law. Keeping criminals in jail, so the rest of us can enjoy our constitutional freedoms. But they refuse to enforce laws like 3 strikes, and guns enhancements because it puts their constituents in jail.

 

[KitaYama]

We're you in the military? The military my husband was in didn't use an AR15. It's irritating that armchair weapons experts try to school actual armchair experts. You take the barrel and handle off the AR15 and you have a semi automatic sidearm. Shooting 180 rounds requires over ten magazines. Over 3000 people killed in one morning by weaponizing a passenger airplane.

No, I've never been in military. And I can't understand most of what you explained. I had to google what magazine means. I have never seen a real gun in my life. And believe me, more than 99% of our people never do. And if you refer to Crime Index by Country 2023, you'll see we are ranked 135 among 142 countries. You know why? Mostly because we're not allowed to have/carry guns. We are the same people as you. We get angry, and when we get angry we wish we could kill the other side. We have whacko alcoholic mothers who give birth to mentally illness children. In that case, our society is much worse.

But we never experience what you're experiencing every day. Because we believe Police should take care of us, Not ourselves.

The majority of these mass shooters were on the FBIs radar and they did nothing. The Parkland shooter was the result of a whacko alcoholic, drug addicted birth mother. Name more than one mass shooter that didn't have a history of mental illness. The Parkland shooter's adoptive mother knew he had a mental illness but was criminally negligent in allowing him access to her firearms. Gun laws prohibit allowing access to those who shouldn't and those who do should face the same charges. Unless they become the first victims and believe me I won't mourn them.

yes. You are exactly correct. but the problem is that Gun laws can not prevent anything. There maybe laws written in lawbook, but actually these mentally ill individuals have access to firearms.

 

[KitaYama]

Just as a reference:

The list of mass shootings in 2023. I couldn't even count it.
This shows whatever your Gun Laws says, it's not effective.

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Edit : I exported the list to excel. The count is 110 and we are still in March

 

[AccessBlaster]

If the United States were a closed homogenized society that was thousands of years old this wouldn't be an issue, right? We have to deal with the reality of a very large and diverse society in modern times. This is not an excuse for violence it's just the nature of not having thousands of years of hindsight.

 

[jpl458]

Why does anyone need a $100,000 auto?

It's called personal choice.

I have never seen an incident where a crazy person drove a Bentley, or a Test Rosa Ferrari through a school mowing down children. Cars are made for transportation, some more stylish than others. Guns only punch holes in paper, animals or people. That is their only function. Additionally, machine guns are illegal, as are bump stocks, as well as the General Electric 20 MM Gatling gun. There are already limits, and assault rifles with massive clips should be included.

 

[jpl458]

Umm, because you live near a liberal city or state that is soft on crime. liberals in general cause gun sales to spike every time they open their mouth.

You have proof of spikes in gun sales based on liberal commentary?

 

[AccessBlaster]

You have proof of spikes in gun sales based on liberal commentary?

Yes, but I doubt it would change anything.

 

[Pat Hartman]

To paraphrase, people with guns kill people, not always, but often enough.

You are assuming that all gun owners own guns so that they can go out and kill people. Do you also assume that people who own knives or cars or spears or bows and arrows also own them so they can be used as murder weapons?

I agree, guns are a special category since their only actual purpose is to kill. But bows and arrows and spears are also intended only to kill and yet you are OK with them.

Only crazy people go on a mass shooting spree. You probably ignored the story two years ago of the black man who drove through a Christmas parade deliberately trying to kill people. Maybe, the solution of handling the problem of "crazy" people would be more productive. No sane person would drive through a crowd of people with the intent of killing them. At least the reporting of the incident was consistent. We couldn't mention the race of the driver or the victims because that didn't fit the narrative. However, the reporting did concentrate on the fact that it was the CAR that killed people rather than the person driving it so in that regard it was pretty much like the reporting of mass shootings. It is always the gun that kills people rather than the crazy person wielding it.

I say that getting rid of the crazy people solves all problems. Nothing becomes a weapon against other humans if there is no crazy person wielding it.

someone else should be free to have a full auto weapon

Full auto weapons are banned.

I wasn't impressed with the speed or accuracy of the bumpstock. The guy had a lot of trouble getting it to work correctly and never succeeded during the demo. Doesn't mean that someone else might not have more success.

But put a Bazuka in his hand and see how easier he kills. Put a knife in A's hand and an AR-15 in B's hand. And ask them to start killing. See which one wins the game. Yes, it's people who kill. The problem is how convenient you make it for them to kill.

If you put any weapon in my hand, what are the chances I would kill with it? ZERO
If you put any weapon in the hand of a crazy person, what are the chances he would kill with it? Pretty high. What we're talking about here is how many people might die in a single incident. How about if you put a bomb in the hands of a crazy person, How many people could he kill? Far more than he could with any type of gun even if enhanced with a bumpstock.

If there were a way to remove all guns from the face of the earth as well as the knowledge to make new ones, I'd say - color them gone. We don't need them. However, if one single criminal or crazy person has a gun, then we are all in danger.

Far better to work on fixing "crazy" so the ill stop wanting to take revenge on innocent bystanders.

@KitaYama perhaps you can find some statistics that compare the diagnosis of ADD (and others) in young people and its treatment with drugs in the US vs other countries. We over-diagnose disease in our young people (every child seems to be "on the spectrum") and we treat them with drugs and so they think that they are victims and that drugs are the answer but if the drugs don't solve all problems, then they take their misery out on those around them. I'm pretty sure that the diagnosis and treatment of depression in the US is also huge compared to other countries. We are very much under the thrall of big Pharma. Look what they did to us with COVID. Also, reviewing the cases of mass killings, results in a preponderance of perpetrators suffering from some type of mental illness.

 

[KitaYama]

if one single criminal or crazy person has a gun, then we are all in danger

Pat, I don't think this way. You don't need me telling you Yakuza is one of the worst in its kind. And how many times we hear one of them shots down another of them in our news. Here, criminals have guns and none of us feel we are all in danger or we need to equip ourselves with side arms to protect ourselves. You also don't need to hear me saying yet we have one of the most peaceful societies in the world.
And it's not only us. You can find a lot of other countries like us. Every country, including ours, has lunatic, mentally ill and crazy criminals, and only a few of them think that the answer is : Buy more guns to protect yourself.
So, I think you're absolutely wrong.
Because criminals have access to guns, we are not in danger. We have the law to protect us. Buying guns to protect ourselves, just adds to the violence and put our children and grand children in more unsuitable situations.

I can address other sections of your very interesting reply, but I think we're going in a circle. I'm not able to picturize the safety of a community without gun for you, and you can not show me how guns are necessary in your community.
As I said, reading everybody's comment gave me the answers I was looking for. I think it's time for me to drop out. Thanks to all.

 

[Pat Hartman]

We have the law to protect us

Our wacko Democrats think the law is the enemy and try to kill them during riots. Apparently your criminals use the guns on themselves rather than innocent citizens.

 

[jpl458]

You are assuming that all gun owners own guns so that they can go out and kill people. Do you also assume that people who own knives or cars or spears or bows and arrows also own them so they can be used as murder weapons?

I agree, guns are a special category since their only actual purpose is to kill. But bows and arrows and spears are also intended only to kill and yet you are OK with them.

Only crazy people go on a mass shooting spree. You probably ignored the story two years ago of the black man who drove through a Christmas parade deliberately trying to kill people. Maybe, the solution of handling the problem of "crazy" people would be more productive. No sane person would drive through a crowd of people with the intent of killing them. At least the reporting of the incident was consistent. We couldn't mention the race of the driver or the victims because that didn't fit the narrative. However, the reporting did concentrate on the fact that it was the CAR that killed people rather than the person driving it so in that regard it was pretty much like the reporting of mass shootings. It is always the gun that kills people rather than the crazy person wielding it.

I say that getting rid of the crazy people solves all problems. Nothing becomes a weapon against other humans if there is no crazy person wielding it.


Full auto weapons are banned.

I wasn't impressed with the speed or accuracy of the bumpstock. The guy had a lot of trouble getting it to work correctly and never succeeded during the demo. Doesn't mean that someone else might not have more success.


If you put any weapon in my hand, what are the chances I would kill with it? ZERO
If you put any weapon in the hand of a crazy person, what are the chances he would kill with it? Pretty high. What we're talking about here is how many people might die in a single incident. How about if you put a bomb in the hands of a crazy person, How many people could he kill? Far more than he could with any type of gun even if enhanced with a bumpstock.

If there were a way to remove all guns from the face of the earth as well as the knowledge to make new ones, I'd say - color them gone. We don't need them. However, if one single criminal or crazy person has a gun, then we are all in danger.

Far better to work on fixing "crazy" so the ill stop wanting to take revenge on innocent bystanders.

@KitaYama perhaps you can find some statistics that compare the diagnosis of ADD (and others) in young people and its treatment with drugs in the US vs other countries. We over-diagnose disease in our young people (every child seems to be "on the spectrum") and we treat them with drugs and so they think that they are victims and that drugs are the answer but if the drugs don't solve all problems, then they take their misery out on those around them. I'm pretty sure that the diagnosis and treatment of depression in the US is also huge compared to other countries. We are very much under the thrall of big Pharma. Look what they did to us with COVID. Also, reviewing the cases of mass killings, results in a preponderance of perpetrators suffering from some type of mental illness.

I have never heard of a gun killing a person without another person involved. That's what I meant when I said People with guns kill people. Last time I looked, no gun I ever owned had a mind of its own.

 

[AccessBlaster]

On one hand, liberals tell us we need tougher gun laws and gun restrictions. While simultaneously emptying the prisons of second and third strikers, many of whom go on to commit more heinous crimes. It's really hard to take these people seriously. Enforce current law!

 

[Steve R.]

I have never heard of a gun killing a person without another person involved. That's what I meant when I said People with guns kill people. Last time I looked, no gun I ever owned had a mind of its own.

As you observe, the gun is not responsible; the individual who used the gun is responsible. The concept of an individual actually being responsible for the consequences of their actions is apparently being rejected by many on the left. Furthermore, those who act responsibly should not be indirectly punished through the passage of "laws" that claim to suppress crime. In a civil society, people must accept responsibility for their actions.

 

[jpl458]

How many more do we need?

The USA is no 1. in incarcerations by total, and % of population. Why do we have so many incarcerations if we are soft on crime?

Criminal prisoners ranked by country

	Criminal		%
	Prisoners	Population	Incarcerated
UnitedStates	2,068,800​	331,002,651​	0.6250%​
China	1,690,000​	1,425,782,426​	0.1185%​
Brazil	811,707​	216,035,287​	0.3757%​
India	478,600​	1,424,507,035​	0.0336%​
Russia	471,490​	144,600,264​	0.3261%​
Thailand	309,282​	216,035,287​	0.1432%​
Turkey	291,198​	83,339,067​	0.3494%​
Indonesia	266,259​	273,800,000​	0.0972%​
Mexico	220,866​	126,700,000​	0.1743%​
Iran	189,900​	83,992,949​	0.2261%​

 

[jpl458]

I am not saying to outlaw guns. I am saying that if you own a gun, you should have a license to own it, like a drivers license for guns. In Chicago, gang mules go into Indiana and buy trunk- fulls of guns for Chicago gangs. Is that what the founders thought about when they wrote the second amendment? I don't think so, unless you consider a street gang to be a militia. I owned a lot of guns, and having them licensed would have not been a problem for me, because I was a hunter, and the gun was a tool, not a part of who I was. I didn't need a gun to feel Macho. We have more guns than people in this country, and that does not make sense to me. Some say it's about freedom, but as the old legal adage goes, "your freedom ends where my nose begins".