Texas Elementary School Shooting, as many as 22 dead, including Children

[PhaelixWW]

Except kinetic energy is (m v^2)/2 in the nonrelativistic regime. If that handgun bullet has 1/3 the muzzle velocity it's going to have 1/9th the energy of a same weight rifle bullet. You want one with a weight 5 times? That's still half of the energy.

Except the .44mag round in question has 1/2 the velocity, not 1/3, which is why it has higher energy at 2000 J.

Most handgun rounds aren't that heavy or that fast, however, so it's just to point out that handguns can get in that range.

<sigh> Again, though, this should be in the gun control thread.

[fwc577]

Except the .44mag round in question has 1/2 the velocity, not 1/3, which is why it has higher energy at 2000 J.

Most handgun rounds aren't that heavy or that fast, however, so it's just to point out that handguns can get in that range.

I find your 2000 J .44 mag round assessment ridiculous and would like to know how you come to it because there are a few variables and a reasonable combination of variables would put a 180 grain bullet traveling at 1500 ft/s into a target. If we translate 180 grains to kilograms & 1500 ft/s to m/s & put those figures into the kinetic energy equation (E=.5*m*V^2), we end up with 1220 J. (And that’s about 30% of the energy that a typical deer/elk hunting cartridge like the 30–06 would put into the same target.)

[Linkedblade]

Continuing being an ignoramus I see.

The assault weapon ban ran from 1994-2004.

Daniel Defense was founded in 2002 and they didn't start making their own rifles until 2009.

Also, I'm not "arbitrarily redefining" mass shootings. We're talking about the deadliest mass shootings here and the fact that there is still a lot of discussion going around about what qualifies as a mass shooting. The very first sentence on Wikipedia is: There is a lack of consensus on how to define a mass shooting.

And I see now you're back onto trying to discuss the distance a bullet travels? Can you make up your mind if you want to discuss distance a bullet travels vs being in close quarters? The fact of the matter is that at the distance most of these mass shooters are firing from, they don't have to worry about air resistance, gravity, curvature of the earth, etc. These aren't fucking snipers.

Now STFD.

- - - Updated - - -



These people clearly have 0 understanding of math considering I've posted the graphic now twice and they're whining about shit like gravity and air resistance when the majority of mass shootings happen in relatively close quarters.

I know when Daniel Defense started selling rifles. But the point was that there were only certain firearms that were made illegal, not a blanket ban on all rifles, or rifles patterned like the AR-15. That somehow would drastically change the data about which type of firearm was used in mass shootings. Especially when the line between pistol, sbr, and rifle are quite grey.

Distance is important because some of those shootings happened at a distance, like in Vegas.

I said a shotgun would have caused more carnage in close quarters because that's what it's meant to do. Depending on whom I was responding the distance may have been different.

Really wikipedia says that the definition in contentious? Congress defines it as 3 or more. the more you know.

And yeah bullets slow quickly because small object implies low inertia. But it's a bit complicated because ballistics are complicated. Too many factors like powder load, bullet weight, cartridge pressure, barrel length, the configuration of the gas system, muzzle device, rifle spin, etc. All you did was post some random image that I'm assuming is muzzle velocity and energy.

[fwc577]

I know when Daniel Defense started selling rifles.

No you fucking don't stfu. You literally tried to nullify someone's argument about the assault rifle ban because their rifle wasn't on the list when it wasn't even being manufactured when the ban was in effect. You've got 0 fucking clue, son.

- - - Updated - - -

Distance is important because some of those shootings happened at a distance, like in Vegas.

Wah, wah, let me cherry pick the 1 mass shooting that happened at an actual distance where the person was using a bump stock and auto firing into a literal fucking crowd the size of a football field and still killed 60.

Really wikipedia says that the definition in contentious? Congress defines it as 3 or more. the more you know.

No it doesn't. They defined Mass Killings as 3 dead. They haven't defined mass shootings specifically.

The U.S. government has never defined mass shooting as a separate category of crime, and there is not yet a broadly accepted definition of the term. In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). In 2013, Congress defined mass killing as a single incident that leaves three or more people dead (Pub. L. 112-265, 2013). However, both definitions include many incidents that would not be considered mass shootings. Furthermore, neither definition was established for the purpose of data collection or statistical analyses. The FBI classification of mass murderer was established primarily with the aim of clarifying criminal profiling procedures (Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas, 1988), and the congressional definition was intended to clarify statutory authority for the provision of U.S. Department of Justice investigatory assistance requested by state and local agencies (Pub. L. 112-265, 2013). Thus, various news outlets, researchers, and law enforcement agencies often use different definitions when reporting on mass shootings, which can complicate our understanding of mass shooting trends and their relationship to gun policy.

[PhaelixWW]

I find your 2000 J .44 mag round assessment ridiculous and would like to know how you come to it because there are a few variables and a reasonable combination of variables would put a 180 grain bullet traveling at 1500 ft/s into a target.

180 grain is pretty much towards the light end for .44mag rounds... They commonly go up to 300 grain and even up to ~350 grain.

But... seriously, I'm going to start responding to things in the gun control thread, because this is getting ridiculous.

[Linkedblade]

No you fucking don't stfu. You literally tried to nullify someone's argument about the assault rifle ban because their rifle wasn't on the list when it wasn't even being manufactured when the ban was in effect. You've got 0 fucking clue, son.

- - - Updated - - -



Wah, wah, let me cherry pick the 1 mass shooting that happened at an actual distance where the person was using a bump stock and auto firing into a literal fucking crowd the size of a football field and still killed 60.

You don't have to ad hom. I dont know your credentials, and you don't know mine. But you along with all the others are trying to have a conversation about firearms and clearly don't know anything about them. Half of what I've said is me mocking you, because you don't know what you're talking about. I have my bachelors in mathematics and engineering. And I'm a gun owner and am too familiar with this topic. And All y'all are doing is quick google searches and trying to piece together something.

You posted an image of muzzle velocities. Which gun? We don't know. Which ammo? We don't know. Not to mention there are ballistics charts available all over the place, but you pick one with the pretty colors.

I post data about which weapons are used, and they try to say that the assault weapons ban would have had an impact for the decade or so it was around, but it couldnt have. Because it only banned a few guns, and the others not listed could have easily been made legal. That definition of assault weapon is still in place in various states.

If people want to maim others, theyre going to do it however they can. There's no particular reason anyone should be fixated on banning the ar-15.

It's a good thing he was using a bumpstock, had he actually tried to aim there would have been many more wounded and killed.

[fwc577]

Honestly, I don't believe a single piece of shit you're saying after you tried to claim the assault weapon ban didn't matter because a weapon that didn't get manufactured until 5+ years after that ban expired wasn't on the list. And you are whining that we're doing a quick Google search? Projection much? Holy fuck.

Not even quoting you at this point because you're utterly irrelevant and I'm done conversing here.

[Cinnamilk]

I know when Daniel Defense started selling rifles. But the point was that there were only certain firearms that were made illegal, not a blanket ban on all rifles, or rifles patterned like the AR-15. That somehow would drastically change the data about which type of firearm was used in mass shootings. Especially when the line between pistol, sbr, and rifle are quite grey.

Distance is important because some of those shootings happened at a distance, like in Vegas.

I said a shotgun would have caused more carnage in close quarters because that's what it's meant to do. Depending on whom I was responding the distance may have been different.

Really wikipedia says that the definition in contentious? Congress defines it as 3 or more. the more you know.

And yeah bullets slow quickly because small object implies low inertia. But it's a bit complicated because ballistics are complicated. Too many factors like powder load, bullet weight, cartridge pressure, barrel length, the configuration of the gas system, muzzle device, rifle spin, etc. All you did was post some random image that I'm assuming is muzzle velocity and energy.

https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html
Here's some ballistic data for various handguns, rifles and shotguns from University of Utah. Theybused freedom units for whatever the hell reason, but you can still get a representative spread of the energy losses at 100 and 500 yards.

Looks like it varies from 20% to 50% at 100 yards, with generally less loss at that range for the rifles.

[Poopymonster]

Mass shootings, the unofficial national sport in the US. Cant touch it, an assault rifle over the counter is way to useful for hunting and home protection.

Can't wait for the Olympic committee to say "We can't fairly have the Olympics in the US. Non US athletes won't know which gun shot is starter."

- - - Updated - - -

OneStar Foundation and other locals raise $11.5 million in donations for Uvadle families.



Yeah, this case has gotten worldwide attention, hasn't it? Don't bother reading the rest of the article, the heartwarming story of public decently quickly changes to include "she smeared herself with her friend's blood and played dead" because CNN is almost as vindictive on the subject as I am.

Are the hip kids calling it "Corpse camo" yet?

[Rozz]

You all were repeatedly asked to take Gun Control focused discussion -bans, debates about types/models, etc to the appropriate thread. Continuing to derail a thread about slaughtered children is far from appropriate. If you're unable to stay civil or handle reading comments in this thread, then return when you can post within the guidelines and what was asked of you.

[Glorious Leader]

You all were repeatedly asked to take Gun Control focused discussion -bans, debates about types/models, etc to the appropriate thread. Continuing to derail a thread about slaughtered children is far from appropriate. If you're unable to stay civil or handle reading comments in this thread, then return when you can post within the guidelines and what was asked of you.

You understand that this expectation is nuts right. And ill take the hit I dont give a shit but the idea that you want the thread to not address anything about the actual root cause of the God damn shooting is fucking ignorant. No it really is because it reduces the discussion to cutting and passing news head lines about how shit the cops are and offering thoughts and prayers.

[fwc577]

You all were repeatedly asked to take Gun Control focused discussion -bans, debates about types/models, etc to the appropriate thread. Continuing to derail a thread about slaughtered children is far from appropriate. If you're unable to stay civil or handle reading comments in this thread, then return when you can post within the guidelines and what was asked of you.

Literally don't see a gun control thread in the political forum which is where this discussion belongs because this is a very political topic, especially in America.

[PhaelixWW]

Literally don't see a gun control thread in the political forum which is where this discussion belongs because this is a very political topic, especially in America.

That's because the thread predates the politics forum.

But here:

The gun control discussion is this way >>>.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yes, i agree, it's people with murderous intent

In most countries, people take their murderous intent and beat someone up. Or at worst, go on a stabbing spree. The survival rate of stabbings is incredibly high compared to GSW.

Man there must be something in the USA that makes it so that people who have murderous intent can take a tool of war and turn it on their neighbor, tools that can easily kill someone with high efficacy for killing... If only we could figure out what those things were...

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, parents or adults should be charged if a restricted person gets ahold of their firearms, barring criminal acts like burglary.

The last time this kind of thing was proposed every Republican screamed "GUN GRAB, THEY COMIN FOR OUR GUNS" and the bill died.

There's no possible way to make our schools safer against shooters that hasn't already been tried. We know arming teachers doesn't really work since we've had armed teachers at mass shootings that didn't stop jack shit. We know security guards don't do anything - several school shootings the security ran away to call the police.

Mentally ill people with violent tendencies can get their hands on a gun legally. This isn't even a joke. Trump managed to dismantle a system that made it so that the mentally ill could not get firearms. And Republicans CHEERED.

The blood of these children is on the hands of every gun nut who can't think rationally and worship guns.





Even this thread is dumb. There's not much more to be said on this specific incident without tangentially bringing up gun control. And if you even hardly mention it, BOOM. Infraction. So time to let this thread die. I don't even get the point. If you talk about making schools safer, there's no reasonable way to do it without GC. Everything else has been tried and failed.

Kids died. "Thoughts and prayers". "How do we make schools safer?" INFRACTION

On top of that, the official gun control thread is just a shit pile. It's a whole bunch of gun nuts using terrible and circular arguments. There's no discussion to be had there. Just a bunch of religious fanatics who feel physical pain at the idea of GC. So the only recourse is to just NOT TALK ABOUT IT.

[Rozz]

No the thread won't be closed. Most replies were making an effort or at least posting in relation to what happened. A select few were not and certainly didn't do so in a civil manner. If you primarily want to argue about overall gun control, you should go to the other existing thread instead of disrupting the focus of the one here.

For instance, mentioning the restrictions made because of what happened is fine. Talking about how that will or won't help in other school shootings is fine. Actually relating it to the topic is fine as long as it is directly relevant. Arguing about hunting guns, drop distance, insulting people, and needless semantic debate to be more technically right when you're not even in the right thread is not.

So if you're at the point that you want to get to the meat of the matter, go to the appropriate thread.

[Endus]

In the hopes that this is relevant enough, and that I'm not talking particulars but framing; the comparison always comes up for me to what happened with lawn darts, back in the '80s. There were nearly immediately injuries, and lawsuits, and lawn darts ended up being marketed solely to adults, legally, in the USA. And then some kids found the lawn darts in their parent's garage, winged a dart over the fence, and killed the neighbour's little girl by hitting her in the head (accidentally, to be sure, but still). The CPSC investigated, and over the prior 8 years of data, found that something like 6000 people had been injured, mostly children. And manufacturers weren't marketing them solely to adults, as required, necessarily. There was eventually a vote, and lawn darts were banned completely later that year, largely off the impetus of that one well-publicized killing. But it's still only a ban on sales, and kids still get maimed by their parents' old sets of lawn darts, but still; lawn dart control, and injuries/deaths are vastly reduced.

But guns, which kill so many more children, so much more consistently, not to mention all the adults? Can't even question whether they should be more-tightly controlled. Lawn Darts got banned completely in the aftermath of one individual girl getting killed, in less than two years.

If lawn dart manufacturers had sharpened the tips on their "toys" and marketed them as weapons, they'd probably still be on store shelves and people would be frothing at their "right" to huck deadly weapons around their backyards for fun. Apparently that's the only difference. Dangerous toys: Banned. Dangerous weapons: totally protected and how dare you. Lawn dart control, but never gun control, no matter how many kids get slaughtered every year as the continually-paid blood price for the 2nd Amendment's existence. Like in Uvalde. Which isn't an exceptional tragedy. It's just the latest blood-payment installment that's been billed to America's account.

[Linkedblade]

In the hopes that this is relevant enough, and that I'm not talking particulars but framing; the comparison always comes up for me to what happened with lawn darts, back in the '80s. There were nearly immediately injuries, and lawsuits, and lawn darts ended up being marketed solely to adults, legally, in the USA. And then some kids found the lawn darts in their parent's garage, winged a dart over the fence, and killed the neighbour's little girl by hitting her in the head (accidentally, to be sure, but still). The CPSC investigated, and over the prior 8 years of data, found that something like 6000 people had been injured, mostly children. And manufacturers weren't marketing them solely to adults, as required, necessarily. There was eventually a vote, and lawn darts were banned completely later that year, largely off the impetus of that one well-publicized killing. But it's still only a ban on sales, and kids still get maimed by their parents' old sets of lawn darts, but still; lawn dart control, and injuries/deaths are vastly reduced.

But guns, which kill so many more children, so much more consistently, not to mention all the adults? Can't even question whether they should be more-tightly controlled. Lawn Darts got banned completely in the aftermath of one individual girl getting killed, in less than two years.

If lawn dart manufacturers had sharpened the tips on their "toys" and marketed them as weapons, they'd probably still be on store shelves and people would be frothing at their "right" to huck deadly weapons around their backyards for fun. Apparently that's the only difference. Dangerous toys: Banned. Dangerous weapons: totally protected and how dare you. Lawn dart control, but never gun control, no matter how many kids get slaughtered every year as the continually-paid blood price for the 2nd Amendment's existence. Like in Uvalde. Which isn't an exceptional tragedy. It's just the latest blood-payment installment that's been billed to America's account.

You can't buy bows and arrows without proper ID.

[tehdang]

Some progress on Capitol Hill in response to Uvalde:

WASHINGTON — Senate negotiators announced on Sunday that they had struck a bipartisan deal on a narrow set of gun safety measures with sufficient support to move through the evenly divided chamber, a significant step toward ending a yearslong congressional impasse on the issue.

The agreement, put forth by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats and endorsed by President Biden and top Democrats, includes enhanced background checks to give authorities time to check the juvenile and mental health records of any prospective gun buyer under the age of 21 and a provision that would, for the first time, extend to dating partners a prohibition on domestic abusers having guns.

It would also provide funding for states to enact so-called red-flag laws that allow authorities to temporarily confiscate guns from people deemed to be dangerous, as well as money for mental health resources and to bolster safety and mental health services at schools.

The outline has yet to be finalized and still faces a perilous path in Congress, given the deep partisan divide on gun measures and the political stakes of the issue. It falls far short of the sprawling reforms that Mr. Biden, gun control activists and a majority of Democrats have long championed, such as a ban on assault weapons and universal background checks. And it is nowhere near as sweeping as a package of gun measures passed almost along party lines in the House last week, which would bar the sale of semiautomatic weapons to people under the age of 21, ban the sale of large-capacity magazines and enact a federal red-flag law, among other steps.

But it amounts to notable progress to begin bridging the considerable gulf between the two political parties on how to address gun violence, which has resulted in a string of failed legislative efforts on Capitol Hill, where Republican opposition has thwarted action for years.

Democrats hailed the plan, which would also toughen federal laws to stop gun trafficking and ensure that all commercial sellers are doing background checks, as an opportunity to pass the most significant gun safety legislation in decades.

“Today, we are announcing a common-sense, bipartisan proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” the 20 senators, led by Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, and John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said in a joint statement. “Families are scared, and it is our duty to come together and get something done that will help restore their sense of safety and security in their communities.”

The backing of 10 Republicans suggested that the plan could scale an obstacle that no other proposal currently under discussion has been able to: drawing the 60 votes necessary to break through a G.O.P. filibuster and survive to see an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Editors’ Picks

Abortion Politics, Money and the Reshaping of the G.O.P.

Where Have You Gone, Arthur Ashe? LIV Tour Golfers Need You.

Tom Hanks Explains It All
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader who has played a central role in stymieing gun safety measures in recent years, praised what he called “headway” in the discussions even as he was noncommittal about whether he would ultimately support the package.

“The principles they announced today show the value of dialogue and cooperation,” Mr. McConnell said. “I continue to hope their discussions yield a bipartisan product that makes significant headway on key issues like mental health and school safety, respects the Second Amendment, earns broad support in the Senate and makes a difference for our country.”

Aides cautioned that until the legislation was finalized, it was not certain that each of the components could draw the 60 votes necessary to move forward. Senators were still haggling over crucial details, including how much additional time law enforcement would have to review juvenile and mental health records for prospective gun buyers younger than 21.

The outline includes a provision to address what is known as the “boyfriend loophole,” which would prohibit people from owning guns if they had been convicted of domestic violence against a dating partner or were subject to a domestic violence restraining order from one. Currently, only domestic abusers who are married to, living with or the parent of a child with a victim are barred from having a firearm.

Republicans balked in March at including a provision to address the boyfriend loophole in a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act — a law aimed at preventing domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking — forcing Democrats to drop it in order to pass that legislation.

Mr. Biden urged Congress to pass a gun safety measure quickly, saying there were “no excuses for delay.”

“Each day that passes, more children are killed in this country,” he said. “The sooner it comes to my desk, the sooner I can sign it, and the sooner we can use these measures to save lives.”

The rare moment of bipartisan agreement came just under three weeks after a gun massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 children and two teachers, and about a month after a racist shooting attack in Buffalo that killed 10 Black people in a supermarket. The back-to-back mass shootings pushed the issue of gun violence to the forefront in Washington, where years’ worth of efforts to enact gun restrictions in the wake of such assaults have fallen short amid Republican opposition.

“There’s a different mood in the American public right now,” Mr. Murphy said. “There’s a real panic among families and kids that this country is spinning out of control. That demand presented us with an opportunity.”

Mr. Murphy said his hope was that many more Republicans would end up supporting a bill and that it would help “break this impasse and show the country what’s possible.”

But in an indication of the political risks Republicans see in embracing even modest gun safety measures, none of the 10 who endorsed Sunday’s deal was facing voters this year. The group included four Republican senators who are leaving Congress at the end of the year — Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania — and five who are not up for re-election for another four years: Mr. Cornyn, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who also embraced the deal, will face voters in 2024.

“I worked closely with my colleagues to find an agreement to protect our communities from violence while also protecting law-abiding Texans’ right to bear arms,” Mr. Cornyn said in a statement on Twitter.

Democrats who signed on to Sunday’s statement included Mr. Murphy as well as Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Chris Coons of Delaware, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. They were joined by Angus King, the Maine independent. Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Kelly are up for re-election in November.

The agreement was announced on the sixth anniversary of the mass shooting at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., where a gunman killed 49 people in what was then the deadliest shooting in modern American history.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, pledged to put the agreement up for a vote once the legislation had been completed, calling it “a good first step to ending the persistent inaction to the gun violence epidemic that has plagued our country.”

“We must move swiftly to advance this legislation, because if a single life can be saved, it is worth the effort,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement.

Gun safety activists said they viewed the measures as meaningful progress that they hoped would unlock a new era of bipartisanship on the issue.

“The fact that a group this large is coming together to get it done shows that we’re in a historic moment,” said T. Christian Heyne, the vice president for policy at Brady: United Against Gun Violence.

“All of these things individually are meaningful,” Mr. Heyne added. “When you look at them together, it feels pretty significant.”

John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said if the framework announced was enacted into law, “it will be the most significant piece of gun safety legislation to make it through Congress in 26 long and deadly years.”

As pressure has mounted for Congress to act in recent days, roughly a dozen senators — including veterans of failed attempts to reach similar deals — huddled on Zoom, over the phone and in basement offices on Capitol Hill to reach an agreement before the Senate leaves for a scheduled Fourth of July recess.

Party leaders signaled support for the discussions, even as Mr. Schumer warned that he would not allow them to drag on into the summer before he would force votes on gun control. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Schumer to provide room for the talks by holding off on scheduling votes on more sweeping House-passed gun control legislation that Republicans opposed, and he repeatedly warned that his party’s top priorities would have to be dropped to secure the necessary G.O.P. backing for any compromise.

For some families of those lost in Uvalde, the Senate deal would not go nearly far enough. Leonard Sandoval, whose 10-year-old grandson Xavier Lopez died at Robb Elementary School last month, said what he really wanted was a ban on semiautomatic weapons like the ones used in almost every major mass shooting of the last decade.

“Those weapons are for soldiers, not for someone to use on us,” Mr. Sandoval said. “They need to ban those first. These are the weapons they have used in many of these shootings. People don’t need to have access to them. They are for wars.”

Others whose loved ones have perished from gun violence said they were focused on keeping together the fragile coalition in the Senate that forged the compromise, especially keeping the Republicans on board.

“They will be under tremendous pressure,” said Garnell Whitfield Jr., whose mother, Ruth Whitfield, was shot and killed in Buffalo. “The goal is to make sure that they stay strong moving forward.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/12/u...fety-deal.html

Details will matter for if this gets passed. It will take a couple of weeks to even draft the policies agreed upon by the bipartisan group. McConnell supportive. Republicans signed onto it include retiring senators and none are up for election this November.

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/15...079171/photo/1

It could get enough support to break a filibuster.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You can't buy bows and arrows without proper ID.

There's a flea market down the road from me where I can go pick up a high quality compound bow, give em cash, and walk out.

This place also sells guns by the truckload. Not even an exaggeration. Literal Uhauls full of guns in their boxings. You want one? Flash the cash out and you can have it.

Funniest part is that these 2A nutters infamously don't even report these sales on their taxes since it's all in cash. Either that or they dramatically understate what they sold.

"BUT VEHICLES" We've regulated vehicles to hell and back and it requires at least a license and in many states a proper training course.

"BUT 9/11 USED AIRPLANES, BAN AIRPLANES" People seem to forget pre and post 2001 air travel is VASTLY different. PATRIOT Act + TSA plus about a hundred other smaller things that the US did in reaction to 9/11

If we're talking about school safety, of course nobody needs an "assault rifle". But I realize that term is different depending upon who you talk to, but a long barreled gun, usually rifles, with self-reloading capability with the potential for high capacity magazines. Most school shooters stop once they run out of ammo, and as an active assault they can only carry so much extra on their person. We could regulate any number of things that would make children safer. But time and again, 2A nutters prove that they don't care about children. Or at least, their care for children ends when their concern for gun sales begins. But that's being generous. Most of the time people on that side of the political spectrum want to use women as breeding sows, claiming "protecting the babies" but once that baby is out of the womb it gets to live in a world where capitalism means it will never be truly successful and has a high chance to live in poverty, on top of all the other ways in which conservatives give ZERO FUCKS about children out of the womb.

[Endus]

Others have said this, but I'll say it too because honestly this demand is driving me nuts.

This entire debate is so intrinsically intertwined with the issue of gun control that absolutely no meaningful debate of any kind can ever be had without bringing up the topic.

What you are asking from us is literally identical to what the NRA and ilk are demanding from the public. "Thoughts and prayers! But don't politicize it!"

It's honestly maddening.

They've clarified in later posts (particular the one just a few posts up); as long as it's relevant to Uvalde and talking about that and related shootings, specifically, it's not crossing the line. It's trying to derail the discussion AWAY from those shootings into technical definitions and other such bad-faith wharrgarble that should stay relegated to the Gun Control Megathread.

My personal interpretation of their position as posted because, again, as the forum title says, I don't work here any more and haven't in years and have precisely no backdoor knowledge or anything.