Top | Newest First | Oldest First
BizSuitStacy · M
I know. There was an article in the USA Today about how this shooting could have been worse with an AR-15. You could sense the author's disappointment as the firearms used in the massacre didn't fit the narrative.
What's worse, was the complete bullshit spewed in that article about the "high powered" AR-15, and how it miraculously shoots bullets faster than other guns. And of course, no gun grabber's rant is fully complete without throwing a magazine capacity tantrum.
The facts are: (1) the rounds fired from an AR-15 are considered a medium power by the US military. It's basically a .22 that's been going to the gym. (2) a shotgun is arguably more lethal than an AR-15 in close quarter situations (3) the rate of fire of semi-automatic firearms depends on the individual squeezing the trigger and not the firearm itself as the article states. (4) magazine capacity has been proven to be an irrelevant point many times as it only takes a couple seconds to swap mags.
But hey...let's not let facts get in the way of the agenda...
What's worse, was the complete bullshit spewed in that article about the "high powered" AR-15, and how it miraculously shoots bullets faster than other guns. And of course, no gun grabber's rant is fully complete without throwing a magazine capacity tantrum.
The facts are: (1) the rounds fired from an AR-15 are considered a medium power by the US military. It's basically a .22 that's been going to the gym. (2) a shotgun is arguably more lethal than an AR-15 in close quarter situations (3) the rate of fire of semi-automatic firearms depends on the individual squeezing the trigger and not the firearm itself as the article states. (4) magazine capacity has been proven to be an irrelevant point many times as it only takes a couple seconds to swap mags.
But hey...let's not let facts get in the way of the agenda...
View 104 more replies »
bonviveur · F
First paragraph. It's not a dream. It's possible. It can be done. It's extremely naive to thin that arming anyone and everyone wherever we wish will guarantee shootings and deaths won't occur. That is absurd.
Second paragraph. 100% agree.
Have a good night.
Second paragraph. 100% agree.
Have a good night.
StrictSouthernHOH · 46-50, M
@bonviveur It's a nightmare for those of us who don't want to be left defenseless against the murderers you say you want to stop. Beware the law of unintended consequences.
BizSuitStacy · M
@bonviveur perfect! I love your tick tock challenge. There are two kinds of gun control advocates. The first kind are the ones dumb enough to believe that gun control will reduce violence. The second kind are the ones who know it won't reduce violence...and in fact are counting on more chaos. So which are you?
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
HerKing · 61-69, M
@BizSuitStacy Ding ding ding! You win the internet.. You mentioned Alinsky! You want data? The USA has more murders than any other western country, per capita, combined. It also runs away by miles in those figures the amount of people killed by firearms.
And you having a gun leveled at you is hardly the same as putting yourself in the position of a parent who has had their child murdered.
But it's good that you accept the '60%' murder rate rise in the UK was your cherry picking of statistics.
And you having a gun leveled at you is hardly the same as putting yourself in the position of a parent who has had their child murdered.
But it's good that you accept the '60%' murder rate rise in the UK was your cherry picking of statistics.
BizSuitStacy · M
@HerKing It's also very different when they not only point the gun at you, but they also shoot...a point you've intentionally left out. Why? Is it because it knocks you off your little sanctimonious rant? You should read the book The Breaker...or perhaps it would be easier for you to simply watch the movie Breaker Morant.
"The USA has more murders than any other western country, per capita, combined." That's not data...that's a talking point. ...and "per capita combined"? What the Hell are you talking about? Are you actually trying to add percentages. LOL
But let's take a trip down Reality Lane. Back in the good old days, the gun grabber's talking point used to be "the US has the highest murder rate of any country in the world." Until someone exposed the truth. There are dozens of countries with higher murder rates (most of which, BTW, outlaw guns).
So then the narrative was changed to the highest murder rate of any westernized country in the world (you know...because it's ok when murder rates are high as long as the country isn't westernized defeating the narrative).
Huh...well, let's see. Russia has a murder rate estimated to be 4 times higher than the US. Is Russia westernized? Then there is China...of course it doesn't count when it's the government murdering their citizens.
Then there is Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil. Not just higher homicide rates than the US...more total homicides. And not just higher firearm homicide rates than the US...more firearm homicides - from countries with far stricter gun control. Annual number of firearm homicides from a UN report, Mexico about 13,000, Venezuela 16,000...and Brazil...drum roll...34,000! Brazil, a country with very strict gun laws has 4 times more firearm homicides than the US. In fact it exceeds the total number of gun deaths in the US throwing in homicides, suicides, accidents, and justified shootings.
Perhaps these nations aren't westernized enough for you?
But wait, there's more. Just how effective is gun control? We know violence spiked in the UK. But what about the gun controller's wet dream Australia? They implemented draconian gun laws after a mass shooting too. Net effect...it didn't alter the trajectory of violence in that country.
We have great examples if it here in the US as well. Both Washington DC and Chicago banned handguns for a period of time. Gun violence increased during that stretch. What about the 10 window when military style semi-automatics, aka assault weapons and high cap magazines were banned? No change.
If gun control was so great at reducing violence, why are there so many examples of it failing?
Cherry picking? Well, now you have a bushel. Bon apetit!
"The USA has more murders than any other western country, per capita, combined." That's not data...that's a talking point. ...and "per capita combined"? What the Hell are you talking about? Are you actually trying to add percentages. LOL
But let's take a trip down Reality Lane. Back in the good old days, the gun grabber's talking point used to be "the US has the highest murder rate of any country in the world." Until someone exposed the truth. There are dozens of countries with higher murder rates (most of which, BTW, outlaw guns).
So then the narrative was changed to the highest murder rate of any westernized country in the world (you know...because it's ok when murder rates are high as long as the country isn't westernized defeating the narrative).
Huh...well, let's see. Russia has a murder rate estimated to be 4 times higher than the US. Is Russia westernized? Then there is China...of course it doesn't count when it's the government murdering their citizens.
Then there is Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil. Not just higher homicide rates than the US...more total homicides. And not just higher firearm homicide rates than the US...more firearm homicides - from countries with far stricter gun control. Annual number of firearm homicides from a UN report, Mexico about 13,000, Venezuela 16,000...and Brazil...drum roll...34,000! Brazil, a country with very strict gun laws has 4 times more firearm homicides than the US. In fact it exceeds the total number of gun deaths in the US throwing in homicides, suicides, accidents, and justified shootings.
Perhaps these nations aren't westernized enough for you?
But wait, there's more. Just how effective is gun control? We know violence spiked in the UK. But what about the gun controller's wet dream Australia? They implemented draconian gun laws after a mass shooting too. Net effect...it didn't alter the trajectory of violence in that country.
We have great examples if it here in the US as well. Both Washington DC and Chicago banned handguns for a period of time. Gun violence increased during that stretch. What about the 10 window when military style semi-automatics, aka assault weapons and high cap magazines were banned? No change.
If gun control was so great at reducing violence, why are there so many examples of it failing?
Cherry picking? Well, now you have a bushel. Bon apetit!
HerKing · 61-69, M
@BizSuitStacy I already explained the none spike in the UK, that you overlook that is understandable. By your logic there should be more guns among more people (Currently in the US about 50% of the civilian held firearms are in 3% of the population's hands) and then the USA will be so much safer, right? But it's interesting you bypass the scenario of possibly your child being a victim, and what your viewpoint would be like in that event? So far there have been 18 school shootings this year including those who apparently weren't 'gun free'. And back to the NRA's position, for an alleged 'pastime' organisation they sure love to control the politicians and the current POTUS.
The Russia thing is interesting because John Bolton (Current NS advisor) went to Russia to promote the NRA, and the NRA gets funds from Russia.. But, Putin doesn't allow guns officially. I say officially because the place is basically run by Putin in conjunction with the mafia. Quite why Bolton would promote the NRA in Russia has never been made clear.
"So then the narrative was changed to the highest murder rate of any westernized country in the world (you know...because it's ok when murder rates are high as long as the country isn't westernized defeating the narrative)."
Oh, I was under the impression that such as Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela etc was just a population of murderers and rapists and therefore only 'animals'? And not civilised the way the USA is supposed to be. No?
The Russia thing is interesting because John Bolton (Current NS advisor) went to Russia to promote the NRA, and the NRA gets funds from Russia.. But, Putin doesn't allow guns officially. I say officially because the place is basically run by Putin in conjunction with the mafia. Quite why Bolton would promote the NRA in Russia has never been made clear.
"So then the narrative was changed to the highest murder rate of any westernized country in the world (you know...because it's ok when murder rates are high as long as the country isn't westernized defeating the narrative)."
Oh, I was under the impression that such as Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela etc was just a population of murderers and rapists and therefore only 'animals'? And not civilised the way the USA is supposed to be. No?
BizSuitStacy · M
@HerKing You didn't explain the UK homicide spike. You dismissed it. Called it cherry picking. That means you acknowledge it as truth, but think of it as an outlier. To prove it's not an outlier, I've pointed a number of other examples of failed gun control.
I've debated dozens of gun control advocates. You all can be profiled into one of a few categories. You fit the "changes the subject all the time" profile. You don't know your facts, so you throw out irrelevant talking points.
You keep harping in the "how would you feel if it was your kid...?" What in the Hell do our "feelings" have to do with what we are debating?
You're attempting to appeal to emotion. Then you go and spread the bullshit about 18 school shootings. We all know that the most of the shootings are gang bangers shooting one another near a school, or an incident in which a gun goes off at a school accidently.
I will agree that any mass shooting at a school is awful, but to think gun control will put a stop to it is ludicrous.
It's interesting, because I see we are about the same age. But there were lots of guns around when I was in high school, but there weren't any school shootings. Hell, guys had hunting rifles in the racks of their trucks at school. The fucking guns were there AT THE SCHOOL. No one ever got shot. Not even accidently. So what changed? It wasn't the guns.
Still...you won't stop here. I know your type. Then, you really go off the rails stating the 50% of the guns are owned by 3% of the people. Doing the math, that means roughly 9.6 million people own approximately 175 million guns, which mean these folks own about 18 guns each on average. Tough stat to back up since most guns aren't registered. But let's assume it's true. So what? Do you know what people are required by law to do when they buy a gun? They have to pass a background checks. If the buy lots of guns, they pass lots of background checks.
Now, what do we know about guns used in crimes? Well approximately 90% of the people who use gun in a homicide have at least one felony (the average is 4 felonies). How did they get their guns? Oh yeah...illegally, since they can't pass a background check.
93% of the guns used in crimes are acquired illegally. They are working around the background check system.
Now...the background check system is not a crystal ball. There can be cases in which someone has no red flags, buys a gun, and uses it in a crime. But then, we are a society that believes in freedom. You don't take it away because some might abuse it.
But of course you ween't done going off the deep end. Now you bring in Bolton, Russia and the NRA into it. And that's the point at which I realize it's time for you to take off the tin foil hat. And I'm gonna stop responding to you because you are aren't rational.
But there is something you should think about. Gun control arguments are based on emotion mostly, except in the cases where correlary of data is provided. Correlations CANNOT prove anything. But they can be used to disprove theories.
My point is...there is also ample correlary evidence to suggest more guns DOES NOT = more crime. It proves you are wrong. It ain't about the gun.
Yet, I know it won't matter a lick to you. No matter how much data, logic and reasoning I provide, I am sure you will always believe more gun control is the answer. There are politicians out there who won't listen to reason either. They don't care about the likely consequences of actually increasing violence be restricting legal access to firearms. These folks will continue to push, violate laws and the constitution just to get their way. This is a very dangerous line of thinking. Because their is a line that will be drawn, and it will be the progressive that provokes the senseless violence that will follow. I fear that day very much, but believe it's not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
I've debated dozens of gun control advocates. You all can be profiled into one of a few categories. You fit the "changes the subject all the time" profile. You don't know your facts, so you throw out irrelevant talking points.
You keep harping in the "how would you feel if it was your kid...?" What in the Hell do our "feelings" have to do with what we are debating?
You're attempting to appeal to emotion. Then you go and spread the bullshit about 18 school shootings. We all know that the most of the shootings are gang bangers shooting one another near a school, or an incident in which a gun goes off at a school accidently.
I will agree that any mass shooting at a school is awful, but to think gun control will put a stop to it is ludicrous.
It's interesting, because I see we are about the same age. But there were lots of guns around when I was in high school, but there weren't any school shootings. Hell, guys had hunting rifles in the racks of their trucks at school. The fucking guns were there AT THE SCHOOL. No one ever got shot. Not even accidently. So what changed? It wasn't the guns.
Still...you won't stop here. I know your type. Then, you really go off the rails stating the 50% of the guns are owned by 3% of the people. Doing the math, that means roughly 9.6 million people own approximately 175 million guns, which mean these folks own about 18 guns each on average. Tough stat to back up since most guns aren't registered. But let's assume it's true. So what? Do you know what people are required by law to do when they buy a gun? They have to pass a background checks. If the buy lots of guns, they pass lots of background checks.
Now, what do we know about guns used in crimes? Well approximately 90% of the people who use gun in a homicide have at least one felony (the average is 4 felonies). How did they get their guns? Oh yeah...illegally, since they can't pass a background check.
93% of the guns used in crimes are acquired illegally. They are working around the background check system.
Now...the background check system is not a crystal ball. There can be cases in which someone has no red flags, buys a gun, and uses it in a crime. But then, we are a society that believes in freedom. You don't take it away because some might abuse it.
But of course you ween't done going off the deep end. Now you bring in Bolton, Russia and the NRA into it. And that's the point at which I realize it's time for you to take off the tin foil hat. And I'm gonna stop responding to you because you are aren't rational.
But there is something you should think about. Gun control arguments are based on emotion mostly, except in the cases where correlary of data is provided. Correlations CANNOT prove anything. But they can be used to disprove theories.
My point is...there is also ample correlary evidence to suggest more guns DOES NOT = more crime. It proves you are wrong. It ain't about the gun.
Yet, I know it won't matter a lick to you. No matter how much data, logic and reasoning I provide, I am sure you will always believe more gun control is the answer. There are politicians out there who won't listen to reason either. They don't care about the likely consequences of actually increasing violence be restricting legal access to firearms. These folks will continue to push, violate laws and the constitution just to get their way. This is a very dangerous line of thinking. Because their is a line that will be drawn, and it will be the progressive that provokes the senseless violence that will follow. I fear that day very much, but believe it's not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
HerKing · 61-69, M
@BizSuitStacy I did explain (or rather someone else did) the spike..I posted the statistical analysis, didn't you read it? The 'spike' was mainly to do with two high profile mass murders (one over several decades) that culminated in his conviction therefore the 'total' was in that year's figures. As the UK's murder rate is far lower than the US, any significant rise from in this case very low single figure individual murder cases in any one year, skews the total.
Having said that, you do the same as you accuse me of doing, causation/ correlation.. nope. The restrictions introduced on guns had nothing at all to do with those murders; one was Harold Shipman,a family doctor who over decades had killed elderly patients. He didn't use gun (he didn't need to) therefore how he did it had no bearing on the gun restrictions brought in in 1996-7. In other words the 'spike' you mention wasn't as a result of the gun laws brought in.
Just as (for example) another school mass shooting in the US doesn't often make the news unless it's ten or more kids, over fifteen and even Fox news has to take notice. Naturally the NRA, and right wing talking heads have to then blame the victims, mental health, too many emergency doors, not enough guns in the first place, not the right kind of guns...
If you really believe lack of guns, or restricting access to guns will increase murders, then I suggest it's you who needs to take off the tin hat and rose tinted glasses.
I'm surprised you didn't throw Switzerland in the mix, there's time I guess. Psst, they don't have a full time army, so every male above 18 is installed in the militia, so has to be able to shoot. The penalties there on misuse and NDs is brutal. You'd really be spitting. As for the 2nd amendment, it's amusing, because it's cited by the gun lobby (gun manufacturers pour money into the NRA doncha know?) as the catch all. It actually refers to a 'well organised militia'. Really? (250 plus years ago, when the most advanced firearm was a flintlock musket)
How often do think that is advocated by the NRA? How about never.
Instead the gun lobby pushes for more guns, arming teachers (who can't affird to stock a school with books and materials to educate children) as some sort of nebulous panacea to solve the problem. Still, if it doesn't it sells more guns, right?
The other day I read some GOP idiot suggest to (who else) her audience of evangelical christians (I doubt Jesus would have carried a gun, but I digress) that porn was the cause of gun violence, as in magazines and videos.. sadly she didn't have time to mention the gun magazines or videos showing gun violence to balance her in depth research.
Finally, you say emotion has no place in debate, perhaps not. But I will gaurantee that all debate would empty your mind to be replaced with primal emotion leaving your lungs on a scale you cannot even imagine if you turned on the news to see it was your child's school that had just had a shooting. Debate? Sure..rationally debate that feeling. Or are you one of those who thinks Sandy Hook never happened?
Having said that, you do the same as you accuse me of doing, causation/ correlation.. nope. The restrictions introduced on guns had nothing at all to do with those murders; one was Harold Shipman,a family doctor who over decades had killed elderly patients. He didn't use gun (he didn't need to) therefore how he did it had no bearing on the gun restrictions brought in in 1996-7. In other words the 'spike' you mention wasn't as a result of the gun laws brought in.
Just as (for example) another school mass shooting in the US doesn't often make the news unless it's ten or more kids, over fifteen and even Fox news has to take notice. Naturally the NRA, and right wing talking heads have to then blame the victims, mental health, too many emergency doors, not enough guns in the first place, not the right kind of guns...
If you really believe lack of guns, or restricting access to guns will increase murders, then I suggest it's you who needs to take off the tin hat and rose tinted glasses.
I'm surprised you didn't throw Switzerland in the mix, there's time I guess. Psst, they don't have a full time army, so every male above 18 is installed in the militia, so has to be able to shoot. The penalties there on misuse and NDs is brutal. You'd really be spitting. As for the 2nd amendment, it's amusing, because it's cited by the gun lobby (gun manufacturers pour money into the NRA doncha know?) as the catch all. It actually refers to a 'well organised militia'. Really? (250 plus years ago, when the most advanced firearm was a flintlock musket)
How often do think that is advocated by the NRA? How about never.
Instead the gun lobby pushes for more guns, arming teachers (who can't affird to stock a school with books and materials to educate children) as some sort of nebulous panacea to solve the problem. Still, if it doesn't it sells more guns, right?
The other day I read some GOP idiot suggest to (who else) her audience of evangelical christians (I doubt Jesus would have carried a gun, but I digress) that porn was the cause of gun violence, as in magazines and videos.. sadly she didn't have time to mention the gun magazines or videos showing gun violence to balance her in depth research.
Finally, you say emotion has no place in debate, perhaps not. But I will gaurantee that all debate would empty your mind to be replaced with primal emotion leaving your lungs on a scale you cannot even imagine if you turned on the news to see it was your child's school that had just had a shooting. Debate? Sure..rationally debate that feeling. Or are you one of those who thinks Sandy Hook never happened?
BizSuitStacy · M
@questionWeaver thank you. HerKing lost the debate a few comments back. But it does illustrate the extent to which gun controllers will go spread their lies and the way in which they will twist words, etc.
HerKing · 61-69, M
@BizSuitStacy Lost what debate? As long as you're happy switching on the telly to see yet another mass shooting, where the crim has used a legally held firearm who am I to disavow you of your primitive thinking? Knock yourself out sugar. Lol.
Just don't bleat and whine if it's one of your own. You will of course, because at that moment you're life is destroyed. But as long as you get thoughts and prayers it'll be fine. ☺
Just don't bleat and whine if it's one of your own. You will of course, because at that moment you're life is destroyed. But as long as you get thoughts and prayers it'll be fine. ☺
Graylight · 51-55, F
When is this inane and distracting "the AR-15 isn't an assault weapon" going to end?
A bullet is still a bullet. A gun is still a gun. Disturbed or angry people with access to either are still a problem. And people keep dying.
Nope, the AR-15 was innocent this time, and kids still died. If there's anything that implies we need to start talking about [i]all[/i] firearms, this is it.
A bullet is still a bullet. A gun is still a gun. Disturbed or angry people with access to either are still a problem. And people keep dying.
Nope, the AR-15 was innocent this time, and kids still died. If there's anything that implies we need to start talking about [i]all[/i] firearms, this is it.
LadyBronte · 56-60, F
@Graylight So then we also need to get rid of knives. Anything that can be used for blunt force trauma. Autos. Anything that could be used to construct pipe bombs. All projectiles. Razor blades. Oh and dont forget fertilizer The list is endless. Get rid of everything that can be used for nefarious purposes and we'd be back to sleeping on the ground and using our fingers to eat. Guns aren't the issue. Mental illness, entitlement, lack of respect, lack of education and accountability are the problem. We've had guns in homes for fucking years and years and yeeeeaaaarrrrsss. If guns were the problem, surely this wouldn't be such a recent problem. I wish people would get rid of the inane "guns are the problem" mentality. People are the problem.
Graylight · 51-55, F
Anything can be used as a weapon, but a firearm is the only item intended for the sole purpose of destroying life. And few things are faster, deadlier or more efficient. The "knives kill people too" argument doesn't hold up. It requires very close proximity and intimacy to stab someone; knives don't accidentally jump out and stab; there's almost no collateral damage done with knives; using a knife takes thought and is generally less lethal, whereas the impulsive pull of a trigger can happen almost without thought.
Mental illness (good job buying into the hype) represents a fraction of firearms incidents. The mentally ill are generally no more violent than the average community member. Lack of respect? As in, "kids these days..."? You've got to be kidding.
I'm all for education, so long as it teaches the truth, like most 'responsible' gun owners [i]should[/i] use the safety and trigger locks & safes. Like a person increases his risk of death almost 8-fold by owning a gun. Like most card-carrying trained marksmen couldn't hit a barn door in 6 shots at 50 paces, or that many cops can't, either, in an active situation.
Very, very few people want a total ban on guns, but in this culture where literally everything is regulated, why the resistance to regulations that would minimize the violence done by average Americans? Because that's what we're talking about - not hordes of gun-toting MS-13 gang members, but each other.
Mental illness (good job buying into the hype) represents a fraction of firearms incidents. The mentally ill are generally no more violent than the average community member. Lack of respect? As in, "kids these days..."? You've got to be kidding.
I'm all for education, so long as it teaches the truth, like most 'responsible' gun owners [i]should[/i] use the safety and trigger locks & safes. Like a person increases his risk of death almost 8-fold by owning a gun. Like most card-carrying trained marksmen couldn't hit a barn door in 6 shots at 50 paces, or that many cops can't, either, in an active situation.
Very, very few people want a total ban on guns, but in this culture where literally everything is regulated, why the resistance to regulations that would minimize the violence done by average Americans? Because that's what we're talking about - not hordes of gun-toting MS-13 gang members, but each other.
LadyBronte · 56-60, F
So why are we only now having this problem? Why for all these years has nothing been an issue? Duh. And double duh. You have to be insane to believe those issues don't hold water. You obviously have never been in a situation where you have worked with the criminally insane, or where you need to protect yourself and/or your family or needed to hunt to put food on the table. Good luck trying to live in your shiny little world where no one ever has mental issues, everything is safe warm, and you never lack for the basics. 🙄
LadyBronte · 56-60, F
Harley4Life · M
@LadyBronte i do. I know more about firearms than people realize
LadyBronte · 56-60, F
Good. Sadly most people mistakenly believe AR stands for assault rifle.
SensibleJulie · F
@LadyBronte Well that's true. Part of the reason for the confusion that is that some but not all AR products are selective fire. Though the ones people want to ban aren't. Where I come from we call something like that a "Military Style Semi-Automatic."
LadyBronte · 56-60, F
It is in my state. With a waiting period as well.
@LadyBronte Sorry if I wasted your time.
Moosepantspatty · 31-35, M
Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
FattyMcFatts · 46-50, M
It’s nice to see ‘em changing it up once in a while.
Harley4Life · M
@MethDozer people still blame the AR