Jump to content

Common Sense Remains Elusive!


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

Trump Administration will expedite the death penalty for mass shooters.  Hooray!  That will end all of these shootings.  Exactly how deep in the shit will the Republicans continue to cater to the NRA?  They are already eating off the floor and licking their boots.

 

Ban assault weapons...thorough back ground checks...restrict sales of semi-automatic weapons...redflag registrants throughout policing agencies...and sure, expedite the death penalty.  But let's try to actually start with the stuff that will work!  Cheers!

 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-propose-expedited-death-155335610.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

 

You know that this would have negligible effect, right?  You would still have internet outlets, private emails through speculation, etc putting out the name. 

 

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

 

What does this even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

 

You know that this would have negligible effect, right?  You would still have internet outlets, private emails through speculation, etc putting out the name. 

 

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

 

So you think that a person would be able to become famous with zero media coverage in ad-supported media which inlcudes newspapers, magazines, online media, social medial (facebook, instagram, youtube, twitter) and google searches because his fame would spread through private emails and non-ad supported media such as blogs and forums like this one.

 

Can you name a single person who became famous this way?

 

Ban assault weapons...thorough back ground checks...restrict sales of semi-automatic weapons...redflag registrants throughout policing agencies...and sure, expedite the death penalty.  But let's try to actually start with the stuff that will work!  Cheers!

 

This is not stuff that will work. Liberals have no clue what works because its largely a symbolic issue that they don't really understand all that well. For instance assault rifles are almost never used to kill people. I've explained this to you already...yet somehow it hasn't registered. Using an assault rifle to kill is like using a huge 1980's cell phone instead of a modern mobile phones. Its utterly impractical.

 

The other thing is the demographics of this. Gun rights enthusiasts and members of the gun culture tend to be white and conservative. But they basically don't commit gun crimes. They are actually less likely to crimes than the general population. However almost all gun control policies are directed at them. Which is why gun control policies are useless. The people actually committing gun crimes disproportionately are black and live in inner cities. Their guns also tend to be illegal.

 

If you want to stop gun crime which is mostly committed with hand guns the key is to go after ILLEGALLY OWNED FIREARMS. How do you do that? Well people who have these weapons don't advertise it. So you have to find them. New Yorks stop and frisk was a policy that did this but liberals didn't like it because it disproportionately effected black people. I want liberals to think about this seriously...how do you find the illegal guns.

 

The other policy which again gun control advocates never talk about is straw buying. This is where a person who passes a background check and is a legal gun owner buys guns for criminals. Straw buying is a misdemeanor. The penalties for doing it are very low in most cities in the US. Yet its overwhelmingly the source of illegal guns both in the US and Canada.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/straw-purchasing-america-needs-to-prosecute-it/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/straw-purchasing-domestic-weapons-trafficking-increase-1.4704987

 

How about a 30-year sentence for straw-buying for example. But once again it is a policy that will disproportionately hit black people. In fact any successful policy that attacks illegal guns will disproportionately hit black people because they commit the a disproportionate amount of gun crime with illegal obtained guns. E.g.

Jacob Collins and Julius Burton

 

So the choice is between effective gun policy which targets illegal gun owners that are disproportionately black. And ineffective symbolic policy that targets legal gun owners that are largely law-abiding and rarely commit crimes. I'm not surprised at the choice liberals have made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are missing the point.

 

The NRA and republicans understand this perfectly. They know that any gun measure aimed to cut down the kill count in the long run will fail. If they yield and agree on measure 1, we'll revisit it after a few years and move to measure 2 ad infinitum.

 

They know that the only and real solution is to take away all the guns, and effectively kill 2A. This is an existential threat to NRA and its gun mfg supporters.

 

This is exactly what Trump explains as slippery slope. You yield an inch and they'll come back for a yard. The religious right MAY have a change of heart if number of fetuses aborted is less than number killed by gun violence. we've a long way to go. I think that the current ratio is like 10:1

 

It will be thoughts and prayers for next several decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things I am trying to figure out...

 

The US is averaging one random mass shooting every day.

 

We are told these mass shootings are not a gun problem, they are a mental health problem.

 

This rate of mass shootings far exceeds that of any other civilized country.

 

So does it follow that a higher percentage of Americans are mentally ill than anywhere else in the world?

 

Of course having some of the most relaxed gun laws in the world would have nothing to do with the rate of mass shootings.

 

 

Now on a slightly different subject. Pot is legal in Canada.

 

However, if a Canadian attempts to cross the US border and admits to having smoked pot even once in their life they can be banned from entering the US forever.

 

But carrying and owning a gun is legal nearly everywhere in the US but not in Canada. Should Canada ban every American who has ever owned or carried a gun from entering the country?

 

Just wondering.  "Common Sense Remains Elusive!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They know that the only and real solution is to take away all the guns, and effectively kill 2A. This is an existential threat to NRA and its gun mfg supporters.

 

This is an impossible task (literally impossible). Ban guns in the US and illegal weapons will flood across the border due to the newly created black market. Gang violence will sky rocket even higher. Every redneck with a machine shop will manufacture AR-15's and you also can't forget about the easy ability to 3D print pretty much any firearm you want. I believe the file (blueprints) to 3D print an AR-15 rifle has been downloaded tens of millions of times. When that doesn't work what next? People have already made "assault bows" which are arguable more dangerous than firearms (if you know anything about ballistics, not to mention bows are quiet). There is a guy on YouTube who has a bow that can shoot 60 arrows per minute.

 

"feel good solutions" are nothing more than that...it's like putting a band-aid on a kid and telling them its all better so they stop crying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have to start somewhere. You can’t get guns off the street as long as you can go into the local Walmart and buy another.

 

Other countries have vastly reduced the number of privately owned firearms, why can't the US?

 

Yes, lets start somewhere. How about we legalize drugs, how about we enforce the current mental health laws we have on the books (Dayton shooter would have been prevented) etc.

 

Not to mention that solution of removing firearms has a very very mixed bag of results.

 

My personal liberty and my right to protect myself and my family doesn't stop at your "feelings". 

 

This thread is about "common sense" yet Parsad has said in other threads he supports open carry of sidearms (with stipulations).....yet handguns account for what 95+% of firearm related crimes. Blaming inanimate objects....and making laws that only target law abiding citizens.

 

Lets get back to common sense....

 

https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

 

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have to start somewhere. You can’t get guns off the street as long as you can go into the local Walmart and buy another.

 

Other countries have vastly reduced the number of privately owned firearms, why can't the US?

 

Yes, lets start somewhere. How about we legalize drugs, how about we enforce the current mental health laws we have on the books (Dayton shooter would have been prevented) etc.

 

Not to mention that solution of removing firearms has a very very mixed bag of results.

 

My personal liberty and my right to protect myself and my family doesn't stop at your "feelings". 

 

This thread is about "common sense" yet Parsad has said in other threads he supports open carry of sidearms (with stipulations).....yet handguns account for what 95+% of firearm related crimes. Blaming inanimate objects....and making laws that only target law abiding citizens.

 

Lets get back to common sense....

 

https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

 

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

 

Don't confuse my comments.  I only believe in open carry in a market where guns are prevalent...simply because there is a chance that a mass shooter with a semi-automatic or automatic weapon may be taken out by an open carry permit holder before police could arrive on scene. 

 

Otherwise if I had my way, all guns would be banned...handguns, rifles, everything!  You like hunting, go back to a bow and arrow...give the animal a fighting chance again compared to what people call "hunters" these days.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

 

You know that this would have negligible effect, right?  You would still have internet outlets, private emails through speculation, etc putting out the name. 

 

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

 

So you think that a person would be able to become famous with zero media coverage in ad-supported media which inlcudes newspapers, magazines, online media, social medial (facebook, instagram, youtube, twitter) and google searches because his fame would spread through private emails and non-ad supported media such as blogs and forums like this one.

 

Can you name a single person who became famous this way?

 

Uhhh...Jesus and Piewdipie! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

 

You know that this would have negligible effect, right?  You would still have internet outlets, private emails through speculation, etc putting out the name. 

 

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

 

So you think that a person would be able to become famous with zero media coverage in ad-supported media which inlcudes newspapers, magazines, online media, social medial (facebook, instagram, youtube, twitter) and google searches because his fame would spread through private emails and non-ad supported media such as blogs and forums like this one.

 

Can you name a single person who became famous this way?

 

Ban assault weapons...thorough back ground checks...restrict sales of semi-automatic weapons...redflag registrants throughout policing agencies...and sure, expedite the death penalty.  But let's try to actually start with the stuff that will work!  Cheers!

 

This is not stuff that will work. Liberals have no clue what works because its largely a symbolic issue that they don't really understand all that well. For instance assault rifles are almost never used to kill people. I've explained this to you already...yet somehow it hasn't registered. Using an assault rifle to kill is like using a huge 1980's cell phone instead of a modern mobile phones. Its utterly impractical.

 

The other thing is the demographics of this. Gun rights enthusiasts and members of the gun culture tend to be white and conservative. But they basically don't commit gun crimes. They are actually less likely to crimes than the general population. However almost all gun control policies are directed at them. Which is why gun control policies are useless. The people actually committing gun crimes disproportionately are black and live in inner cities. Their guns also tend to be illegal.

 

If you want to stop gun crime which is mostly committed with hand guns the key is to go after ILLEGALLY OWNED FIREARMS. How do you do that? Well people who have these weapons don't advertise it. So you have to find them. New Yorks stop and frisk was a policy that did this but liberals didn't like it because it disproportionately effected black people. I want liberals to think about this seriously...how do you find the illegal guns.

 

The other policy which again gun control advocates never talk about is straw buying. This is where a person who passes a background check and is a legal gun owner buys guns for criminals. Straw buying is a misdemeanor. The penalties for doing it are very low in most cities in the US. Yet its overwhelmingly the source of illegal guns both in the US and Canada.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/straw-purchasing-america-needs-to-prosecute-it/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/straw-purchasing-domestic-weapons-trafficking-increase-1.4704987

 

How about a 30-year sentence for straw-buying for example. But once again it is a policy that will disproportionately hit black people. In fact any successful policy that attacks illegal guns will disproportionately hit black people because they commit the a disproportionate amount of gun crime with illegal obtained guns. E.g.

Jacob Collins and Julius Burton

 

So the choice is between effective gun policy which targets illegal gun owners that are disproportionately black. And ineffective symbolic policy that targets legal gun owners that are largely law-abiding and rarely commit crimes. I'm not surprised at the choice liberals have made.

 

You are talking about two different things.  Is the discussion about mass shootings or gun violence? 

 

Well we know that we'll never be able to ban guns outright, but we can reduce the number of mass shootings.  And who are mass shootings committed by more than anyone else...white conservatives.  If you combine all of the mass shootings executed by whites since 1982, you still don't reach the combined total of everyone else since then!

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

 

Gun violence is the deformed offspring of poverty...mass shootings are the result of mentally unstable people having access to weapons that do harm very quickly.  How many Chinese children were killed today...8 with a knife?  How many would have been killed if the assailant had a semi-automatic handgun or rifle?

 

Cheers!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

 

You know that this would have negligible effect, right?  You would still have internet outlets, private emails through speculation, etc putting out the name. 

 

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

 

So you think that a person would be able to become famous with zero media coverage in ad-supported media which inlcudes newspapers, magazines, online media, social medial (facebook, instagram, youtube, twitter) and google searches because his fame would spread through private emails and non-ad supported media such as blogs and forums like this one.

 

Can you name a single person who became famous this way?

 

Uhhh...Jesus and Piewdipie!

 

Jesus took decades to become famous. And Piewdipie became famous from youtube which is ad-supported and actively censors white supremacists. There is no person in the last 10 years that has become famous except through ad-supported media like youtube. So my idea would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just noting that the site you referenced tallies 114 mass shootings in 37 years.  Yes that is 114 too many, but 3 per year is far different than the one per day statistic noted by someone else earlier that is including gang and murder/suicides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

 

You know that this would have negligible effect, right?  You would still have internet outlets, private emails through speculation, etc putting out the name. 

 

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

 

So you think that a person would be able to become famous with zero media coverage in ad-supported media which inlcudes newspapers, magazines, online media, social medial (facebook, instagram, youtube, twitter) and google searches because his fame would spread through private emails and non-ad supported media such as blogs and forums like this one.

 

Can you name a single person who became famous this way?

 

Ban assault weapons...thorough back ground checks...restrict sales of semi-automatic weapons...redflag registrants throughout policing agencies...and sure, expedite the death penalty.  But let's try to actually start with the stuff that will work!  Cheers!

 

This is not stuff that will work. Liberals have no clue what works because its largely a symbolic issue that they don't really understand all that well. For instance assault rifles are almost never used to kill people. I've explained this to you already...yet somehow it hasn't registered. Using an assault rifle to kill is like using a huge 1980's cell phone instead of a modern mobile phones. Its utterly impractical.

 

The other thing is the demographics of this. Gun rights enthusiasts and members of the gun culture tend to be white and conservative. But they basically don't commit gun crimes. They are actually less likely to crimes than the general population. However almost all gun control policies are directed at them. Which is why gun control policies are useless. The people actually committing gun crimes disproportionately are black and live in inner cities. Their guns also tend to be illegal.

 

If you want to stop gun crime which is mostly committed with hand guns the key is to go after ILLEGALLY OWNED FIREARMS. How do you do that? Well people who have these weapons don't advertise it. So you have to find them. New Yorks stop and frisk was a policy that did this but liberals didn't like it because it disproportionately effected black people. I want liberals to think about this seriously...how do you find the illegal guns.

 

The other policy which again gun control advocates never talk about is straw buying. This is where a person who passes a background check and is a legal gun owner buys guns for criminals. Straw buying is a misdemeanor. The penalties for doing it are very low in most cities in the US. Yet its overwhelmingly the source of illegal guns both in the US and Canada.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/straw-purchasing-america-needs-to-prosecute-it/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/straw-purchasing-domestic-weapons-trafficking-increase-1.4704987

 

How about a 30-year sentence for straw-buying for example. But once again it is a policy that will disproportionately hit black people. In fact any successful policy that attacks illegal guns will disproportionately hit black people because they commit the a disproportionate amount of gun crime with illegal obtained guns. E.g.

Jacob Collins and Julius Burton

 

So the choice is between effective gun policy which targets illegal gun owners that are disproportionately black. And ineffective symbolic policy that targets legal gun owners that are largely law-abiding and rarely commit crimes. I'm not surprised at the choice liberals have made.

 

You are talking about two different things.  Is the discussion about mass shootings or gun violence? 

 

Well we know that we'll never be able to ban guns outright, but we can reduce the number of mass shootings.  And who are mass shootings committed by more than anyone else...white conservatives.  If you combine all of the mass shootings executed by whites since 1982, you still don't reach the combined total of everyone else since then!

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

 

Gun violence is the deformed offspring of poverty...mass shootings are the result of mentally unstable people having access to weapons that do harm very quickly.  How many Chinese children were killed today...8 with a knife?  How many would have been killed if the assailant had a semi-automatic handgun or rifle?

 

Cheers!

 

Ok. If we combine all mass shooting through the last 20 years and multiply by 10 we won't get close to the number killed in a single year by gun violence in the US. Why worry about an extremely rare cause of death instead of a vastly more common cause of death. You have narrowed the issue to something obscure and unimportant...except for the fact that it draws a huge amount of attention. My point to just get rid of the attention...this both corrects the disproportionate amount of attention paid to an incredibly unimportant problem and it also will drastically reduce the shootings themselves.

 

Gun control will have zero effect on school shooting. Again you prefer a largely symbolic solution to a solution that will work and you have no valid argument against. You can ban assault rifles...but then people will use hand guns or they will mill the lower receiver of an AR-15 and just construct the gun which is pretty easy. Not to mention the fact that the AR-15 is widely held by gun owners and there will thus be a massive black market. If you think the AR-15 will be hard to obtain given the massive stock pile in circulation you are crazy. If a person who never uses gun like me knows this...you think an obsessive school shooter can't figure this out.

 

I also don't get what you have against assault rifles. I mean all they are better at than a hand gun is long range shooting. Long range shooting is not what happens in most mass shootings. Are you against large magazine capacities? Then that would make much more sense to regulate that...not the form factor of the gun. What exactly do you have against marksmen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

 

You know that this would have negligible effect, right?  You would still have internet outlets, private emails through speculation, etc putting out the name. 

 

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

 

So you think that a person would be able to become famous with zero media coverage in ad-supported media which inlcudes newspapers, magazines, online media, social medial (facebook, instagram, youtube, twitter) and google searches because his fame would spread through private emails and non-ad supported media such as blogs and forums like this one.

 

Can you name a single person who became famous this way?

 

Uhhh...Jesus and Piewdipie!

 

Jesus took decades to become famous. And Piewdipie became famous from youtube which is ad-supported and actively censors white supremacists. There is no person in the last 10 years that has become famous except through ad-supported media like youtube. So my idea would work.

 

C'mon now, we know Jesus became famous on Stockhouse!  Don't you remember:

 

"Jesus, when is this stock going to stop falling!"

 

"Christ Almighty, what happened to Nortel!"

 

"Lord, don't let my wife find out I put all of our money into Bre-X!"

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will work is to for advertisers to boycott any media outlet that mentions the name of a mass shooter or gives media coverage. Treat the coverage of mass shootings the same as you would treat Neo Nazi hate speech. That would work an order of magnitude better than any form of gun control.

 

You know that this would have negligible effect, right?  You would still have internet outlets, private emails through speculation, etc putting out the name. 

 

And the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...how come those that support that statement don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons?  Simply put, weapons in the hands of people kill people!  Cheers!

 

So you think that a person would be able to become famous with zero media coverage in ad-supported media which inlcudes newspapers, magazines, online media, social medial (facebook, instagram, youtube, twitter) and google searches because his fame would spread through private emails and non-ad supported media such as blogs and forums like this one.

 

Can you name a single person who became famous this way?

 

Ban assault weapons...thorough back ground checks...restrict sales of semi-automatic weapons...redflag registrants throughout policing agencies...and sure, expedite the death penalty.  But let's try to actually start with the stuff that will work!  Cheers!

 

This is not stuff that will work. Liberals have no clue what works because its largely a symbolic issue that they don't really understand all that well. For instance assault rifles are almost never used to kill people. I've explained this to you already...yet somehow it hasn't registered. Using an assault rifle to kill is like using a huge 1980's cell phone instead of a modern mobile phones. Its utterly impractical.

 

The other thing is the demographics of this. Gun rights enthusiasts and members of the gun culture tend to be white and conservative. But they basically don't commit gun crimes. They are actually less likely to crimes than the general population. However almost all gun control policies are directed at them. Which is why gun control policies are useless. The people actually committing gun crimes disproportionately are black and live in inner cities. Their guns also tend to be illegal.

 

If you want to stop gun crime which is mostly committed with hand guns the key is to go after ILLEGALLY OWNED FIREARMS. How do you do that? Well people who have these weapons don't advertise it. So you have to find them. New Yorks stop and frisk was a policy that did this but liberals didn't like it because it disproportionately effected black people. I want liberals to think about this seriously...how do you find the illegal guns.

 

The other policy which again gun control advocates never talk about is straw buying. This is where a person who passes a background check and is a legal gun owner buys guns for criminals. Straw buying is a misdemeanor. The penalties for doing it are very low in most cities in the US. Yet its overwhelmingly the source of illegal guns both in the US and Canada.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/straw-purchasing-america-needs-to-prosecute-it/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/straw-purchasing-domestic-weapons-trafficking-increase-1.4704987

 

How about a 30-year sentence for straw-buying for example. But once again it is a policy that will disproportionately hit black people. In fact any successful policy that attacks illegal guns will disproportionately hit black people because they commit the a disproportionate amount of gun crime with illegal obtained guns. E.g.

Jacob Collins and Julius Burton

 

So the choice is between effective gun policy which targets illegal gun owners that are disproportionately black. And ineffective symbolic policy that targets legal gun owners that are largely law-abiding and rarely commit crimes. I'm not surprised at the choice liberals have made.

 

You are talking about two different things.  Is the discussion about mass shootings or gun violence? 

 

Well we know that we'll never be able to ban guns outright, but we can reduce the number of mass shootings.  And who are mass shootings committed by more than anyone else...white conservatives.  If you combine all of the mass shootings executed by whites since 1982, you still don't reach the combined total of everyone else since then!

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

 

Gun violence is the deformed offspring of poverty...mass shootings are the result of mentally unstable people having access to weapons that do harm very quickly.  How many Chinese children were killed today...8 with a knife?  How many would have been killed if the assailant had a semi-automatic handgun or rifle?

 

Cheers!

 

Ok. If we combine all mass shooting through the last 20 years and multiply by 10 we won't get close to the number killed in a single year by gun violence in the US. Why worry about an extremely rare cause of death instead of a vastly more common cause of death. You have narrowed the issue to something obscure and unimportant...except for the fact that it draws a huge amount of attention. My point to just get rid of the attention...this both corrects the disproportionate amount of attention paid to an incredibly unimportant problem and it also will drastically reduce the shootings themselves.

 

Gun control will have zero effect on school shooting. Again you prefer a largely symbolic solution to a solution that will work and you have no valid argument against. You can ban assault rifles...but then people will use hand guns or they will mill the lower receiver of an AR-15 and just construct the gun which is pretty easy. Not to mention the fact that the AR-15 is widely held by gun owners and there will thus be a massive black market. If you think the AR-15 will be hard to obtain given the massive stock pile in circulation you are crazy. If a person who never uses gun like me knows this...you think an obsessive school shooter can't figure this out.

 

I also don't get what you have against assault rifles. I mean all they are better at than a hand gun is long range shooting. Long range shooting is not what happens in most mass shootings. Are you against large magazine capacities? Then that would make much more sense to regulate that...not the form factor of the gun. What exactly do you have against marksmen?

 

I've fired an AR-15, as well as a Glock 9mm...even a 50mm sniper rifle.  The AR-15 is far more accurate, easy to use, and with the laser-site is deadly accurate with little recoil.  I was amazed how light and easy it was to use.  I hit everything I aimed at from 10 feet out to 80 feet out in rapid succession.  I would not be able to get that type of accuracy with the Glock 9mm...especially 80 feet out...maybe 25-30 feet while moving. 

 

The AR-15 was an absolutely wicked piece of weaponry and I can tell you that any nutjob could do an immense amount of damage with one of those and multiple cartridges.  If I could shoot like I was shooting, somebody with some skill could easily kill 30-40-50-100 people in a crowded area in less 10 minutes.  That type of weapon has no place in society!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Just noting that the site you referenced tallies 114 mass shootings in 37 years.  Yes that is 114 too many, but 3 per year is far different than the one per day statistic noted by someone else earlier that is including gang and murder/suicides.”

 

I did not reference the site you quoted. And why shouldn’t a gang shooting be excluded? If a gang member shoots you when he sprays his Mac 10 through a McDonalds you are just as dead as if someone else shot you. Also, why would you think murder/suicides should be excluded. Again are those people not just as dead as if someone else shot them?

 

So from CBS News  {September 01, 2019) ...

 

“There have been more mass shootings than days this year”

 

“The number of mass shootings across the U.S. thus far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.

 

As of September 1, which was the 244th day of the year, there have been 283 mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which tracks every mass shooting in the country. The GVA defines a mass shooting as any incident in which at least four people were shot, excluding the shooter.”

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-mass-shootings-than-days-so-far-this-year/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Banning some of these weapons and limiting who can acquire them is a no-brainer.  This is the main issue here, the same religious/ideological/senseless whatever that allows this to continue is the same reasoning behind the fucked up health-care system and other mass-fuckups like it. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Just noting that the site you referenced tallies 114 mass shootings in 37 years.  Yes that is 114 too many, but 3 per year is far different than the one per day statistic noted by someone else earlier that is including gang and murder/suicides.”

 

I did not reference the site you quoted. And why shouldn’t a gang shooting be excluded? If a gang member shoots you when he sprays his Mac 10 through a McDonalds you are just as dead as if someone else shot you. Also, why would you think murder/suicides should be excluded. Again are those people not just as dead as if someone else shot them?

 

So from CBS News  {September 01, 2019) ...

 

“There have been more mass shootings than days this year”

 

“The number of mass shootings across the U.S. thus far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year, according to a gun violence research group. This puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day.

 

As of September 1, which was the 244th day of the year, there have been 283 mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which tracks every mass shooting in the country. The GVA defines a mass shooting as any incident in which at least four people were shot, excluding the shooter.”

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-mass-shootings-than-days-so-far-this-year/

 

I am just pointing out that they are redefining the term mass shooting in order to try to create panic in hopes of getting an achieved outcome.  Just as you use a rare outcome (killed in a fast food restaurant from gang violence).  Most gang violence is against other gangs.         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or perhaps the term was poorly defined initially, which had the effect of downplaying mass gun violence.

 

The real question is, do you consider all instances where 4+ people are shot as fitting such definition. I personally don’t see why not, it seems like an accurate definition to me.

 

It’s like a guy in court saying, “well I’m only guilty of theft if you define theft as stealing from someone else!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...