<abbr title="Yet Another <abbr title="Gun Wars 2">GW2</abbr> Topic">YAGT</abbr>
-
-
We used the following criteria to identify cases:
• The shooter took the lives of at least four people.Now a little bit of critical thinking would tell you that this automatically excludes cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter before they killed four individuals. Wouldn't those situations count as cases when an armed civilian stopped a mass shooting?
This is basically one step short of outright lying. On the other hand, you could say that anyone who reads Mother Jones deserves what they get. I mean, does the typical reader of Mother Jones even care about actual numbers? Too many people in the SJW crowd have truth redefined as whatever serves their interests.
-
An analogy I used on another forum for this very topic was that this is similar to claiming seatbelts don't actually save lives, but in reality a lot of people who would have had severe injuries in mild-to-moderate automobile accidents end up with only minor injuries, so they don't go to a doctor or hospital for treatment and thus don't factor into any official statistics about the effectiveness of seatbelts.
-
I see a pretty big problem with the question - how can we know it's a mass shooting if they don't shoot people en masse?
Also, people who stop mass shootings probably wouldn't have any problem getting a gun under any sensible gun control law. The ideal law would stop guns from being sold to the people who commit the mass shootings in the first place.
-
The ideal law would stop guns from being sold to the people who commit the mass shootings in the first place.
Here's a bit of trivia that only partially made the news. The part that made the news: The South Carolina church shooter was able to purchase his gun even though he should have failed the background check, because under federal law the retailer can go ahead and sell the gun if the NICS check doesn't come back in 3 days. His didn't come back in, so the sale was legal.
Here's the part that DIDN'T make the news, but is obvious if you're an active gun owner who keeps buying guns. A few years ago, a NICS check only took 5 - 10 minutes. Today, they routinely take 2 - 3 days!! Most of us believe the FBI/ATF were instructed to harass gun owners by intentionally delaying NICS checks on their end, but in this case they goofed and a bunch of people died as a result.
So how can we trust any new laws when those in charge are gaming the system and getting away with it? And how can we trust any new laws when many existing (and perfectly adequate) laws are not even being enforced? Will the new ones be unenforced as well? And if they go unenforced, why do the laws even exist and why do so many fret that we need more laws?
-
The ideal law would stop guns from being sold to the people who commit the mass shootings in the first place.
Yes, because weapons used in mass shootings are always obtained legally by the shooter.
-
.... If this is going to be another gun control debate can we please split it of into its own thread?
I don't want to have to mute the status thread again until this all dies down..... if it dies down.
-
If it goes any longer, I'll move it.
-
.... If this is going to be another gun control debate can we please split it of into its own thread?
Or Jeff it into the transtopic, seeing as that's a never ending argument anyway
-
Can we have a debate about moving posts instead? That'd be much more interesting to me.
-
@accalia said:
.... If this is going to be another gun control debate can we please split it of into its own thread?
Or Jeff it into the transtopic, seeing as that's a never ending argument anyway
NO! I refuse!
-
much appreciated.... Gun control debates scare me.... almost as much as hunters in my woods do....
-
Or Jeff it into the transtopic, seeing as that's a never ending argument anyway
oh goddess..... is that still going?!
i muted it back when it was still in the double digits!
-
oh goddess..... is that still going?!
Well it's going with a different topic, but it'll go back to the original topic soon enough, as it has done several times.
-
@accalia said:
oh goddess..... is that still going?!
Well it's going with a different topic, but it'll go back to the original topic soon enough, as it has done several times.
-
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/6/63/Mini_Fox_Kit.png
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/3/3d/Juvenile_Bristleback.png
-
MOD ABUSE!
Or something like that ...
-
-
-
The ideal law would stop guns from being sold to the people who commit the mass shootings in the first place.
Isn't it interesting that out of most, if not all, of the most recent mass shootings, the killer obtained guns legally, including passing the NICS check? (Except, I think, Adam Lanza, but his mother obtained the guns legally--he just killed her first.) And that most proposed laws wouldn't change that situation?
Of course, we're dealing with people who constantly use the words "gun show loophole" as if it were a real thing.
-
Can we have a debate about moving posts instead?
Can we move that debate to another topic?
-
Can we move that debate to another topic?
I think we should just reply as new topic exclusively. Then @boomzilla can have fun merging all the topics into a coherent discussion.
Filed under: well, coherent by this place's standards
-
The ideal law would stop guns from being sold to the people who commit the mass shootings in the first place.
Philip K Dick could not be reached for comment.
-
@boomzilla can have fun merging all the topics into a coherent discussion.
MOD DISUSE!
-
I'd be up for giant pets like that.
-
What's that?
-
-
It's a pet that certain classes can have, and you can empower your pet to be 'biggerer' but not that big...
-
This just reminds me of the fact that Mexico has banned any and all firearms chambered for "military calibers" for many years. It's a good thing that Mexican drug cartels have not been able to get ahold of such things....
If they are already criminals, what makes anyone think they will respect the gun laws?
-
As for the USA, do you know what I like about shooting an AR rifle? Not having to reload every fucking 5 shots. I used to always love my old Remington 700, but it was a PITA to shoot targets. You spent half your time at the range loading the internal magazine.
-
It keeps them from melting down though. The last time I did an NRA high-power and I took my 700, it was 66 shots over a few hours, and I thought my barrel was going to melt.
-
How come none of the well-armed Americans don't just shoot the mass shooter before they shoot masses of people? Sure in all the hundreds of mass shootings this year, there were some armed Ever Vigilant Americans nearby?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
How come none of the well-armed Americans don't just shoot the mass shooter before they shoot masses of people? Sure in all the hundreds of mass shootings this year, there were some armed Ever Vigilant Americans nearby?
Well, Lorne, here's the thing: the kind of person who decides he's going to shoot up the mall or a school has an odd tendency to pick a location that bans legal carry of guns. Oddly enough, citizens with (for example) concealed carry permits don't want to go to jail for breaking the law, so they leave their guns home.
When a wannabe mass murderer screws up and forgets to choose a 'gun-free zone', it's not uncommon for him to actually get stopped. There was a mall shooting a couple of years ago I can't remember where it happened or I'd cite it, but here's a bunch of other ones: http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/
ETA: The Clackamas Mall shooting was the one I mentioned.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
How come none of the well-armed Americans don't just shoot the mass shooter before they shoot masses of people? Sure in all the hundreds of mass shootings this year, there were some armed Ever Vigilant Americans nearby?
I dunno if you're asking seriously or not, but the answer is: colleges in the US in all States I'm aware of are "no gun zones". The NRA has a field day with that one.
That's also probably part of the cause of why proportionally more shootings happen in colleges.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
How come none of the well-armed Americans don't just shoot the mass shooter before they shoot masses of people? Sure in all the hundreds of mass shootings this year, there were some armed Ever Vigilant Americans nearby?
I dunno if you're asking seriously or not, but the answer is: colleges in the US in all States I'm aware of are "no gun zones". The NRA has a field day with that one.
That's also probably part of the cause of why proportionally more shootings happen in colleges.
Then if colleges are no-gun zones...
... and no one shoots anyone except for psychos with guns...
... shouldn't everywhere be no-gun zones, and psychos shouldn't have guns?
Also, Texas?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Then if colleges are no-gun zones...
... and no one shoots anyone except for psychos with guns...
... shouldn't everywhere be no-gun zones, and psychos shouldn't have guns?
The NRA would argue that everybody should have several hundred guns, because it's funded primarily from makers of guns.
Virtually everybody in the US (including many NRA members) believe the US should limit sales of guns to anybody with a history of mental illness. I think the number is like 80% of people surveyed.
A lot of people, and probably a majority, are looking for entirely re-thinking of how private gun ownership works. But there's no legal framework for that to happen until the 2nd Amendment is out of the way, and while there's a legal framework for amending the 2nd Amendment, it's virtually impossible to execute on in 2015.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
psychos shouldn't have guns?
This is the part that needs to be worked on, and the same part where proposals and legislation consistently misses the mark time-after-time.
Better enforcement of existing laws would go a long ways towards this. Highly-publicized mass shootings aside (they are actually a TINY fraction of total homicides), most murderers who get caught are repeat offenders with criminal records that bring up the question "Why were they even out of prison to begin with?"
-
No one should have bombs either, especially psychos.
-
Hand grenades are fine though.
We don't want to stop the great American tradition of fragging your boss.
-
Actually, hand grenades are perfectly legal if you are willing to go through all the NFA paperwork.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Then if colleges are no-gun zones...
... and no one shoots anyone except for psychos with guns...
... shouldn't everywhere be no-gun zones, and psychos shouldn't have guns?
You're maybe getting close to wisdom. If so, then soon, the phrase, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," won't sound like a silly tautology.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
psychos shouldn't have guns?
If you can figure out how to do that without taking guns away from people who are actually, y'know, stable and not likely to shoot other people for no good reason, you'd probably find a decent amount of support. Unfortunately, most people who believe in gun control only seem to want to do things that a) wouldn't have stopped the mass murderers but b) would take away guns from people with a demonstrated respect for the law (nationwide, concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit crimes than the general populace. Among other things this can be figured out by looking at what percentage of CC permits are revoked.)
-
The NRA would argue that everybody should have several hundred guns
Ridiculous. The NRA, as well as many other people, freely admit there are lots of people who shouldn't. Starting with the mentally unbalanced. That strawman burns quite merrily, though.
because it's funded primarily from makers of guns.
[citation needed]. Of course, you won't be able to find one because it's not true.
-
You're maybe getting close to wisdom. If so, then soon, the phrase, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," won't sound like a silly tautology.
When guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be the [url="http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/missouri-boy-shoots-baby-brother/"]baby brother of a 5 year old who took a gun from his mom's purse.[/url].
Wait, I must have that wrong. It should be when guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be the [url="http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boy-2-fatally-shoots-mom-at-idaho-wal-mart-by-reaching-gun-in-her-purse-1.2166956"]parent of a 2 year old who took a gun from his mom's purse[/url].
Wait wait no, I must be getting that mixed up again. When guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be the [url="http://www.wlwt.com/news/police-hamilton-3yearold-found-gun-in-purse-shot-self/33544288"]toddlers killing themselves with the gun they find in their mom's purse[/url].
Okay, totes got that one wrong again. Okay, let me try one more time. When guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be [url="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tDdEot0Z-mwJ:www.fox5ny.com/news/30318690-story+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca"]an 8 year old girl shot to death with a shotgun INTENTIONALLY by an 11-year old bully.[/url].
Wait, wait, wait-- maybe one MORE time. When guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting"]20 kindergarten children shot by legally owned firearms[/url].
Welp, that's only 23 dead children and 7 adults. From 5 examples. But that's okay. We can always have more kids.
-
-
Cite your shit.
He can't. Which also fits in with his being the kind of kook that abhors the Second Amendment.
-
If we banned everything that has caused senseless, tragic, preventable deaths, there would literally be nothing left in the world. And even if we tried, guns are pretty far down the list after alcohol, cars, and obesity. Those don't garner nearly as much attention as guns, despite being deadlier.
-
cars
I tried suggesting that in another thread.
Also, point out where I said "ban".
caused senseless, tragic, preventable deaths
And therein is the problem. Preventable. Every single one of those deaths would have been prevented by properly controlling the guns. In all cases the guns were in the hand of someone who wasn't the legal, registered owner. Some accidental, some on purpose. But the culture goes "meh, kids will get murdered, that's ok". Was there any need for any of those guns to be in purses? No. Was there any need for a large cache of weapons to be available to the school shooter? Not really. Why was a shotgun available to an 11 year old? "cause sometimes kids just need to murder each other".
America, you've got a gun problem. The first step is admit you have a problem. The second step is to admit that a pile of children's corpses means that yes, indeed you have a problem, so don't just give me lip service on step 1.
Once we figure out how you can use guns responsibly, we'll talk again.
-
-
If FrostCat says it's false, it's almost certainly true.