The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2017, 10:58:45 AM
-
This one in Las Vegas, Nevada where gun laws are super lax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/at-least-50-dead-more-than-200-hurt-in-las-vegas-shooting-idUSKCN1C70FU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner
It's sad but I'm so used to hearing about this stuff I just can't find myself caring anymore.
Still got shot by police and not a normal citizen though. :/
-
Yeah I woke up to this news. Know a few people who were in attendance last night. They all made it out okay but literally had people being shot a few feet away.
-
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-57086
-
Yeah I woke up to this news. Know a few people who were in attendance last night. They all made it out okay but literally had people being shot a few feet away.
Terrible. I hope they are relatively ok.
-
Yeah I woke up to this news. Know a few people who were in attendance last night. They all made it out okay but literally had people being shot a few feet away.
Terrible. I hope they are relatively ok.
Everyone I know of seems to be. Luckier than a lot of others. Just a shitty day.
-
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
-
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
-
Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
In fairness, both sides do that.
-
Now there's a guy who really, really, really, hates country music!
-
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
I'm not using it as political ammo, I'm stating a fact.
If the shooter had been any other than the majority race/group in America, the racist groups would be attacking said group as "dangerous" and using it as ammo for their agenda. It happens every single time.
I also fail to see what the fact that there's a suicide bombing every week has to do with it. People kill other people every day. Race, religion, politics... all of that is irrelevant in the end. In the end it boils down to one simple thing: Someone wants someone else dead. The why becomes irrelevant.
-
What motivated Stephen Paddock to do this?
He was a wealthy retired High Roller with RE property, people like that are plumb lazy.
Did he really lift all those heavy guns into his room, why didn't he ask his golf caddy to do it.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, there's something else going on here.
Despite all that, what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation?
When you don't even need a reason to shoot 500 people and murder sixty.
-
What motivated Stephen Paddock to do this?
He was a wealthy retired High Roller with RE property, people like that are plumb lazy.
Did he really lift all those heavy guns into his room, why didn't he ask his golf caddy to do it.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, there's something else going on here.
Well first off there is no Stephen. It was obviously Hillary Clinton. At this point nobody with any common sense disputes that. She's the only one that had that much experience killing that many people.
The question is what was her true target? I'm inclined to think that she had Intel that John Davis or Tom bishop was going to be there and that this was an attempt to shut down the fes but maybe I'm misreading things.
-
What motivated Stephen Paddock to do this?
He was a wealthy retired High Roller with RE property, people like that are plumb lazy.
Did he really lift all those heavy guns into his room, why didn't he ask his golf caddy to do it.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, there's something else going on here.
Despite all that, what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation?
When you don't even need a reason to shoot 500 people and murder sixty.
Could be temporary insanity. Just one day *snap*.
-
My office is not far from the MB. About a mile of the strip is still shutdown. This is just an awful fucking tragedy that the city and community won't recover from for a long time. If you are able to, please consider a donation to the victim fund put together by Steve Sisolak as there are so many families impacted and ruined by this. The victim fund can be found here: https://www.gofundme.com/dr2ks2-las-vegas-victims-fund
-
Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
In fairness, both sides do that.
Irrelevant
-
So the hero security guard is less heroic, took a long ass time for cops to respond, and we still have no moive.
-
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.
Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.
-
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.
Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.
Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.
-
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.
Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.
Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.
That's not what he's asking, though. He's specifically questioning the oft-repeated idea that it's disrespectful or distasteful to suggest legislative action in the aftermath of a tragedy like this.
-
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.
Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.
Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.
I'd like to think we've seem more than enough mass shootings to be well past the point where emotional reactions are the only ones we have.
-
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.
Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.
Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.
It doesn't have to be an emotional reaction. There are plenty of logical arguments based on statistics and probability on both sides of the debate, but they never get much attention beyond people who passionately care one way or the other until something like this happens. I'm not suggesting that we leave legislation to hysterical Helen Lovejoy-types, but when the national media has shone a spotlight on the subject, and there are people who are impassioned enough to lobby their legislators and turn up to protests, then politicians who want to make a positive change (whatever that looks like) should be free to make the most of this situation without being accused of being 'a shitty person'
The Road Traffic Act 1934 was brought into effect in the UK following mass public outcry over a record number of casualties on Britain's roads. It reintroduced a speed limit, made tests compulsory, and included a number of other clauses which still inform British driving legislation today. In fact, reading about the battles underlying the Act, it's easy to see the similarities with America's gun control debate:
On the side of motor car controls, the Pedestrians' Association argued that busy main routes were, roads of ‘blood and tears’ because of the number of accidents.
On the side against controls, a Conservative MP railed against the pleas about 7,000 people a year dying on the roads by saying: "'Why such concern over 7,000 road deaths a year? More than 6,000 people commit suicide every year, and nobody makes a fuss about that."
Change only comes when people have an emotional investment in making it, insisting that we never talk about gun control or changes to legislation following a mass-shooting out of 'decency' or 'taste' is really just an effort to shut down the debate entirely.
-
Not changing the fundamental rights of a population (to kill each other) based on the needs of gun manufacturers profit margins and good old boy sentiments, despite the mounting tragedies, typically are the best kind of (non)changes.
Fixed that!
-
It doesn't have to be an emotional reaction. There are plenty of logical arguments based on statistics and probability on both sides of the debate, but they never get much attention beyond people who passionately care one way or the other until something like this happens. I'm not suggesting that we leave legislation to hysterical Helen Lovejoy-types, but when the national media has shone a spotlight on the subject, and there are people who are impassioned enough to lobby their legislators and turn up to protests, then politicians who want to make a positive change (whatever that looks like) should be free to make the most of this situation without being accused of being 'a shitty person'
The Road Traffic Act 1934 was brought into effect in the UK following mass public outcry over a record number of casualties on Britain's roads. It reintroduced a speed limit, made tests compulsory, and included a number of other clauses which still inform British driving legislation today. In fact, reading about the battles underlying the Act, it's easy to see the similarities with America's gun control debate:
On the side of motor car controls, the Pedestrians' Association argued that busy main routes were, roads of ‘blood and tears’ because of the number of accidents.
On the side against controls, a Conservative MP railed against the pleas about 7,000 people a year dying on the roads by saying: "'Why such concern over 7,000 road deaths a year? More than 6,000 people commit suicide every year, and nobody makes a fuss about that."
Change only comes when people have an emotional investment in making it, insisting that we never talk about gun control or changes to legislation following a mass-shooting out of 'decency' or 'taste' is really just an effort to shut down the debate entirely.
This debate isn't as simple as adding some traffic tests or other measures. Owning weapons is a fundamental right in the United States, and is specifically stated to be so in a Constitutional amendment, while something like driving, as far as I know, is not considered to be a fundamental right in any nation.
The key here is that after something like this happens, certain politicians move in to use the emotional capital to pass legislation that limits the rights of people. I see gun control as no different than, say, demanding all of your citizens wear a camera at all times to prevent crime. The price of removing rights is always higher than some little added security.
Not changing the fundamental rights of a population (to kill each other) based on the needs of gun manufacturers profit margins and good old boy sentiments, despite the mounting tragedies, typically are the best kind of (non)changes.
Fixed that!
Gun manufacturers profit margins wouldn't be terribly affected by a consumer gun ban, since their biggest customer has been is will always be governments around the world. Many European countries might have distaste for our gun policy, but that distaste disappears when they order our weapons en masse for their own purposes.
-
This debate isn't as simple as adding some traffic tests or other measures. Owning weapons is a fundamental right in the United States, and is specifically stated to be so in a Constitutional amendment, while something like driving, as far as I know, is not considered to be a fundamental right in any nation.
It was when the laws were being debated in the early 20th century. There's a great quote from a Conservative MP who essentially said that any kind of traffic laws were a fundamental attack of an Englishman's right to go where and how he likes.
The key here is that after something like this happens, certain politicians move in to use the emotional capital to pass legislation that limits the rights of people. I see gun control as no different than, say, demanding all of your citizens wear a camera at all times to prevent crime. The price of removing rights is always higher than some little added security.
And I'd agree with you about not making people wear cameras, but if, following some horrific crime, a politician tried to use public anger and fear to push his 'All Cameras All the Time' policy, I would expect that people like you and I would argue the follies of that policy and debate it down. I would have little respect for the argument that even proposing the policy is in some way in poor taste.
As I said, I'm not taking a position on gun control or traffic regulation in this thread, I'm simply making the argument that trying to shut the debate down on etiquette grounds is really disingenuous.
-
Not changing the fundamental rights of a population (to kill each other) based on the needs of gun manufacturers profit margins and good old boy sentiments, despite the mounting tragedies, typically are the best kind of (non)changes.
Fixed that!
Gun manufacturers profit margins wouldn't be terribly affected by a consumer gun ban, since their biggest customer has been is will always be governments around the world. Many European countries might have distaste for our gun policy, but that distaste disappears when they order our weapons en masse for their own purposes.
You underestimate your addiction!
Number of firearms manufactured in the US in 2013 (for instance), 10,847,792. Number of those guns that stayed in the domestic market (US), 10,413,880, only about 4% exported. Of all the small arms the UK armed forces have, most are made either in the UK, Europe or in Canada the only US ones are sniper rifles.
The NSSF reports that the domestic firearms industry (US) is worth $42.9 billion, however the cost of fatal and non-fatal gun violence to the U.S, is estimated at $229 billion due to your retarded health system.
That is why serious gun control will never happen, not only will it cost the gun makers but all the attendants to its effects would suffer too. Quite a little industry, sell killing and maiming machines to the masses and call it freedom, and then build another billion-dollar industry to benefit from the carnage.
Edit; 2013 US exported small arms = $1.1 billion, Imports $2.5 billion, what Rushy not checking his figures again, surely not.
-
You underestimate your addiction!
Number of firearms manufactured in the US in 2013 (for instance), 10,847,792. Number of those guns that stayed in the domestic market (US), 10,413,880, only about 4% exported. Of all the small arms the UK armed forces have, most are made either in the UK, Europe or in Canada the only US ones are sniper rifles.
The NSSF reports that the domestic firearms industry (US) is worth $42.9 billion, however the cost of fatal and non-fatal gun violence to the U.S, is estimated at $229 billion due to your retarded health system.
That is why serious gun control will never happen, not only will it cost the gun makers but all the attendants to its effects would suffer too. Quite a little industry, sell killing and maiming machines to the masses and call it freedom, and then build another billion-dollar industry to benefit from the carnage.
Edit; 2013 US exported small arms = $1.1 billion, Imports $2.5 billion, what Rushy not checking his figures again, surely not.
I was wrong. I was thinking of the weapons industry as a whole, instead of only looking at the numbers for small arms.
It was when the laws were being debated in the early 20th century. There's a great quote from a Conservative MP who essentially said that any kind of traffic laws were a fundamental attack of an Englishman's right to go where and how he likes.
The difference, again, being that "to go where and how he likes" is not a fundamental right.
And I'd agree with you about not making people wear cameras, but if, following some horrific crime, a politician tried to use public anger and fear to push his 'All Cameras All the Time' policy, I would expect that people like you and I would argue the follies of that policy and debate it down. I would have little respect for the argument that even proposing the policy is in some way in poor taste.
As I said, I'm not taking a position on gun control or traffic regulation in this thread, I'm simply making the argument that trying to shut the debate down on etiquette grounds is really disingenuous.
I can agree with that.
-
The difference, again, being that "to go where and how he likes" is not a fundamental right.
In the early twentieth century, it was. Apart from military bases and the like, an Englishman would have expected to go wherever they liked however they liked. There are even ancient rights of way which give you the right to walk over another man's land, so long as people have been doing that walk for long enough.
I can agree with that.
Glad we could agree.
-
This one in Las Vegas, Nevada where gun laws are super lax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/at-least-50-dead-more-than-200-hurt-in-las-vegas-shooting-idUSKCN1C70FU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner
It's sad but I'm so used to hearing about this stuff I just can't find myself caring anymore.
Still got shot by police and not a normal citizen though. :/
This brutul shooting is PROOF enuf that ALL guns must be band imediateley, and the pepel who sold them the guns lockd up in PRISIN! In my opinyin (wich is fact!) the primarey falt is on the evil rascist gunnut REPUBLICENS who only rasist gun cuntrul to carey owt there plan of GENASIDE agenst there oponints! And I find it SHAMFULL that Trump alowd this shooting to hapen undur his watch so a large chunk of the blame gos to him! But most importintley it turns owt the shootur was a MOSLUM! ISIL raveled that he had cunvertid to Mohamadenism six munths before the shooting thus furthur proofing that the vast majoritey of Islams are TERORISTS! We serousley need to do something abowt the Islam problum in America, baning the Islams mite be the WON thing I agree with Trump on! So the cawses of this shooting were Islam and Republicens!
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
Inded. If it had ben a person of coler like myself then the rascist fascist media networks wuld all be saying "oh look a black guy (they use that raciel slur cuz there rascist) shot up a bunch of pepel. All black (sorey) pepel are murdururs"! And this wuld especialey be true and intense undur a Trump presidinsey (aka Thurd Ryche reincarnatid!)! It reley is idiotick and irationel to blame a hole groop basd on the actions of won person wich is why I am a CHAMPEIN of tolerinse!
-
This one in Las Vegas, Nevada where gun laws are super lax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/at-least-50-dead-more-than-200-hurt-in-las-vegas-shooting-idUSKCN1C70FU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner
It's sad but I'm so used to hearing about this stuff I just can't find myself caring anymore.
Still got shot by police and not a normal citizen though. :/
This brutul shooting is PROOF enuf that ALL guns must be band imediateley, and the pepel who sold them the guns lockd up in PRISIN! In my opinyin (wich is fact!) the primarey falt is on the evil rascist gunnut REPUBLICENS who only rasist gun cuntrul to carey owt there plan of GENASIDE agenst there oponints! And I find it SHAMFULL that Trump alowd this shooting to hapen undur his watch so a large chunk of the blame gos to him! But most importintley it turns owt the shootur was a MOSLUM! ISIL raveled that he had cunvertid to Mohamadenism six munths before the shooting thus furthur proofing that the vast majoritey of Islams are TERORISTS! We serousley need to do something abowt the Islam problum in America, baning the Islams mite be the WON thing I agree with Trump on! So the cawses of this shooting were Islam and Republicens!
I agree. All guns must be banned and outlawed. To the people who sold that old bastard those guns - they should be charged with accessory to murder. They facilitated the deaths of all those innocent people and to they even profited from it!!!! Disgusting!!!!
The politicians who refuse to ban the guns should also be locked up for sheer utter negligence for allowing this to happen in the first place. They are tasked with protecting the people. Not overseeing the slaughter of them. For shame!!
-
This one in Las Vegas, Nevada where gun laws are super lax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/at-least-50-dead-more-than-200-hurt-in-las-vegas-shooting-idUSKCN1C70FU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner
It's sad but I'm so used to hearing about this stuff I just can't find myself caring anymore.
Still got shot by police and not a normal citizen though. :/
This brutul shooting is PROOF enuf that ALL guns must be band imediateley, and the pepel who sold them the guns lockd up in PRISIN! In my opinyin (wich is fact!) the primarey falt is on the evil rascist gunnut REPUBLICENS who only rasist gun cuntrul to carey owt there plan of GENASIDE agenst there oponints! And I find it SHAMFULL that Trump alowd this shooting to hapen undur his watch so a large chunk of the blame gos to him! But most importintley it turns owt the shootur was a MOSLUM! ISIL raveled that he had cunvertid to Mohamadenism six munths before the shooting thus furthur proofing that the vast majoritey of Islams are TERORISTS! We serousley need to do something abowt the Islam problum in America, baning the Islams mite be the WON thing I agree with Trump on! So the cawses of this shooting were Islam and Republicens!
I agree. All guns must be banned and outlawed. To the people who sold that old bastard those guns - they should be charged with accessory to murder. They facilitated the deaths of all those innocent people and to they even profited from it!!!! Disgusting!!!!
The politicians who refuse to ban the guns should also be locked up for sheer utter negligence for allowing this to happen in the first place. They are tasked with protecting the people. Not overseeing the slaughter of them. For shame!!
Absiluteley! I dont wanna here any of that nonsense abowt "backgrownd checks" we need to BAN all of these murdur mashines! The only thing there good for is KILLING so I dont care abowt what some wite hick says abowt using them for "hunting" (wich shuld also be ilegal) or "targit practise", that is nuthing but an excuse for them to plan anuther mass shooting. And yes the gun shop ownurs and Republicens shuld not just be lockd up but shuld get HARSH sentinses for there crimes. Suporting gun rites is just as bad as comiting the shooting itself! Grete minds think alike Shifter!
And lets also not forget the majer role Islam playd. I dont get why NO medea netwurks are talking abowt the fact that he workd for ISIL!
-
Oh Christ, EJ is back...
-
Oh Christ, EJ is back...
You better believe it. And consider him the 2nd coming of Christ when it comes to saving the flat earth collective. You are all like lost sheep wandering off. He is the Shepard that will bring us all back and together. This forum and the other one.
You think Revelations is the last chapter in the bible? You ain't seen nothing. Excelsior John will write a new chapter after the reunification of our societies. I look forward to reading it
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/05/562217575/multiple-casualties-reported-after-gunman-opens-fire-in-south-texas-church
More proof that God doesn't really help ya not die, even in his own house.
$10 says it's a white Christian guy and Fox will have to avoid it again.
-
It was a white atheist ex military nut job.
-
It was a white atheist ex military nut job.
Who, like so many previous terrorists had a history of domestic abuse...
-
This is just so tragic, what kind of a person shoots a five year old child.
And in this case, the gun laws may have prevented an even worse atrocity by cutting short this nutjobs rampage.
QUOTE:
A DPS official said in the press conference that the gunman was confronted by an armed civilian outside of the church.
-
This is just so tragic, what kind of a person shoots a five year old child.
And in this case, the gun laws may have prevented an even worse atrocity by cutting short this nutjobs rampage.
QUOTE:
A DPS official said in the press conference that the gunman was confronted by an armed civilian outside of the church.
Outside...
So he left said church (ie. Finished murdering) before anyone showed up.
And what took him out?
Not a gun but crashing his car.
Sssooo....not really. Any unarmed citizen can chase an armed one with a car.
-
And in this case, the gun laws may have prevented an even worse atrocity by cutting short this nutjobs rampage.
I don’t know if bizarre covers it? The obsessive way many Americans are fervently hoping that some citizen somewhere, is going to finally draw a weapon and shoot the bad dude, so the whole of the gun lobby can rise as one, red faced and pointing, and declare gun ownership vindicated, even though, private guns have killed more of your own people (since 1968), than all the wars you have been involved in since the creation of the US, put together. (https://www.snopes.com/gun-deaths-wars/)
If this “quick draw McGraw” happens to be a square jawed, god fearing flag bearer (white), he will probably be POTUS within a decade and a return to OK Corral style shootouts will be assured. That countless more innocents will end up in boot-hill because of would be Wyatt Earp’s blazing away in Malls across the US when a car back fires or little Bubba’s balloon bursts, won’t matter in the slightest, as collateral damage is something you are more than happy to countenance in the name of freedom.
This is not normal in a civilised country.
Edit; I keep forgetting Dither is an Ocker, this in no way invalidates this finely crafted point.
Edit; As Rushy is bound to rock up soon.
Dither, put a bloody hat with corks on your avatar or stop talking like a southern Baptist.
-
Trump calls Texas police incompetent; Claims "hundreds more" would have died with stricter gun laws. (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/359069-trump-hundreds-more-could-have-been-killed-in-texas-with-stricter-gun)
((I made it intentionally misleading but yeah, if hundreds would have died then I would think the Texas police aren't very good. I mean, he'd have to go and kill over 100 more people. Even the most deadly shooting (just last month) got 50ish. He'd really have to be out there for a long time and in a very crowded area to gun down hundreds more.
Also:
Stricter gun laws may have prevented said guy from getting the guns or not prevented the hero from having a gun (which was a rifle, which aren't usually banned anyway). So his statement is just wrong in so many ways.
Oh and one again, the shooter killed himself.
So... those good guys with guns are looking pretty damn pathetic.
"Man, I'm such a bad shot that my enemy literally just shoots himself out of pity"
-
Dither, put a bloody hat with corks on your avatar or stop talking like a southern Baptist.
The problem with guns is that they are too damn effective, society needs a return to knives and swords.
Just imagine trying to kill fifty innocent people with a cutlass, you'd definately work up a sweat.
Not to mention having to chase them all down because nobody's gonna stand in one spot and wait.
Plus, it may take a few shooting range lessons to get some rough accuracy on a handgun.
But how many years will it take to learn to yield a scimitar? or brace a broadsword?
So I agree with you Jura, guns should be banned because its just too easy,
But now we have them, and that door can never be shut.
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
-
This one in Las Vegas, Nevada where gun laws are super lax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/at-least-50-dead-more-than-200-hurt-in-las-vegas-shooting-idUSKCN1C70FU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner
It's sad but I'm so used to hearing about this stuff I just can't find myself caring anymore.
Still got shot by police and not a normal citizen though. :/
This brutul shooting is PROOF enuf that ALL guns must be band imediateley, and the pepel who sold them the guns lockd up in PRISIN! In my opinyin (wich is fact!) the primarey falt is on the evil rascist gunnut REPUBLICENS who only rasist gun cuntrul to carey owt there plan of GENASIDE agenst there oponints! And I find it SHAMFULL that Trump alowd this shooting to hapen undur his watch so a large chunk of the blame gos to him! But most importintley it turns owt the shootur was a MOSLUM! ISIL raveled that he had cunvertid to Mohamadenism six munths before the shooting thus furthur proofing that the vast majoritey of Islams are TERORISTS! We serousley need to do something abowt the Islam problum in America, baning the Islams mite be the WON thing I agree with Trump on! So the cawses of this shooting were Islam and Republicens!
The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
Inded. If it had ben a person of coler like myself then the rascist fascist media networks wuld all be saying "oh look a black guy (they use that raciel slur cuz there rascist) shot up a bunch of pepel. All black (sorey) pepel are murdururs"! And this wuld especialey be true and intense undur a Trump presidinsey (aka Thurd Ryche reincarnatid!)! It reley is idiotick and irationel to blame a hole groop basd on the actions of won person wich is why I am a CHAMPEIN of tolerinse!
Kinda hard to take you seriously with such poor spelling.
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
So do cars.
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
So do cars.
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
Cars cause more damage when not used for their intended purpose. Guns cause damage by design. Not the same thing.
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
So do cars.[/size]
In some states, its easier to get a gun then drive a car.
-
Dither, put a bloody hat with corks on your avatar or stop talking like a southern Baptist.
The problem with guns is that they are too damn effective, society needs a return to knives and swords.
Just imagine trying to kill fifty innocent people with a cutlass, you'd definately work up a sweat.
Not to mention having to chase them all down because nobody's gonna stand in one spot and wait.
Plus, it may take a few shooting range lessons to get some rough accuracy on a handgun.
But how many years will it take to learn to yield a scimitar? or brace a broadsword?
So I agree with you Jura, guns should be banned because its just too easy,
But now we have them, and that door can never be shut.
First and foremost the loss of life and the physical/emotional injuries to the peeps and their families is just terrible. As a Christian I struggle with should or would I take a life if need be. This because I am a concealed permit holder in 33 states and therefore have trained to save myself and others if need be, and I will.
I love guns and have shot for about 45 years. I've never shot a human or an animal. I reload all my own ammo except .22 and shotgun shells. There is something about the boom I love.
Now don't be fooled by weapons, anything can be used to kill and be very effective, if planned even just a little. Reaction time is impossible to over come if someone gets the move on you first. Knife gun car you're dead. You can have a gun pointed at someone and they can decide to bring a gun to the fight from a concealed position and they will be able to fire the first round before your brain even registers the move. Dead. This is why cops don't mess around and shoot people for no reason, they are scared to death and know they can't react fast enough, so screw it, they pop you first because you reached for a phone or wallet.
As far as knifes go, there is whats called the 21 foot rule, meaning someone skilled with knives can slash you from a distance of 21 ft. if your weapon is holstered. I've faced a knife at 6 ft. with a .357 in my pocket. The man is lucky he lived and didn't take even the slightest move toward me, because I was prepared to defend my life. I backed away slowly and made clear my reach hoping to get 21 ft. away for a clear brain cage shot if he charged. I believe it was a test by the man upstairs. I passed that night but I was pretty shaken for a week. Don't underestimate knives, a slash here or there and you bleed out in less than a minute. Pros know those spots and practice practice the slashing technique. You have zero chance.
-
If a cop is so scared of dying he'll shoot first, then he's the problem.
I'm sorry but if you become a cop, you should never put your life over someone else's unless they are an active threat.
Its better to mourn a cop, then a harmless citizen. At least the cop died to preserve life. The citizen? Pointless death.
And here's a question: what happens if you ever snap? Lets say you just go crazy one day and wanna kill people. How do we stop you?
-
If a cop is so scared of dying he'll shoot first, then he's the problem.
I'm sorry but if you become a cop, you should never put your life over someone else's unless they are an active threat.
Its better to mourn a cop, then a harmless citizen. At least the cop died to preserve life. The citizen? Pointless death.
And here's a question: what happens if you ever snap? Lets say you just go crazy one day and wanna kill people. How do we stop you?
I doubt you can, there is a Wakizashi hanging in my living room owned by a Samurai from the 16th century, that without a doubt has had a whole lot of blood that dripped off it. Brutal weapon.....
-
If a cop is so scared of dying he'll shoot first, then he's the problem.
I'm sorry but if you become a cop, you should never put your life over someone else's unless they are an active threat.
Its better to mourn a cop, then a harmless citizen. At least the cop died to preserve life. The citizen? Pointless death.
And here's a question: what happens if you ever snap? Lets say you just go crazy one day and wanna kill people. How do we stop you?
I doubt you can, there is a Wakizashi hanging in my living room owned by a Samurai from the 16th century, that without a doubt has had a whole lot of blood that dripped off it. Brutal weapon.....
So we shoot you with a gun. Got it.
-
If a cop is so scared of dying he'll shoot first, then he's the problem.
I'm sorry but if you become a cop, you should never put your life over someone else's unless they are an active threat.
Its better to mourn a cop, then a harmless citizen. At least the cop died to preserve life. The citizen? Pointless death.
And here's a question: what happens if you ever snap? Lets say you just go crazy one day and wanna kill people. How do we stop you?
I doubt you can, there is a Wakizashi hanging in my living room owned by a Samurai from the 16th century, that without a doubt has had a whole lot of blood that dripped off it. Brutal weapon.....
So because you're trained and have a lot of weapons, you can kill a bunch of people if you go crazy.
Proof we either need to stop the weapons or stop the crazy.
-
As far as knifes go, there is whats called the 21 foot rule, meaning someone skilled with knives can slash you from a distance of 21 ft. if your weapon is holstered.
And we've probably all seen this mythbusters episode but I'm posting it anyway.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU
-
I hadn't but to me the saying has always meant:
"Gun fights = fighting from a long distance with cover"
"Knife fights = fighting close with no cover"
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
So do cars.
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
Cars cause more damage when not used for their intended purpose. Guns cause damage by design. Not the same thing.
Guns aren't designed for mass shootings or murders.
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
So do cars.[/size]
In some states, its easier to get a gun then drive a car.
Please prove that. Do some states bar you from car ownership if you have a misdemeanor domestic charge?
-
Guns aren't designed for mass shootings or murders.
Which guns are you talking about? Because in some cases you may be right, in some you are definitely wrong. One thing is for sure, all guns were designed to damage people/places/things. Many of them are designed to kill large numbers of humans, like the machine gun. It’s irresponsible to pretend that they won’t be used inappropriately a non-zero amount of time.
Even cars, which are absolutely not designed to hurt, kill or maim, are legislated to protect people against their misuse, or reckless use to some degree. And some of the these controls make a fuck ton of sense in the gun arena, like ensuring that people get licenses so they know what they are doing, prohibit people who are not sound of mind and body from using them. Really basic stuff.
Since your constitution loves guns and war, people have a right to arm themselves so you would have to make this process with very few barriers to entry, but your society proves time and again that it is not healthy or mature enough to handle the responsibility of guns.
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
So do cars.
In some states, its easier to get a gun then drive a car.
Please prove that. Do some states bar you from car ownership if you have a misdemeanor domestic charge?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont
How to get a gun in Vermont:
Walk to gun shop.
Buy gun.
No background checks. No licenses. Nothing.
How to get a car in Vermont
https://www.dmv.org/vt-vermont/car-registration.php
You need a drivers license and proof of insurance to start. Plus the annual inspections, license plates, etc...
-
Guns aren't designed for mass shootings or murders.
Which guns are you talking about? Because in some cases you may be right, in some you are definitely wrong. One thing is for sure, all guns were designed to damage people/places/things. Many of them are designed to kill large numbers of humans, like the machine gun. It’s irresponsible to pretend that they won’t be used inappropriately a non-zero amount of time.
Machine guns were designed for covering fire, not necessarily for mowing down large groups of people. Sure, they were sorta used that way when trench warfare was popular, but modern combat doesn't allow for that. And really, the purpose of an inanimate object is irrelevant to the topic when comparing deaths. For sake of argument, lets assume that guns are designed for killing, that still means more people die accidentally from vehicles than purposely by firearms. Also, you're equating warfare with crime. I stated that no firearm was designed for mass shootings and murder and here you are saying that they were used for mowing people down in war time. Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at it's intended target. They may be made to be more suitable for self defense, hunting, target practicing, or combat conditions, but none were designed for mass shootings and murder.
Even cars, which are absolutely not designed to hurt, kill or maim, are legislated to protect people against their misuse, or reckless use to some degree.
It's the same with firearms. You think it's legal to go on a killing spree, shoot up the neighbor's house, fire indiscriminately into the air, or brandish a firearm in a threatening manner? Firearms have the most regulations aside from the tax code.
And some of the these controls make a fuck ton of sense in the gun arena, like ensuring that people get licenses so they know what they are doing, prohibit people who are not sound of mind and body from using them. Really basic stuff.
It's not common sense if there's no statistics to back it up. States like Illinois and New York have stringent training requirements in order to carry and they don't seem to have a dramatic effect on negligent discharges compared to states like Vermont which you don't even need a permit to carry.
Since your constitution loves guns and war, people have a right to arm themselves so you would have to make this process with very few barriers to entry, but your society proves time and again that it is not healthy or mature enough to handle the responsibility of guns.
If we didn't have guns, You would be saying the same thing about our knifing and clubbing rates. In fact, in the UK, knife attacks are on the rise.
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
So do cars.
In some states, its easier to get a gun then drive a car.
Please prove that. Do some states bar you from car ownership if you have a misdemeanor domestic charge?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont
How to get a gun in Vermont:
Walk to gun shop.
Buy gun.
No background checks. No licenses. Nothing.
How to get a car in Vermont
https://www.dmv.org/vt-vermont/car-registration.php
You need a drivers license and proof of insurance to start. Plus the annual inspections, license plates, etc...
It says for private sales you don't need a background check and as long as you don't drive on public lands, you can buy an unregistered car and drive it in your backyard.
-
If a cop is so scared of dying he'll shoot first, then he's the problem.
I'm sorry but if you become a cop, you should never put your life over someone else's unless they are an active threat.
Its better to mourn a cop, then a harmless citizen. At least the cop died to preserve life. The citizen? Pointless death.
And here's a question: what happens if you ever snap? Lets say you just go crazy one day and wanna kill people. How do we stop you?
The law will stand behind you in your use of deadly force against another if you are a cop or an individual if you perceive a threat of major bodily harm or death.
No one needs to wait for a gun to be drawn on them to perceive this threat and shoot first. Here's a drill, try it from the comfort of your computer. Point your finger at the monitor and say "bang" and see if you can not get shot even with a loaded weapon cocked pointed at the bad guy.
If the officer got a call of armed liquor store robbery where the cashier was shot and this dude matches the identity and vehicle description. OR you as an individual are at a park eating lunch and a couple drunk biker types are at the picnic table next to you having their way with a young female biker momma and this dude says to you, "quit looking at my bit.. like that fu...r, I'm gonna kill you"
Bang or no Bang?
Why demons are slain......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYSsCaUFexw
-
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh
Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard. A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.
Guns do way more damage.
So do cars.
In some states, its easier to get a gun then drive a car.
Please prove that. Do some states bar you from car ownership if you have a misdemeanor domestic charge?
Vermont is the safest state in the country. Least violence of any. Because you just might be screwing with a pew pew in da pocket.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont
How to get a gun in Vermont:
Walk to gun shop.
Buy gun.
No background checks. No licenses. Nothing.
How to get a car in Vermont
https://www.dmv.org/vt-vermont/car-registration.php
You need a drivers license and proof of insurance to start. Plus the annual inspections, license plates, etc...
-
If a cop is so scared of dying he'll shoot first, then he's the problem.
I'm sorry but if you become a cop, you should never put your life over someone else's unless they are an active threat.
Its better to mourn a cop, then a harmless citizen. At least the cop died to preserve life. The citizen? Pointless death.
And here's a question: what happens if you ever snap? Lets say you just go crazy one day and wanna kill people. How do we stop you?
The law will stand behind you in your use of deadly force against another if you are a cop or an individual if you perceive a threat of major bodily harm or death.
No one needs to wait for a gun to be drawn on them to perceive this threat and shoot first. Here's a drill, try it from the comfort of your computer. Point your finger at the monitor and say "bang" and see if you can not get shot even with a loaded weapon cocked pointed at the bad guy.
If the officer got a call of armed liquor store robbery where the cashier was shot and this dude matches the identity and vehicle description. OR you as an individual are at a park eating lunch and a couple drunk biker types are at the picnic table next to you having their way with a young female biker momma and this dude says to you, "quit looking at my bit.. like that fu...r, I'm gonna kill you"
Bang or no Bang?
Why demons are slain......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYSsCaUFexw
I am well aware of the risks, dangers, an other issues. And I'm not talking about a legitimate "I'm gonna kill you" threat cause that's a threat. I'm talking about "guy gets pulled over for traffic stop, slowly reaches for wallet cause the officer said so, gets shot." Police are taught to shoot to save themselves. I say they shouldn't. They should prefer to be shot and die then to potentially shoot an innocent.
I realize it's unpopular but in my mind, if you're not willing to die so someone has the benefit of perceived innocence, then you're not a cop I want protecting me.
And, of course, non-lethal would be great but we all know they have limits.
If I were a cop, I would be dead now. If we adopted my thinking, we'd have no cops because people would be too afraid to die.
Thus, in America, police need to assume everyone will kill them and make sure they die first. It's the price we pay for a heavily armed population.
Which is one of the MANY reasons I got the fuck out of there. I'm now in a country where guns for cops are kept in the trunk of their car because the public is not very well armed, criminals are not well armed, and police are generally not in any need to shoot first.
-
This is just so tragic, what kind of a person shoots a five year old child.
And in this case, the gun laws may have prevented an even worse atrocity by cutting short this nutjobs rampage.
QUOTE:
A DPS official said in the press conference that the gunman was confronted by an armed civilian outside of the church.
Outside...
So he left said church (ie. Finished murdering) before anyone showed up.
And what took him out?
Not a gun but crashing his car.
Sssooo....not really. Any unarmed citizen can chase an armed one with a car.
The hero neighbor who shot the nutjob twice, came out of his house and exchanged fire with the evil one with his own AR-15. Stephen Willeford the neighbor hero was an NRA instructor and in his 50's, a great shot. Placed one in the torso and one in the leg. The bad guy had a vest on, which probably only stopped handgun rounds (soft armor) and not level lll plate or ceramic. The bad guy during the chase called his daddy to say he probably wouldn't make it, most likely due to a lung or heart trauma. Blew his head off and rolled his vehicle.
Thank you Mr. Willeford for being a brave AR-15 owner instructor.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/hero-stopped-texas-gunman-couldnt-stopped-without-ar-15/
-
This is just so tragic, what kind of a person shoots a five year old child.
And in this case, the gun laws may have prevented an even worse atrocity by cutting short this nutjobs rampage.
QUOTE:
A DPS official said in the press conference that the gunman was confronted by an armed civilian outside of the church.
Outside...
So he left said church (ie. Finished murdering) before anyone showed up.
And what took him out?
Not a gun but crashing his car.
Sssooo....not really. Any unarmed citizen can chase an armed one with a car.
The hero neighbor who shot the nutjob twice, came out of his house and exchanged fire with the evil one with his own AR-15. Stephen Willeford the neighbor hero was an NRA instructor and in his 50's, a great shot. Placed one in the torso and one in the leg. The bad guy had a vest on, which probably only stopped handgun rounds (soft armor) and not level lll plate or ceramic. The bad guy during the chase called his daddy to say he probably wouldn't make it, most likely due to a lung or heart trauma. Blew his head off and rolled his vehicle.
Thank you Mr. Willeford for being a brave AR-15 owner instructor.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/hero-stopped-texas-gunman-couldnt-stopped-without-ar-15/ (https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/hero-stopped-texas-gunman-couldnt-stopped-without-ar-15/)
Yes. Very brave.
And yes, after I wrote that post it's revealed he had 2 additional gun shot wounds. So yes, he was likely fatally shot. So congrats. He managed to stop (probably) additional mass shootings.
-
Guns aren't designed for mass shootings or murders.
Which guns are you talking about? Because in some cases you may be right, in some you are definitely wrong. One thing is for sure, all guns were designed to damage people/places/things. Many of them are designed to kill large numbers of humans, like the machine gun. It’s irresponsible to pretend that they won’t be used inappropriately a non-zero amount of time.
Machine guns were designed for covering fire, not necessarily for mowing down large groups of people.
Citation? In WW1, the period when machine guns were most relevant, they were set up in areas to inflict maximum casualties.
Sure, they were sorta used that way when trench warfare was popular, but modern combat doesn't allow for that.
Nuclear bombs sorta blew Hiroshima and Nagasaki too ::)
And really, the purpose of an inanimate object is irrelevant to the topic when comparing deaths. For sake of argument, lets assume that guns are designed for killing, that still means more people die accidentally from vehicles than purposely by firearms.
But cars are more prevalent band also serve a much wider purpose than causing damage. Obviously there is a benefit that outweighs the harm.
Also, you're equating warfare with crime. I stated that no firearm was designed for mass shootings and murder and here you are saying that they were used for mowing people down in war time.
The opposite is true. I took are to stay away from your “murder” argument because I think it is true. But to say that guns are not designed to kill is patent BE.
Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at it's intended target. They may be made to be more suitable for self defense, hunting, target practicing, or combat conditions, but none were designed for mass shootings and murder.
Yeah, that’s why they created the complimentary ammunition like hollow points, because there was no thought about to best kill another human. Only in America I tell you.
Even cars, which are absolutely not designed to hurt, kill or maim, are legislated to protect people against their misuse, or reckless use to some degree.
It's the same with firearms. You think it's legal to go on a killing spree, shoot up the neighbor's house, fire indiscriminately into the air, or brandish a firearm in a threatening manner? Firearms have the most regulations aside from the tax code.
Citation please?
And some of the these controls make a fuck ton of sense in the gun arena, like ensuring that people get licenses so they know what they are doing, prohibit people who are not sound of mind and body from using them. Really basic stuff.
It's not common sense if there's no statistics to back it up. States like Illinois and New York have stringent training requirements in order to carry and they don't seem to have a dramatic effect on negligent discharges compared to states like Vermont which you don't even need a permit to carry.
Look outside your country for evidence.
Since your constitution loves guns and war, people have a right to arm themselves so you would have to make this process with very few barriers to entry, but your society proves time and again that it is not healthy or mature enough to handle the responsibility of guns.
If we didn't have guns, You would be saying the same thing about our knifing and clubbing rates.
Stick to what I actually say.
In fact, in the UK, knife attacks are on the rise.
As has been previously pointed out, the scale of violence perpetrated by firearms could not be carried out with clubs and knives. Guns you have but to point and click from a long distance and you can kill reliably. Knives and clubs you need to be much closer and probably need a higher level of training to kill as reliably as a gun does.
-
Guns aren't designed for mass shootings or murders.
Which guns are you talking about? Because in some cases you may be right, in some you are definitely wrong. One thing is for sure, all guns were designed to damage people/places/things. Many of them are designed to kill large numbers of humans, like the machine gun. It’s irresponsible to pretend that they won’t be used inappropriately a non-zero amount of time.
Machine guns were designed for covering fire, not necessarily for mowing down large groups of people.
Citation? In WW1, the period when machine guns were most relevant, they were set up in areas to inflict maximum casualties.
Yeah, when the other side was brave enough to go over the top. As for evidence that they were mostly used for suppressive fire:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire
Among artillery and mortars (which theoretically should inflict more carnage), machine guns were most used to keep the enemy's heads down. As I said before, modern warfare doesn't allow for shooting masses of people even if machine guns were originally designed that way. Now it's almost always used as suppressive fire.
Sure, they were sorta used that way when trench warfare was popular, but modern combat doesn't allow for that.
Nuclear bombs sorta blew Hiroshima and Nagasaki too ::)
And really, the purpose of an inanimate object is irrelevant to the topic when comparing deaths. For sake of argument, lets assume that guns are designed for killing, that still means more people die accidentally from vehicles than purposely by firearms.
But cars are more prevalent band also serve a much wider purpose than causing damage. Obviously there is a benefit that outweighs the harm.
For every victim of a car accident, there's at least three times that many who used firearms to defend their lives every year. And there are modern societies even within the US where you can do well without a car.
Also, you're equating warfare with crime. I stated that no firearm was designed for mass shootings and murder and here you are saying that they were used for mowing people down in war time.
The opposite is true. I took are to stay away from your “murder” argument because I think it is true. But to say that guns are not designed to kill is patent BE.
Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at it's intended target. They may be made to be more suitable for self defense, hunting, target practicing, or combat conditions, but none were designed for mass shootings and murder.
Yeah, that’s why they created the complimentary ammunition like hollow points, because there was no thought about to best kill another human. Only in America I tell you.
Hollow points were designed to (1) stop within the initial target and not pass on through to hit something unintended and (2) have a greater chance of stopping the assailant. It doesn't necessarily means it needs to kill the assailant.
Even cars, which are absolutely not designed to hurt, kill or maim, are legislated to protect people against their misuse, or reckless use to some degree.
It's the same with firearms. You think it's legal to go on a killing spree, shoot up the neighbor's house, fire indiscriminately into the air, or brandish a firearm in a threatening manner? Firearms have the most regulations aside from the tax code.
Citation please?
While I couldn't find out how many car regulations or even traffic laws are there (which would be relevant to the topic), I did found out that there is roughly 20,000 gun regulations in the US.
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_laws_are_there
http://www.gunlaws.com/faq.htm
So unless you can find the number of traffic laws out there, at least you can admit that 20,000 is a lot.
And some of the these controls make a fuck ton of sense in the gun arena, like ensuring that people get licenses so they know what they are doing, prohibit people who are not sound of mind and body from using them. Really basic stuff.
It's not common sense if there's no statistics to back it up. States like Illinois and New York have stringent training requirements in order to carry and they don't seem to have a dramatic effect on negligent discharges compared to states like Vermont which you don't even need a permit to carry.
Look outside your country for evidence.
Such as?
Since your constitution loves guns and war, people have a right to arm themselves so you would have to make this process with very few barriers to entry, but your society proves time and again that it is not healthy or mature enough to handle the responsibility of guns.
If we didn't have guns, You would be saying the same thing about our knifing and clubbing rates.
Stick to what I actually say.
In fact, in the UK, knife attacks are on the rise.
As has been previously pointed out, the scale of violence perpetrated by firearms could not be carried out with clubs and knives. Guns you have but to point and click from a long distance and you can kill reliably. Knives and clubs you need to be much closer and probably need a higher level of training to kill as reliably as a gun does.
A person managed to kill 8 people in Japan with a knife. All it takes is the right settings.
-
To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.
Two points.
1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.
2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?
-
To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.
Two points.
1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.
2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?
Oh they very muchly are linked.
The difference is that the UK does not have a right to bear arms. The US does. And to be patriotic, you MUST be ok with the 2nd amendment. So it's illegal for the government to take all the guns. Thus, gun makers have a nearly unblocked field to which they can sell their wares. And Americans, being Americans, know that you can't be American unless guns are allowed.
BUT when some black people carried loaded guns in California one time, suddenly loaded guns were banned.
So maybe that's what they need to do: A bunch of muslims need to march as pro-gun with assault rifles and stuff in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas.
-
To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.
Wow! Way to misrepresent my argument. Where have I stated such? I've stated that guns aren't necessarily designed for killing and I've stated that people use firearms for self defense all the time. Also I like to point out that statistically Finland has more mass shootings than we do.
Two points.
1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.
Had someone at that school was armed they could've stopped the threat.
2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?
I'm not worried about dying at a traffic stop because I know how to act. In fact, because of my job, I'm in contact with law enforcement almost every week.
-
To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.
Two points.
1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.
2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?
Oh they very muchly are linked.
The difference is that the UK does not have a right to bear arms. The US does. And to be patriotic, you MUST be ok with the 2nd amendment. So it's illegal for the government to take all the guns. Thus, gun makers have a nearly unblocked field to which they can sell their wares. And Americans, being Americans, know that you can't be American unless guns are allowed.
BUT when some black people carried loaded guns in California one time, suddenly loaded guns were banned.
So maybe that's what they need to do: A bunch of muslims need to march as pro-gun with assault rifles and stuff in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas.
Who called for the ban in California? Republicans or Democrats? If anything it shows that gun control is rooted in racism than anything else. As for the Muslim thing, as long as they're law abiding and not calling for the death of infidels, they have every right to keep and bear arms.
-
We need our guns. In 1970, .gov troops fired M1 Garands loaded with 30-06 rounds with 150 grain spitzer bullets capable of speeds of 2900 fps. Weapon holds 10 rounds. In just 13 seconds, 67 rounds killed or injured 13 unarmed Kent State students, all of which were in good standing with the college. Today a surplus M1 Garand will set you back $1,000 used in fair condition. Most these students were mowed down at a distance of 100 yards.
In contrast a surplus Russian made Mosin Nagant made from the turn of century 1900, firing a 7.62 x54r round same 150 grain 2900+ would have set you back about $79 just a few years ago. Weapon holds 5 rounds. The vodka drinking farm people were given these weapons to defend the home land, such as our constitution requires a militia and right to bear arms. These vodka drinkers farmers should and could have practiced to be semi prolific at a shot some 400 yards. Steel ammo will penetrate most body armor today from these babies and like the 30-06 it's a devastating round.
Fast forward to the Bundy Ranch Standoff where both sides had AR-15's. The constitution works and most the players have beaten the Feds in court over this ordeal. Jurys have said .Gov stand down.
Thank you but I'll keep my weapons and carry in as many places it's legal.
I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of mental cases or felons, know any?
-
Thank you but I'll keep my weapons and carry in as many places it's legal.
I totally support the 2nd amendment even if I disagree with the philosophical underpinnings. It's your constitution and it there is popular support for it and so it should be respected as a self-determining nation/ But the Trump administration rolled back restrictions on mentally ill bearing arms, which seems like a step in the wrong direction.
I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of mental cases or felons, know any?
Yeah, there was this guy in Las Vegas...
-
To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.
Two points.
1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.
2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?
Oh they very muchly are linked.
The difference is that the UK does not have a right to bear arms. The US does. And to be patriotic, you MUST be ok with the 2nd amendment. So it's illegal for the government to take all the guns. Thus, gun makers have a nearly unblocked field to which they can sell their wares. And Americans, being Americans, know that you can't be American unless guns are allowed.
BUT when some black people carried loaded guns in California one time, suddenly loaded guns were banned.
So maybe that's what they need to do: A bunch of muslims need to march as pro-gun with assault rifles and stuff in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas.
Who called for the ban in California? Republicans or Democrats? If anything it shows that gun control is rooted in racism than anything else. As for the Muslim thing, as long as they're law abiding and not calling for the death of infidels, they have every right to keep and bear arms.
Repubs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Yeah but I bet you'd be worried if they marched down your street, guns held high, saying "Freedom to fight. Freedom to kill. Freedom to use our guns as we will! Allah Akbar!"
-
We need our guns. In 1970, .gov troops fired M1 Garands loaded with 30-06 rounds with 150 grain spitzer bullets capable of speeds of 2900 fps. Weapon holds 10 rounds. In just 13 seconds, 67 rounds killed or injured 13 unarmed Kent State students, all of which were in good standing with the college. Today a surplus M1 Garand will set you back $1,000 used in fair condition. Most these students were mowed down at a distance of 100 yards.
In contrast a surplus Russian made Mosin Nagant made from the turn of century 1900, firing a 7.62 x54r round same 150 grain 2900+ would have set you back about $79 just a few years ago. Weapon holds 5 rounds. The vodka drinking farm people were given these weapons to defend the home land, such as our constitution requires a militia and right to bear arms. These vodka drinkers farmers should and could have practiced to be semi prolific at a shot some 400 yards. Steel ammo will penetrate most body armor today from these babies and like the 30-06 it's a devastating round.
Fast forward to the Bundy Ranch Standoff where both sides had AR-15's. The constitution works and most the players have beaten the Feds in court over this ordeal. Jurys have said .Gov stand down.
Thank you but I'll keep my weapons and carry in as many places it's legal.
I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of mental cases or felons, know any?
I'm puzzled as to what you're arguing here. If the protesters at Kent State had been armed, it's a near-certainty that even more of them would have been killed. And if the Bundy protesters hadn't been armed, there never would have been any real fear of the government killing them to begin with. They would have been arrested quickly and quietly, and they would have had their day in court just like they are now. It's because of changing times that one protest ended with bloodshed and the other peacefully in court, not because one was armed and the other wasn't.
-
I'm with Honk, I don't understand your point.
Give someome a gun and killing becomes an easy option.
The government killed protesters.
The government killed armed criminals.
Armed criminals kill the government.
Armed protesters beat other protesters.
Humans kill other humans.
-
To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about paper-cut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.
Wow! Way to misrepresent my argument. Where have I stated such?
Here we go!
I've stated that guns aren't necessarily designed for killing.
Of all the rammel I have heard in defence of guns, this takes the biscuit.
Also I like to point out that statistically Finland has more mass shootings than we do.
More rubbish. You may have missed the point I made sometime back, so here it is again;
American guns on your soil have killed more of you, since 1968, than US fatalities in all the wars since your inception, think about that.
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can
Had someone at that school was armed they could've stopped the threat. .
Well that has worked out well for you hasn’t it? You have more guns than people in your country but still it happens.
I'm not worried about dying at a traffic stop because I know how to act. In fact, because of my job, I'm in contact with law enforcement almost every week.
You kind of underline my point there, we don’t have to worry, we don’t have to know how to act.
A particularly volatile work colleague got caught taking a short cut, wrong way down a one-way street by a police car coming the other way, he jumped out of the car and started to pelt the two officers with a bag of revels he was eating, whilst suggesting loudly that their parents had unnatural liaisons with farm animals (another co-worker was thankfully with him), he got a fine and points on his license, not gunned down.
I don’t know what the solution is to your woes, you have too many firearms in circulation, you have a retarded love for the things that defies explanation, you are paranoid about each other and your government, and the gun makers have convinced you that without them you would become slaves, so you buy more, and collectively bury your heads in the mounting pile of bodies and pretend nothing is wrong. L. Dave was right to get out.
-
Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,
Less guns = Less death
Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.
-
We need our guns. In 1970, .gov troops fired M1 Garands loaded with 30-06 rounds with 150 grain spitzer bullets capable of speeds of 2900 fps. Weapon holds 10 rounds. In just 13 seconds, 67 rounds killed or injured 13 unarmed Kent State students, all of which were in good standing with the college. Today a surplus M1 Garand will set you back $1,000 used in fair condition. Most these students were mowed down at a distance of 100 yards.
In contrast a surplus Russian made Mosin Nagant made from the turn of century 1900, firing a 7.62 x54r round same 150 grain 2900+ would have set you back about $79 just a few years ago. Weapon holds 5 rounds. The vodka drinking farm people were given these weapons to defend the home land, such as our constitution requires a militia and right to bear arms. These vodka drinkers farmers should and could have practiced to be semi prolific at a shot some 400 yards. Steel ammo will penetrate most body armor today from these babies and like the 30-06 it's a devastating round.
Fast forward to the Bundy Ranch Standoff where both sides had AR-15's. The constitution works and most the players have beaten the Feds in court over this ordeal. Jurys have said .Gov stand down.
Thank you but I'll keep my weapons and carry in as many places it's legal.
I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of mental cases or felons, know any?
I'm puzzled as to what you're arguing here. If the protesters at Kent State had been armed, it's a near-certainty that even more of them would have been killed. And if the Bundy protesters hadn't been armed, there never would have been any real fear of the government killing them to begin with. They would have been arrested quickly and quietly, and they would have had their day in court just like they are now. It's because of changing times that one protest ended with bloodshed and the other peacefully in court, not because one was armed and the other wasn't.
It's called Freedom and a rifle is a great equalizer in seeing I shall always be free. For $79 you too could have solidified your alienable rights to this Freedom. No herding you into cattle cars or marching you into a killing field.
I disagree with your conclusions, if in fact the students were armed there would have been negotiations just as all powers today with nukes are treated differently than non nuclear countries. The Bundy folks were armed and owned the fight till the bitter end.
The numbers are all skewed, some of us own enough weapons to arm ourselves many times over and than some.
If the cost of FREEDOM is some must die, I choose Freedom. It's like faith in Jesus Christ, once you truly own it, ya ain't giving it back, under any circumstance.
-
Does this mean that all countries with gun control are not free?
What about those who are not free but have great pro-gun laws?
Does that mean Mexicans are more free than Canadians?
-
Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,
Less guns = Less death
Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?
Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.
-
This one in Las Vegas, Nevada where gun laws are super lax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/at-least-50-dead-more-than-200-hurt-in-las-vegas-shooting-idUSKCN1C70FU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner
It's sad but I'm so used to hearing about this stuff I just can't find myself caring anymore.
Still got shot by police and not a normal citizen though. :/
Getting back on track here I find it weird there is no motive of this slaughter. Guy was normal for the most part except he obviously had a gambling addiction.
Even now with so much time passing we get nothing from the FBI or local LE. Whole thing seems odd to say the least. Largest mass shooting ever in America and nothing but silence.
I too know someone who was at the venue during the shooting. I haven't had a chance to talk to her yet about it. I do know she was quite sore the next day from falling and possibly being trampled. Supposedly it was a blur, maybe fight or flight syndrome? I'll be interested to hear if she heard or felt it was multiple shooters.
I will say I'm somewhat a conspiracy guy. I do not believe the official narrative on Sandy Hook. An AR15 doesn't have a 100% kill ratio, it's just not that kind of weapon. For all intense and purposes its a fast center fire .22 with muzzle velocity of 3300 FPS. Bullets go thru you and the bullet weights only 55 grains in most instances. Fast and effective but not nearly as lethal as a .308 or 30-06. Thus 10% or slightly more kill ratio in Vegas. You have to have shots to vitals or head wounds.
The purpose of these Nato weapons is to wound and take several individuals out of the fight taking the dude or dudess back to a hospital. Hoping to overwhelm the enemy into crying uncle.
-
Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,
Less guns = Less death
Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?
Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.
Apart from that, "Thou shalt not kill" bit.
It would seem the religious (Dither aside) are the bloodthirsty ones here.
I don't feel any less free now than when I was toting a gun, and what are you free from exactly, certainly not paranoia.
-
...
Did you account for children who have smaller bodies and weaker constitution? Or do you just assume you're right?
-
...
Did you account for children who have smaller bodies and weaker constitution? Or do you just assume you're right?
Oh now you want to hang your hat on my constitution? Which has nothing to do with trauma wounds. I'm always right, right?
-
Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,
Less guns = Less death
Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?
Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.
Apart from that, "Thou shalt not kill" bit.
It would seem the religious (Dither aside) are the bloodthirsty ones here.
I don't feel any less free now than when I was toting a gun, and what are you free from exactly, certainly not paranoia.
It's thou shall not murder.
I've never had TSA grab my crotch so I guess I am free.
-
Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,
Less guns = Less death
Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?
Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.
Apart from that, "Thou shalt not kill" bit.
It would seem the religious (Dither aside) are the bloodthirsty ones here.
I don't feel any less free now than when I was toting a gun, and what are you free from exactly, certainly not paranoia.
It's thou shall not murder.
Incorrect, the hebrew verb used in the commandment mean a bunch of things including both "kill" and "murder". Also, the interpretation of "murder" as "killing criminally" is a relatively modern one, probably within the last 1,000 years, that the people writing the bible surely didn't intend. It is more appropriate that murder means, "to kill intentionally".
-
...
Did you account for children who have smaller bodies and weaker constitution? Or do you just assume you're right?
Oh now you want to hang your hat on my constitution? Which has nothing to do with trauma wounds. I'm always right, right?
I'm simply pointing out that any estimates on damage to a human body from a bullet is likely based on tests on an adult body and not a child. A child will die a lot easier as their bodies aren't as durable as an adult's. They have less blood, their organs are in a smaller area (and are smaller), and they lack alot of the knowledge and emotional control adults have.
Like if you get shot and don't die instantly, you might know to keep pressure on the wound. A child would not and would simply cry in pain until they passed out from blood loss then death.
There is no reason why an AR-15 could not kill every child in a classroom without a problem.
-
Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,
Less guns = Less death
Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?
Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.
Apart from that, "Thou shalt not kill" bit.
It would seem the religious (Dither aside) are the bloodthirsty ones here.
I don't feel any less free now than when I was toting a gun, and what are you free from exactly, certainly not paranoia.
It's thou shall not murder.
Incorrect, the hebrew verb used in the commandment mean a bunch of things including both "kill" and "murder". Also, the interpretation of "murder" as "killing criminally" is a relatively modern one, probably within the last 1,000 years, that the people writing the bible surely didn't intend. It is more appropriate that murder means, "to kill intentionally".
You are wrong and the word/scripture is very clear.
"The difference between the legal or illegal use of deadly force is really a matter of motive, intent and justification, and these distinctions come straight from the pages of Scripture."
You can familiarize yourself with the word of God and hopefully begin to understand the meaning.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/
Junker yes I'm adding to this post because some peeps maybe hungry for the word? "to kill intentionally" is not the deal. It's to kill with "Malice" ie the intention or desire to do evil; ill will.
Evil, yes the shitty little demons I slay with pleasure.
Now those who don't care or never learned Bible study stuff. Moses didn't carry around tons of stones writing down the books of the bible. There wasn't pen and paper, only chisel and rock. There really wasn't a solid language, picture stories were used at this time too. What is assumed is Moses told stories for 15 GENERATIONS. Oral Tradition, lets sit around and talk shop, no smokie the weed guys, listen ! Then as paper and pen evolved as did languages, Moses' stories were put into writings.
Ok that's my story and I'm sticking with it. So, don't be a shitty little demon. Moses said we could axe dem bastards.....
-
...
Did you account for children who have smaller bodies and weaker constitution? Or do you just assume you're right?
Oh now you want to hang your hat on my constitution? Which has nothing to do with trauma wounds. I'm always right, right?
I'm simply pointing out that any estimates on damage to a human body from a bullet is likely based on tests on an adult body and not a child. A child will die a lot easier as their bodies aren't as durable as an adult's. They have less blood, their organs are in a smaller area (and are smaller), and they lack alot of the knowledge and emotional control adults have.
Like if you get shot and don't die instantly, you might know to keep pressure on the wound. A child would not and would simply cry in pain until they passed out from blood loss then death.
There is no reason why an AR-15 could not kill every child in a classroom without a problem.
Au contraire, the Texas church assassin methodically went down the pew rows in the church to make head shots. It's caught on the video surveillance of the church. And thank God he was far from 100% kill even trying to accomplish such.
-
The Texas church assassin methodically went down the pew rows in the church to make head shots.
And if he didn't have access to that firearm, I wonder how many people he could have killed with his slingshot.
And you're a Lutheran, thats awesome, I love Lutherans, great sense of humor :) (Patrick and Patrick)
I'm not one myself, more like Reformed Presbyterian, and I'm used to fighting about this subject with my American Brethern on the Reformed Forums that I was a part of before. Of course once I became a Flat Earther I was unceremoniously booted from my church first and then from the forums.
-
...
Did you account for children who have smaller bodies and weaker constitution? Or do you just assume you're right?
Oh now you want to hang your hat on my constitution? Which has nothing to do with trauma wounds. I'm always right, right?
I'm simply pointing out that any estimates on damage to a human body from a bullet is likely based on tests on an adult body and not a child. A child will die a lot easier as their bodies aren't as durable as an adult's. They have less blood, their organs are in a smaller area (and are smaller), and they lack alot of the knowledge and emotional control adults have.
Like if you get shot and don't die instantly, you might know to keep pressure on the wound. A child would not and would simply cry in pain until they passed out from blood loss then death.
There is no reason why an AR-15 could not kill every child in a classroom without a problem.
Au contraire, the Texas church assassin methodically went down the pew rows in the church to make head shots. It's caught on the video surveillance of the church. And thank God he was far from 100% kill even trying to accomplish such.
How does that relate to Sandy Hook?
-
The Texas church assassin methodically went down the pew rows in the church to make head shots.
And if he didn't have access to that firearm, I wonder how many people he could have killed with his slingshot.
And you're a Lutheran, thats awesome, I love Lutherans, great sense of humor :) (Patrick and Patrick)
I'm not one myself, more like Reformed Presbyterian, and I'm used to fighting about this subject with my American Brethern on the Reformed Forums that I was a part of before. Of course once I became a Flat Earther I was unceremoniously booted from my church first and then from the forums.
And how do you propose to have stopped him from acquiring a weapon? Do all these 100's of millions of weapons just disappear? This was a failure on the armed services by not reporting his domestic violence to the comp in the sky. I'm not a lawyer so consult one for info. This is not legal advise but my understanding that federal law allows a felon to own an antique rifle. Some states don't but both Calif. and Texas do from what I've read. Before 1968 guns weren't even required to have serial numbers and only automatic weapons were registered. So where are all these guns that have been sold? The Winchester "Gun that won the West" is in every barn, shop or home in over half this country, millions upon millions were produced, ie the lever action .30-.30 deer rifle.
Do all these historic guns just go poof? Are they any less capable of killing than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag? I own a 1897 mosin nagant that holds 5 rounds that is an antique. I can walk up to a private party in my state and ask if they can own this, and sell it right there without any paperwork. This rifle will shoot MOA at 200 yards with practice. I've done it. For those that don't know just how accurate that is, it's placing 3 rounds within 2" of each other at a distance of 200 yards, btw iron sights only this shooter is :) Cut a coke can in 1/2 and hit it 3 consecutive times at a length of 2 football fields? wow for a 100 year old rifle.
I don't own an AR or an AK......Don't need one
Go Jerry !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM
-
To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.
Two points.
1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.
2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?
Oh they very muchly are linked.
The difference is that the UK does not have a right to bear arms. The US does. And to be patriotic, you MUST be ok with the 2nd amendment. So it's illegal for the government to take all the guns. Thus, gun makers have a nearly unblocked field to which they can sell their wares. And Americans, being Americans, know that you can't be American unless guns are allowed.
BUT when some black people carried loaded guns in California one time, suddenly loaded guns were banned.
So maybe that's what they need to do: A bunch of muslims need to march as pro-gun with assault rifles and stuff in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas.
Who called for the ban in California? Republicans or Democrats? If anything it shows that gun control is rooted in racism than anything else. As for the Muslim thing, as long as they're law abiding and not calling for the death of infidels, they have every right to keep and bear arms.
Repubs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
While the bill was supported by a few Republicans and even signed into law by Ronald Reagan, it was mostly supported by democrats as your own link states.
Yeah but I bet you'd be worried if they marched down your street, guns held high, saying "Freedom to fight. Freedom to kill. Freedom to use our guns as we will! Allah Akbar!"
I would not because Muslims are bearing arms but the intent which they clearing proclaimed. Not only that but I'm not aware of any state that allows you to hold your weapon in public nor allow peopleto threaten to kill anyone they please.
-
To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about paper-cut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.
Wow! Way to misrepresent my argument. Where have I stated such?
Here we go!
I've stated that guns aren't necessarily designed for killing.
Of all the rammel I have heard in defence of guns, this takes the biscuit.
Also I like to point out that statistically Finland has more mass shootings than we do.
More rubbish. You may have missed the point I made sometime back, so here it is again;
American guns on your soil have killed more of you, since 1968, than US fatalities in all the wars since your inception, think about that.
First place cars are on the same level, secondly that number includes suicides which are personal choices, and thirdly even more people have used firearms for protection in the same time frame.
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can
Had someone at that school was armed they could've stopped the threat. .
Well that has worked out well for you hasn’t it? You have more guns than people in your country but still it happens.
That's faulty logic. That be like saying that your country have the most deer population in the entire world so how come you're not seeing 50 of them everyday on your way to work? There are things called demographics. Most mass shootings (whether on purpose or by happenstance) are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry. Also the recent shooting in Texas was stopped by a person armed with an AR15 of all things.
I'm not worried about dying at a traffic stop because I know how to act. In fact, because of my job, I'm in contact with law enforcement almost every week.
You kind of underline my point there, we don’t have to worry, we don’t have to know how to act.
A particularly volatile work colleague got caught taking a short cut, wrong way down a one-way street by a police car coming the other way, he jumped out of the car and started to pelt the two officers with a bag of revels he was eating, whilst suggesting loudly that their parents had unnatural liaisons with farm animals (another co-worker was thankfully with him), he got a fine and points on his license, not gunned down.
I don’t know what the solution is to your woes, you have too many firearms in circulation, you have a retarded love for the things that defies explanation, you are paranoid about each other and your government, and the gun makers have convinced you that without them you would become slaves, so you buy more, and collectively bury your heads in the mounting pile of bodies and pretend nothing is wrong. L. Dave was right to get out.
Evidence for any of that?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States
25 or so states allow open carry, believe that would be loaded too. Allah Akbar optional :)
-
Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,
Less guns = Less death
Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?
Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.
Apart from that, "Thou shalt not kill" bit.
It would seem the religious (Dither aside) are the bloodthirsty ones here.
I don't feel any less free now than when I was toting a gun, and what are you free from exactly, certainly not paranoia.
It's thou shall not murder.
Incorrect, the hebrew verb used in the commandment mean a bunch of things including both "kill" and "murder". Also, the interpretation of "murder" as "killing criminally" is a relatively modern one, probably within the last 1,000 years, that the people writing the bible surely didn't intend. It is more appropriate that murder means, "to kill intentionally".
You are wrong and the word/scripture is very clear.
"The difference between the legal or illegal use of deadly force is really a matter of motive, intent and justification, and these distinctions come straight from the pages of Scripture."
You can familiarize yourself with the word of God and hopefully begin to understand the meaning.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/
Junker yes I'm adding to this post because some peeps maybe hungry for the word? "to kill intentionally" is not the deal. It's to kill with "Malice" ie the intention or desire to do evil; ill will.
Evil, yes the shitty little demons I slay with pleasure.
Now those who don't care or never learned Bible study stuff. Moses didn't carry around tons of stones writing down the books of the bible. There wasn't pen and paper, only chisel and rock. There really wasn't a solid language, picture stories were used at this time too. What is assumed is Moses told stories for 15 GENERATIONS. Oral Tradition, lets sit around and talk shop, no smokie the weed guys, listen ! Then as paper and pen evolved as did languages, Moses' stories were put into writings.
Ok that's my story and I'm sticking with it. So, don't be a shitty little demon. Moses said we could axe dem bastards.....
That page only references English translations of the Pentateuch which is irrelevant to what the commandments say. The commandments are written in Hebrew and any credible interpretation of them should reference the Hebrew definitions of words.
I also delight in pointing out that on your view an abortion is not murder and therefore is ok under the Ten Commandments.
Anyway, you are obviously a biblical cherry picker so I doubt you will concede any of the points made here. Unless of course you kill your children for disobeying or kill those that wear clothes made from more than one kind of cloth? Do you do that?
-
American guns on your soil have killed more of you, since 1968, than US fatalities in all the wars since your inception, think about that.
First place cars are on the same level, secondly that number includes suicides which are personal choices, and thirdly even more people have used firearms for protection in the same time frame.
WTF are you talking about cars for? All countries have cars and resultant deaths, start a new thread if it bothers you and stop trying to deflect the fact that your addiction is killing your own people in vast numbers in addition to car/drug/donkey deaths.
So, you are stating that more US citizens have defended themselves against assailants in that period, with guns, than died in all the wars? If that’s the case (and I’m calling bullshit), then I think that our point that guns are bad for society is proven. As millions of Muricans having to whip out their six-shooters to fend off their own neighbours is something that doesn’t happen at all in Europe.
I couldn’t square, me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can
Had someone at that school was armed they could've stopped the threat. .
Well that has worked out well for you hasn’t it? You have more guns than people in your country but still it happens.
That's faulty logic. That be like saying that your country have the most deer population in the entire world so how come you're not seeing 50 of them everyday on your way to work? There are things called demographics. Most mass shootings (whether on purpose or by happenstance) are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry. Also the recent shooting in Texas was stopped by a person armed with an AR15 of all things. .
Your analogy sucks, but let’s run through this; The Dunblane massacre was the fault of the teachers/kids in a small infant school in Scotland, as they weren’t “packing” and not that a loon was allowed a gun. The perpetrators of mass shootings gravitate to areas of low or no guns (No shit!) so having more guns than people (US style) still isn’t enough and areas where guns are prohibited are asking for it, what we need is more guns. And a man putting a few bullets in a guy who had finished blowing away a church full of people is proof of this? And my logic is faulty?
I'm not worried about dying at a traffic stop because I know how to act. In fact, because of my job, I'm in contact with law enforcement almost every week.
You kind of underline my point there, we don’t have to worry, we don’t have to know how to act.
I don’t know what the solution is to your woes, you have too many firearms in circulation (More guns than people), you have a retarded love for the things that defies explanation (see all of the above posts), you are paranoid about each other and your government, and the gun makers have convinced you that without them you would become slaves,(see internet) so you buy more, and collectively bury your heads in the mounting pile of bodies and pretend nothing is wrong (your head smells of corpse). L. Dave was right to get out.(ask him)
Evidence for any of that?
See red bits.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States)
25 or so states allow open carry, believe that would be loaded too. Allah Akbar optional :)
Yes but when Americans see a group packing that they don't like, they'll ban guns pretty damn quick.
Why do you think when a terrorist shoots up a place there's immediate talk of some kind of law change for immigration but when a red blooded, white American does it, only the anti-gun group gives a shit. The Vegas shooting is a perfect example.
1) would guns have helped? No. The perpetrator was too far away for anything other than an assault rifle or something with a scope to do any good. And who carries that to a party?
2) Would blocking immigrants help? No, he was an American born man.
3) Would cracking down on blacks help? No, he was white.
Thus, when Fox News had to talk about it, they had nothing to rage against. It was literally "This is the price we pay for open and lax gun laws. But we can't say that so we'll say nothing and hope no one notices."
Yeah.
Sandy Hook:
"Let's make sure schools have guns in them." Cause that's just what an elementary school needs: Teachers with loaded guns in their desks. That was their solution.
"Oh but we'd train them to use it properly and store it and bla bla bla"
Then I say
Why not have a god damn cop at every school? Or better yet, we can get the nation guard to just stand around with machine guns looking all intimidating. Why don't we do that?
-
American guns on your soil have killed more of you, since 1968, than US fatalities in all the wars since your inception, think about that.
First place cars are on the same level, secondly that number includes suicides which are personal choices, and thirdly even more people have used firearms for protection in the same time frame.
WTF are you talking about cars for? All countries have cars and resultant deaths, start a new thread if it bothers you and stop trying to deflect the fact that your addiction is killing your own people in vast numbers in addition to car/drug/donkey deaths.
Using your logic, we should ban cars or for you get rid of your car because of how many people died from them.
So, you are stating that more US citizens have defended themselves against assailants in that period, with guns, than died in all the wars? If that’s the case (and I’m calling bullshit), then I think that our point that guns are bad for society is proven. As millions of Muricans having to whip out their six-shooters to fend off their own neighbours is something that doesn’t happen at all in Europe.
So self defense is bad? If we were talking about martial arts would you say the same thing? X amount of people used Krav Mega for bad but far more people used Krav Mega for good.
I couldn’t square, me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can
Had someone at that school was armed they could've stopped the threat. .
Well that has worked out well for you hasn’t it? You have more guns than people in your country but still it happens.
That's faulty logic. That be like saying that your country have the most deer population in the entire world so how come you're not seeing 50 of them everyday on your way to work? There are things called demographics. Most mass shootings (whether on purpose or by happenstance) are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry. Also the recent shooting in Texas was stopped by a person armed with an AR15 of all things. .
Your analogy sucks, but let’s run through this; The Dunblane massacre was the fault of the teachers/kids in a small infant school in Scotland, as they weren’t “packing” and not that a loon was allowed a gun.
No. It's no more their fault than it is the fault of the parent for not buckling in his child because some crazy law says you can't use a seatbelt on a certain stretch of the road. I'ts the government's and/or the establishment's fault for disarming the teachers who wanted to carry.
The perpetrators of mass shootings gravitate to areas of low or no guns (No shit!) so having more guns than people (US style) still isn’t enough and areas where guns are prohibited are asking for it, what we need is more guns. And a man putting a few bullets in a guy who had finished blowing away a church full of people is proof of this? And my logic is faulty?
Yeah. if more guns equal more crime then why haven't we heard of shootings in gun shops, shows, ranges, and police stations?
I'm not worried about dying at a traffic stop because I know how to act. In fact, because of my job, I'm in contact with law enforcement almost every week.
You kind of underline my point there, we don’t have to worry, we don’t have to know how to act.
I don’t know what the solution is to your woes, you have too many firearms in circulation (More guns than people), you have a retarded love for the things that defies explanation (see all of the above posts), you are paranoid about each other and your government, and the gun makers have convinced you that without them you would become slaves,(see internet) so you buy more, and collectively bury your heads in the mounting pile of bodies and pretend nothing is wrong (your head smells of corpse). L. Dave was right to get out.(ask him)
Evidence for any of that?
See red bits.
How is that evidence? Is it paranoid to have a fire extinguisher?
-
More guns = More crime.
Why are you assuming that the density of guns in a specific area mean more crimes in that area? More guns in a country means said country has more crime. It's pretty simple correlation.
And why does this only apply to America, anyway? Why is it that only America has the "more guns = Safer" rule that you seem to think works?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States)
25 or so states allow open carry, believe that would be loaded too. Allah Akbar optional :)
Yes but when Americans see a group packing that they don't like, they'll ban guns pretty damn quick.
Why do you think when a terrorist shoots up a place there's immediate talk of some kind of law change for immigration but when a red blooded, white American does it, only the anti-gun group gives a shit. The Vegas shooting is a perfect example.
1) would guns have helped? No. The perpetrator was too far away for anything other than an assault rifle or something with a scope to do any good. And who carries that to a party?
2) Would blocking immigrants help? No, he was an American born man.
3) Would cracking down on blacks help? No, he was white.
Thus, when Fox News had to talk about it, they had nothing to rage against. It was literally "This is the price we pay for open and lax gun laws. But we can't say that so we'll say nothing and hope no one notices."
Yeah.
Sandy Hook:
"Let's make sure schools have guns in them." Cause that's just what an elementary school needs: Teachers with loaded guns in their desks. That was their solution.
"Oh but we'd train them to use it properly and store it and bla bla bla"
Then I say
Why not have a god damn cop at every school? Or better yet, we can get the nation guard to just stand around with machine guns looking all intimidating. Why don't we do that?
Of course it's going to be difficult to stop someone intent, with a solid plan where many advantages are in their favor. Bad guys will get guns no matter what or killing tools of any sort to carry out dirty deeds. Blame swat for waiting outside the hotel room for 10 minutes before the guy blew his own head off.
Arming just any teacher is not the answer but arming the ones who are inclined and capable of this responsibility is a good idea imo. Will accidents happen? Surely, but bad guys will at least know it's no longer a gun free zone where law abiding people are punished for their intent to protect themselves and the innocent. Carrying a hidden gun is not for everyone, it can be intimidating to say the least. Even after decades of safe firearms, I found it a little scary to put a cocked and locked or double action tool in my pocket. Pull it out, pull the trigger, boom. What if it goes off by itself? Do I trust this manufacturer with my jewels or life? In the state of Calif. you jump thru some hoops and imo have earned the right to carry. Only approx. 2 or 3 of 1000 peeps actually carry concealed. We don't hear bad things on the news about my fellow sheepdogs. For the most part it's a solid set of law abiding people with a mindset to protect the innocent should the need arise. One day you may thank one of us for saving lives.
I think your fear of guns is unjustified and imo gun laws in Calif. aren't lax by any stretch of the imagination. Not only can't I get the weapons I prefer, I am bound by a book of laws and rules thicker than all get out. I must never make a mistake, keep my nose clean, train, insure myself, shoot only certain ammo at certain places, listen to peeps like you and pay fees up the kester. The course to gun ownership is daunting.
-
It sounds like it is not much more complicated than owning a car with added requirements to ensure you aren’t a criminal. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
-
Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,
Less guns = Less death
Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?
Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.
Apart from that, "Thou shalt not kill" bit.
It would seem the religious (Dither aside) are the bloodthirsty ones here.
I don't feel any less free now than when I was toting a gun, and what are you free from exactly, certainly not paranoia.
It's thou shall not murder.
Incorrect, the hebrew verb used in the commandment mean a bunch of things including both "kill" and "murder". Also, the interpretation of "murder" as "killing criminally" is a relatively modern one, probably within the last 1,000 years, that the people writing the bible surely didn't intend. It is more appropriate that murder means, "to kill intentionally".
You are wrong and the word/scripture is very clear.
"The difference between the legal or illegal use of deadly force is really a matter of motive, intent and justification, and these distinctions come straight from the pages of Scripture."
You can familiarize yourself with the word of God and hopefully begin to understand the meaning.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/
Junker yes I'm adding to this post because some peeps maybe hungry for the word? "to kill intentionally" is not the deal. It's to kill with "Malice" ie the intention or desire to do evil; ill will.
Evil, yes the shitty little demons I slay with pleasure.
Now those who don't care or never learned Bible study stuff. Moses didn't carry around tons of stones writing down the books of the bible. There wasn't pen and paper, only chisel and rock. There really wasn't a solid language, picture stories were used at this time too. What is assumed is Moses told stories for 15 GENERATIONS. Oral Tradition, lets sit around and talk shop, no smokie the weed guys, listen ! Then as paper and pen evolved as did languages, Moses' stories were put into writings.
Ok that's my story and I'm sticking with it. So, don't be a shitty little demon. Moses said we could axe dem bastards.....
That page only references English translations of the Pentateuch which is irrelevant to what the commandments say. The commandments are written in Hebrew and any credible interpretation of them should reference the Hebrew definitions of words.
I also delight in pointing out that on your view an abortion is not murder and therefore is ok under the Ten Commandments.
Anyway, you are obviously a biblical cherry picker so I doubt you will concede any of the points made here. Unless of course you kill your children for disobeying or kill those that wear clothes made from more than one kind of cloth? Do you do that?
I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes
-
I don't live in America so I very nuchly doubt I will thank a US citizen for having a concealed gun.
Also: Accidents will happen? Why is that ok? I mean, it sounds like all these people doing these mass shootings is ok to you. After all, thats the price of freedom, right?
-
I don't live in America so I very nuchly doubt I will thank a US citizen for having a concealed gun.
Also: Accidents will happen? Why is that ok? I mean, it sounds like all these people doing these mass shootings is ok to you. After all, thats the price of freedom, right?
It's a bloody good show here Dave, you should visit.
God knows all about this evil he allows, who am I to question his reasoning?
Freedom yes, good price, you remember the last time you tried to steal it from us, don't you Dave?
-
I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes
How is it murder in your view? It is neither malicious nor criminal.
-
WTF are you talking about cars for? All countries have cars and resultant deaths, start a new thread if it bothers you and stop trying to deflect the fact that your addiction is killing your own people in vast numbers in addition to car/drug/donkey deaths
Using your logic, we should ban cars or for you get rid of your car because of how many people died from them.
Again, with the cars! Okay let me try and deal with your deflection and your attempt at second guessing my logic.
Cars and their ilk are methods of transport that are integral to all modern societies, the way they have evolved has resulted in hard boxes on wheels that move at speed at the behest of humans of varying competence. The human body has evolved in an environment that, for all but a very recent span of time, did not include hunks of steel travelling at 70mph, hence it does not fare too well when said conveyances, due to any manner of reasons, malfunction or run afoul of circumstance. Cue injury and death. This is a fact of modern living which I accept as a fundamental risk, much the way my ancestors would have stampeding buffalo or wolf attacks, as I avail myself of the considerable advantages of having it/them.
Much of the above paragraph could be re-worded for guns, except for the first line part “integral to all modern societies”, here we would have to substitute “the US and various lawless states”. The subsequent “injury and death” are an additional burden to the second case that the former do not have to bear. It is this additional burden, that we have decided not to tolerate, that we are discussing here.
So, you are stating that more US citizens have defended themselves against assailants in that period, with guns, than died in all the wars? If that’s the case (and I’m calling bullshit), then I think that our point that guns are bad for society is proven. As millions of Muricans having to whip out their six-shooters to fend off their own neighbours is something that doesn’t happen at all in Europe.
So self defense is bad? If we were talking about martial arts would you say the same thing? X amount of people used Krav Mega for bad but far more people used Krav Mega for good.
You are missing the point again, If millions of you regularly need to draw guns as you state (“more people have used firearms for protection in the same time frame”) to fend off your fellows, then your society is fucked in a way that ours isn’t, and guns are the root.
Your analogy sucks, but let’s run through this; The Dunblane massacre was the fault of the teachers/kids in a small infant school in Scotland, as they weren’t “packing” and not that a loon was allowed a gun.
No. It's no more their fault than it is the fault of the parent for not buckling in his child because some crazy law says you can't use a seatbelt on a certain stretch of the road. I'ts the government's and/or the establishment's fault for disarming the teachers who wanted to carry.
Crazy gun-nut/paranoid logic.
Option 1. Everyone should have to have a gun, because the result of me exercising my right to weapons designed to kill (whether you like it or not, true), means that everyone is in danger by the sheer numerical odds of random mad Joe having an arsenal when he snaps. The government is culpable for deaths in schools if it foolishly believes that gun-toting teachers are probably a bad role-model for baby bubba. (US). Result; Many deaths.
Or.
Option 2. Reduce the number of guns, with the blessing of a sane populace to the extent that random Joe is extremely unlikely to be able to source arsenal. Do not arm teachers, nurses or nuns on the off-chance he does, as that is fucked up. The government is culpable for deaths in schools if it does not do this. (Europe) Result; Many less deaths.
The perpetrators of mass shootings gravitate to areas of low or no guns (No shit!) so having more guns than people (US style) still isn’t enough and areas where guns are prohibited are asking for it, what we need is more guns. And a man putting a few bullets in a guy who had finished blowing away a church full of people is proof of this? And my logic is faulty?
Yeah. if more guns equal more crime then why haven't we heard of shootings in gun shops, shows, ranges, and police stations?
Der! You said yourself, “Most mass shootings are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry”. These are not heroic gunslingers looking to prove themselves against worthy opposition, these are lowlifes looking for somewhere to play out their sick “King Jeremy the wicked” slaughter fantasies to prove they aren’t a nobody.
How is that evidence? Is it paranoid to have a fire extinguisher?
If you carry it around the streets and sleep with it.
-
It's a bloody good show here Dave, you should visit.
I intend to, when my brother gets married. I lived there for over 30 years. I'm good.
God knows all about this evil he allows, who am I to question his reasoning?
He's an asshole?
Freedom yes, good price, you remember the last time you tried to steal it from us, don't you Dave?
Being American, can't say I do. Though I do remember all the times Americans have stolen the freedoms of others. Like alot.
Hell, Americans steal the freedoms of Americans so long as those Americans are a small enough group.
Imagine if the Indians had guns...
Oh wait, they did and we slaughtered them.
Nevermind.
-
More guns = More crime.
Why are you assuming that the density of guns in a specific area mean more crimes in that area? More guns in a country means said country has more crime. It's pretty simple correlation.
And why does this only apply to America, anyway? Why is it that only America has the "more guns = Safer" rule that you seem to think works?
Correlation doesn't equal causation. If more guns equal more crime then we should be on the top since no other country on earth has as many firearms as we do. But that's not the case. In fact firearms sales are rising while crime and homicide are falling. I'm not saying it's because we have firearms, but I am saying that goes against the narrative of more guns equal more crime.
-
WTF are you talking about cars for? All countries have cars and resultant deaths, start a new thread if it bothers you and stop trying to deflect the fact that your addiction is killing your own people in vast numbers in addition to car/drug/donkey deaths
Using your logic, we should ban cars or for you get rid of your car because of how many people died from them.
Again, with the cars! Okay let me try and deal with your deflection and your attempt at second guessing my logic.
Cars and their ilk are methods of transport that are integral to all modern societies, the way they have evolved has resulted in hard boxes on wheels that move at speed at the behest of humans of varying competence. The human body has evolved in an environment that, for all but a very recent span of time, did not include hunks of steel travelling at 70mph, hence it does not fare too well when said conveyances, due to any manner of reasons, malfunction or run afoul of circumstance. Cue injury and death. This is a fact of modern living which I accept as a fundamental risk, much the way my ancestors would have stampeding buffalo or wolf attacks, as I avail myself of the considerable advantages of having it/them.
And I accept the risks of accidental discharge of a firearm when I own a firearm. Same thing. You may decide that you don't want that risk and I can respect that. But don't tell me what risks I can or cannot take especially when you're a foreigner who has little idea what goes on in my country.
Much of the above paragraph could be re-worded for guns, except for the first line part “integral to all modern societies”, here we would have to substitute “the US and various lawless states”. The subsequent “injury and death” are an additional burden to the second case that the former do not have to bear. It is this additional burden, that we have decided not to tolerate, that we are discussing here.
Arms of any type have been integral to all modern societies as well. Name one modern country that doesn't have armed police to some capacity or a military. Even in the private sector, very few western countries ban firearms outright. They may be more stringent, but in Germany for example you you can legally own an AR15.
So, you are stating that more US citizens have defended themselves against assailants in that period, with guns, than died in all the wars? If that’s the case (and I’m calling bullshit), then I think that our point that guns are bad for society is proven. As millions of Muricans having to whip out their six-shooters to fend off their own neighbours is something that doesn’t happen at all in Europe.
So self defense is bad? If we were talking about martial arts would you say the same thing? X amount of people used Krav Mega for bad but far more people used Krav Mega for good.
You are missing the point again, If millions of you regularly need to draw guns as you state (“more people have used firearms for protection in the same time frame”) to fend off your fellows, then your society is fucked in a way that ours isn’t, and guns are the root.
A lot of times the firearm hasn't been drawn at all. proclaiming to have a firearm or simply removing the clothing that concealed the firearm have been enough to stop an attack. And even if what you're saying is true, you're only causing more harm by disarming those who would otherwise had successfully defended themselves from an attack.
Your analogy sucks, but let’s run through this; The Dunblane massacre was the fault of the teachers/kids in a small infant school in Scotland, as they weren’t “packing” and not that a loon was allowed a gun.
No. It's no more their fault than it is the fault of the parent for not buckling in his child because some crazy law says you can't use a seatbelt on a certain stretch of the road. I'ts the government's and/or the establishment's fault for disarming the teachers who wanted to carry.
Crazy gun-nut/paranoid logic.
Option 1. Everyone should have to have a gun, because the result of me exercising my right to weapons designed to kill (whether you like it or not, true), means that everyone is in danger by the sheer numerical odds of random mad Joe having an arsenal when he snaps. The government is culpable for deaths in schools if it foolishly believes that gun-toting teachers are probably a bad role-model for baby bubba. (US). Result; Many deaths.
Actually, statistically Finland alone has more mass shootings than we do. The EU as well.
Or.
Option 2. Reduce the number of guns, with the blessing of a sane populace to the extent that random Joe is extremely unlikely to be able to source arsenal. Do not arm teachers, nurses or nuns on the off-chance he does, as that is fucked up. The government is culpable for deaths in schools if it does not do this. (Europe) Result; Many less deaths.
Please prove that any gun control measure had a direct cause and effect on gun crimes or homicide in general.
The perpetrators of mass shootings gravitate to areas of low or no guns (No shit!) so having more guns than people (US style) still isn’t enough and areas where guns are prohibited are asking for it, what we need is more guns. And a man putting a few bullets in a guy who had finished blowing away a church full of people is proof of this? And my logic is faulty?
Yeah. if more guns equal more crime then why haven't we heard of shootings in gun shops, shows, ranges, and police stations?
Der! You said yourself, “Most mass shootings are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry”. These are not heroic gunslingers looking to prove themselves against worthy opposition, these are lowlifes looking for somewhere to play out their sick “King Jeremy the wicked” slaughter fantasies to prove they aren’t a nobody.
My point exactly.
How is that evidence? Is it paranoid to have a fire extinguisher?
If you carry it around the streets and sleep with it.
[/quote]
If a fire extinguisher was portable and concealable I would except for the sleeping part. I also practice carrying a First Aid kit everywhere I go too. One time it almost came in handy when I witnessed a head on collision. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt and the EMTs came rather quickly.
-
More guns = More crime.
Why are you assuming that the density of guns in a specific area mean more crimes in that area? More guns in a country means said country has more crime. It's pretty simple correlation.
And why does this only apply to America, anyway? Why is it that only America has the "more guns = Safer" rule that you seem to think works?
Correlation doesn't equal causation. If more guns equal more crime then we should be on the top since no other country on earth has as many firearms as we do. But that's not the case. In fact firearms sales are rising while crime and homicide are falling. I'm not saying it's because we have firearms, but I am saying that goes against the narrative of more guns equal more crime.
If no country on Earth has as many guns then we should be the safest.
We're not. We're actually kinda in the middle. (Except the Virgin Islands. That's the top 4.)
But most of the ones on the top are either in political turmoil, have massive drugs cartels, or are just dirt poor.
The ones on the bottom are 1st world, decent economies, and good gun laws. Plus a bunch of Arab nations not currently with terrorists so go figure.
Though the rate is a bit misleading.
Montserrat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montserrat) (UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK)) had 1 murder in 2015 and it's ranked 18.
If we rank it by count, we're #18.
Also, we have WAY more mass shootings than any other place aside from those in civil war or with terrorists controlling actual cities.
So yes, while correlation does not equal causality, comparing countries with similar economies to ours but different gun laws does show less murders with them, than in America.
Australia has a much lower murder rate than America.
China has a much lower murder rate than America.
Indonesia (which has a population not too far from ours) has a much lower murder rate.
At what point do you have all these data points and say that maybe, just maybe, guns help people murder other people easier?
-
More guns = More crime.
Why are you assuming that the density of guns in a specific area mean more crimes in that area? More guns in a country means said country has more crime. It's pretty simple correlation.
And why does this only apply to America, anyway? Why is it that only America has the "more guns = Safer" rule that you seem to think works?
Correlation doesn't equal causation. If more guns equal more crime then we should be on the top since no other country on earth has as many firearms as we do. But that's not the case. In fact firearms sales are rising while crime and homicide are falling. I'm not saying it's because we have firearms, but I am saying that goes against the narrative of more guns equal more crime.
If no country on Earth has as many guns then we should be the safest.
We're not. We're actually kinda in the middle. (Except the Virgin Islands. That's the top 4.)
But most of the ones on the top are either in political turmoil, have massive drugs cartels, or are just dirt poor.
The ones on the bottom are 1st world, decent economies, and good gun laws. Plus a bunch of Arab nations not currently with terrorists so go figure.
Though the rate is a bit misleading.
Montserrat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montserrat) (UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK)) had 1 murder in 2015 and it's ranked 18.
If we rank it by count, we're #18.
Also, we have WAY more mass shootings than any other place aside from those in civil war or with terrorists controlling actual cities.
Statistically, the EU beats us and many European countries within it.
So yes, while correlation does not equal causality, comparing countries with similar economies to ours but different gun laws does show less murders with them, than in America.
Australia has a much lower murder rate than America.
China has a much lower murder rate than America.
Indonesia (which has a population not too far from ours) has a much lower murder rate.
At what point do you have all these data points and say that maybe, just maybe, guns help people murder other people easier?
Australia has a smaller population and China is a homogeneous dictatorship with a relatively high regard for life among its people.
-
I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes
How is it murder in your view? It is neither malicious nor criminal.
I believe life starts at conception and now scientist have proven what we believers have known all along. No you can't tear apart a baby with suctions or forceps and get away with it. You will stand in Judgement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUZfWB95I1A
-
I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes
How is it murder in your view? It is neither malicious nor criminal.
I believe life starts at conception and now scientist have proven what we believers have known all along. No you can't tear apart a baby with suctions or forceps and get away with it. You will stand in Judgement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUZfWB95I1A
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/trasancos/pro-lifers-there-is-no-flash-of-light-at-conception
You really should check your sources.
-
I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes
How is it murder in your view? It is neither malicious nor criminal.
I believe life starts at conception and now scientist have proven what we believers have known all along. No you can't tear apart a baby with suctions or forceps and get away with it. You will stand in Judgement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUZfWB95I1A
But you said murder is wrong, not killing. Were you wrong?
-
And I accept the risks of accidental discharge of a firearm when I own a firearm. Same thing. You may decide that you don't want that risk and I can respect that. But don't tell me what risks I can or cannot take especially when you're a foreigner who has little idea what goes on in my country.
Quickly then as I'm packing to go away for a long weekend.
I wouldn't dream of telling what you should or shouldn't do, not my place. What I was attempting to do was to counter the arguements you seemed to be putting forward, that the answer to gun crime is more guns.
As to what happens in your country, it's pretty much out there for all to see, and I have been there and had this discussion with a compatriot of yours, whilst being warned about what might get me shot should I be pulled over.
Arms of any type have been integral to all modern societies as well. Name one modern country that doesn't have armed police to some capacity or a military. Even in the private sector, very few western countries ban firearms outright. They may be more stringent, but in Germany for example you you can legally own an AR15.
Absolutely, but with much greater restrictions that seem to lessen the amount of gun deaths per capita, without lowering freedoms other than the perverse one of owning a killing machine.
A lot of times the firearm hasn't been drawn at all. proclaiming to have a firearm or simply removing the clothing that concealed the firearm have been enough to stop an attack. And even if what you're saying is true, you're only causing more harm by disarming those who would otherwise had successfully defended themselves from an attack.
An attack made more probable, if the statistics are true, if there are more guns in circulation. We freely give up the "freedom" of owning a gun to enjoy the freedom of being less likely to die by one.
Actually, statistically Finland alone has more mass shootings than we do. The EU as well.
I'll take your word for that for now, but per capita gun deaths in both those are lower than the US.
Please prove that any gun control measure had a direct cause and effect on gun crimes or homicide in general.
Can't, but see Lord Dave's post above to why it seems likely.
Yeah. if more guns equal more crime then why haven't we heard of shootings in gun shops, shows, ranges, and police stations?
You said yourself, “Most mass shootings are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry”. These are not heroic gunslingers looking to prove themselves against worthy opposition, these are lowlifes looking for somewhere to play out their sick “King Jeremy the wicked” slaughter fantasies to prove they aren’t a nobody.
My point exactly.
So, your point is that there should be no areas where guns should be prohibited, and that would make everybody safer? Bizarre, blaming the unarmed for getting killed.
Anyway going to Lundy Island for a break, they have one bolt action rifle for putting down injured deer, but it is locked away and hasn't been used in living memory, i think I will be safe.
-
Anyway going to Lundy Island for a break, they have one bolt action rifle for putting down injured deer, but it is locked away and hasn't been used in living memory, i think I will be safe.
Lundy Island in the UK? I've always fancied going there, you can see it from the north coast of Devon. It's one of the many little British islands that fascinate me. Let us know what it's like.
-
What motivated Stephen Paddock to do this?
He was a wealthy retired High Roller with RE property, people like that are plumb lazy.
Did he really lift all those heavy guns into his room, why didn't he ask his golf caddy to do it.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, there's something else going on here.
Despite all that, what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation?
When you don't even need a reason to shoot 500 people and murder sixty.
In this guys latest video, he discusses the shooters video'd, on top of the Luxor private suite building. If the video is real, it's pretty damn compelling of his opinion of events over the many videos he does.
https://vimeo.com/244093268
"CONFIRMED - TWO SHOOTERS FROM THE LUXOR HOTEL / THE SAUDI PRINCE WAS NOT IN LAS VEGAS"
-
Anyway going to Lundy Island for a break, they have one bolt action rifle for putting down injured deer, but it is locked away and hasn't been used in living memory, i think I will be safe.
Lundy Island in the UK? I've always fancied going there, you can see it from the north coast of Devon. It's one of the many little British islands that fascinate me. Let us know what it's like.
Done, see (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6553.msg133242#msg133242)