The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: George on June 12, 2016, 02:48:11 PM
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-about-20-dead-in-domestic-terror-incident-at-gay-club/
The headline is misleading - it's about fifty people who were killed this time, and just as many injured. Muslims are killing gays, and America is in grave danger.
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
-
Gays=Liberals=Bad Guys
-
This is the largest terrorist attack since 9/11. Very unfortunate.
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
Gays=Liberals=Bad Guys
They don't equal bad guys, but they do equal people that are extremely likely not to be carrying a gun. If you're a "guns should be banned" liberal it'd be awfully stupid to insist on carrying one around.
-
This is the largest terrorist attack since 9/11. Very unfortunate.
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
Gays=Liberals=Bad Guys
They don't equal bad guys, but they do equal people that are extremely likely not to be carrying a gun. If you're a "guns should be banned" liberal it'd be awfully stupid to insist on carrying one around.
Is there any actual correlation between being gay and opinion on gun control, or are you assuming that being gay=being liberal=having all liberal views?
-
Is there any actual correlation between being gay and opinion on gun control, or are you assuming that being gay=being liberal=having all liberal views?
Do you have any relevant data on the subject?
Also, I don't recall myself making any assumptions in my post.
-
Do you have any relevant data on the subject?
I was hoping you did. :(
Also, I don't recall myself making any assumptions in my post.
Oh ok.
-
In other news, let's check out these /pol/ highlights!
(http://imgur.com/PJUZQxT.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/Rh8zojo.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/IriW00J.jpg)
If you didn't know, you can click on images to enlarge them to their original size.
-
The Muzzies are going to kill us all...unless we stop them. >:(
-
Do you have any relevant data on the subject?
I was hoping you did. :(
Also, I don't recall myself making any assumptions in my post.
Oh ok.
It's my damn fault. I am underwriting my sarcasm and it is not playing well >:(
-
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
Sooo.... that's a thing.
-
Hey guys haha this shooting is actually the Christian right's fault.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/aclu-lawyers-blame-christian-right-gop-for-orlando-attack/article/2593679
Their anti-gay stance is literally equivalent to murdering gays!
(http://i.imgur.com/AJposhQ.jpg)
(http://sli.mg/5F8v7N.jpg)
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
How many liberals actually carry? Here's a question, do you carry? If you was there would you have carried?
-
How many liberals actually carry?
Liberals in rural areas often have firearms because certain wildlife can sometimes be a threat. Orlando obviously isn't a rural area, though.
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
How many liberals actually carry? Here's a question, do you carry? If you was there would you have carried?
What was the proportion of "liberals" to "conservatives" in the night club? How many "conservatives" were carrying?
I think Dave's point is a rhetorical one against the narrative that gun deregulation leads to less gun violence. In certain cases it may be true, but if someone is determined to carry out an attack of this sort, availability of assault rifles is not going to keep people safe.
-
How many liberals actually carry?
Liberals in rural areas often have firearms because certain wildlife can sometimes be a threat. Orlando obviously isn't a rural area, though.
I didn't asked how many owned guns I asked how many carried one.
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
How many liberals actually carry? Here's a question, do you carry? If you was there would you have carried?
What was the proportion of "liberals" to "conservatives" in the night club? How many "conservatives" were carrying?
How many conservatives go to gay bars?
I think Dave's point is a rhetorical one against the narrative that gun deregulation leads to less gun violence.
Yes it will if more people were carrying.
In certain cases it may be true, but if someone is determined to carry out an attack of this sort, availability of assault rifles is not going to keep people safe.
He didn't used an assault rifle he used a semi auto one. Also the VT shooter had ten round mags and pistols and he committed the second largest shooting in American history.
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
How many liberals actually carry? Here's a question, do you carry? If you was there would you have carried?
What was the proportion of "liberals" to "conservatives" in the night club? How many "conservatives" were carrying?
How many conservatives go to gay bars?
I have no idea. Is there a punchline? Is this whole line of questioning relevant somehow?
I think Dave's point is a rhetorical one against the narrative that gun deregulation leads to less gun violence.
Yes it will if more people were carrying.
Citation required.
In certain cases it may be true, but if someone is determined to carry out an attack of this sort, availability of assault rifles is not going to keep people safe.
He didn't used an assault rifle he used a semi auto one. Also the VT shooter had ten round mags and pistols and he committed the second largest shooting in American history.
I didn't specify it was automatic, did I?
-
If more people wanted to carr, maybe but if we live in a world where carrying a gun becomes a necessity, then our world is shit.
Also, anyone can carry a gun. See criminals. They don't need a license to shoot someone.
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
How many liberals actually carry? Here's a question, do you carry? If you was there would you have carried?
What was the proportion of "liberals" to "conservatives" in the night club? How many "conservatives" were carrying?
How many conservatives go to gay bars?
I have no idea. Is there a punchline? Is this whole line of questioning relevant somehow?
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
I think Dave's point is a rhetorical one against the narrative that gun deregulation leads to less gun violence.
Yes it will if more people were carrying.
Citation required.
None needed. How many mass shootings you heard coming from gun shows, stores, ranges, and rallies?
In certain cases it may be true, but if someone is determined to carry out an attack of this sort, availability of assault rifles is not going to keep people safe.
He didn't used an assault rifle he used a semi auto one. Also the VT shooter had ten round mags and pistols and he committed the second largest shooting in American history.
I didn't specify it was automatic, did I?
Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.
-
Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.
Assault rifles are automatic. Assault weapons is a vague term used to describe lots of guns, usually semi-auto rifles. The distinction is important from a legal standpoint, which is why the 1992 gun ban is referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban" since it banned semi-autos.
-
If more people wanted to carr, maybe but if we live in a world where carrying a gun becomes a necessity, then our world is doomed.
We live in that world now. Look what just happened. Do you think he would've commited such an atrocity if only ten people there were armed? Do you think he would even attempt it if he knew ten people in the bar was armed?
Also, anyone can carry a gun. See criminals. They don't need a license to shoot someone.
Anyone can but that doesn't mean everybody does.
-
Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.
Assault rifles are automatic. Assault weapons is a vague term used to describe lots of guns, usually semi-auto rifles.
Thank you.
-
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?
None needed. How many mass shootings you heard coming from gun shows, stores, ranges, and rallies?
I've never heard of a mass shooting at a toxic water dump either. Are you suggesting toxic waste dumps are an effective deterrent against gun violence?
Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.
By whose definition? Regardless, automatic fire is not the only contributor to how effective a firearm is.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html
-
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?
It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
None needed. How many mass shootings you heard coming from gun shows, stores, ranges, and rallies?
I've never heard of a mass shooting at a toxic water dump either. Are you suggesting toxic waste dumps are an effective deterrent against gun violence?[/quote]
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.
By whose definition? Regardless, automatic fire is not the only contributor to how effective a firearm is.
[/quote]
By the military's definition. Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
-
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?
It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
I can see you missed the point.
By the military's definition.
Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?
Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
Did I mention a ban at any time? Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?
EDIT: Fixed quotes
-
Although I fully realise this is one debate where polarisation through cultural and political bias is unlikely to change many if anyone’s opinion, but here goes;
Luke’s blasé assertion than more guns is the answer to gun crime is perhaps deserving of the “Tom” award for unsubstantiated idiotic comment of the thread. In a country where upwards of 30,000 people will die of fire-arms injuries this year, the highest in the industrial world and where the small amount of scientific data studies coming out, suggests (counter intuitively) that you are in more danger of gun related death if You are carrying a gun (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/). The Idea that exhorting more poorly educated people to tool up as a deterrent is risible.
I don’t know what the answer to the US’s, “I’ve got a problem with this bit of society, lets shoot it up” mentality, or the growing worldwide trend of disaffected Muslims to do the same.
But maybe, giving more guns to the former, isn’t sane, and maybe stop bombing their countries (see families, cultures) back to the stone-age on the slimmest of pretexts for the latter?
-
We live in that world now. Look what just happened. Do you think he would've commited such an atrocity if only ten people there were armed? Do you think he would even attempt it if he knew ten people in the bar was armed?
You think that bringing more guns into a crowded, dark, confusing environment where most people will be drunk would have reduced the amount of gun-related deaths?
-
I think you guys are focusing too much on people carrying. I don't think it's legal to carry a gun in a nightclub, so that would make any "good guy with a gun" irrelevant. Most responsible gun owners do not carry when they are imbibing.
Anyway, I'm getting kind of annoyed. I have now seen the exact same post from opposing sides.
"Why is Omar Mateen a terrorist, but Dylann Roof not?" and literally vice versa. "So it's okay to demonize the Confederate flag but not the Islam religion?"
-
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?
It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.
Ok then here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
I can see you missed the point.
Ok I'll prove my point.
http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/
By the military's definition.
Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
Did I mention a ban at any time? Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?
EDIT: Fixed quotes
Then what do you suggest?
-
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?
It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.
Ok then here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States
Fair enough.
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
I can see you missed the point.
Ok I'll prove my point.
http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/
How did this study control for economics and other social factors? Crime has been going down in most Western nations for a really long time, but they do not show the US case is different. Correlation does not equal causation.
By the military's definition.
Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm[/quote]
You might want to retread that page. It literally says semi-automatic weapons are included the definition and specifically identifies the AR-15.
Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
Did I mention a ban at any time? Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?
EDIT: Fixed quotes
Then what do you suggest?
[/quote]
Restrictions on who can buy them and how quickly you can buy them. Periodic proof of ownership and proof of possession of registered guns. These are a couple of half-formed ideas off the top of my head.
-
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
I can see you missed the point.
In his defense, it was a horrible point to begin with.
By the military's definition.
Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?
Yeah, those pesky ol' facts, why let them get in the way of an opinion fueled tirade of self-righteousness.
Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
Did I mention a ban at any time? Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?
Well that seems to be pretty much the main proposition floating around right now, an outright ban on "assault" weapons. Care to enlighten us on how you plan to cure us of the violence at the core of American Society ?
-
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
I can see you missed the point.
In his defense, it was a horrible point to begin with.
Fascinating.
By the military's definition.
Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?
Yeah, those pesky ol' facts, why let them get in the way of an opinion fueled tirade of self-righteousness.
Huh?
Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
Did I mention a ban at any time? Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?
Well that seems to be pretty much the main proposition floating around right now, an outright ban on "assault" weapons. Care to enlighten us on how you plan to cure us of the violence at the core of American Society ?
[/quote]
Well I already proposed a couple of ideas just a few posts ago, so thanks for reading. I reckon many crimes that are currently committed with guns would just be committed without guns if guns were not available, and although that is an improvement, the ultimate goal should be a reduction in violent crime broadly. Perhaps to reduce incidences of violent crime there should be a strong emphasis on education and social welfare so that people have other outlet's to deal with their problems?
There is some evidence to show that this would be a step in the right direction:
www.politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5628/Gonzalez.pdf
For the record, I am for a ban on assault and assault type weapons, and generally think carrying guns down the street is a bad idea. Understanding that there is a 2nd amendment to deal with in the USA, I would think that registered civilian militia's could have access to these weapons in a regulated fashion. I am not really settled on what the right answer is although I find it hard to believe that more guns would make the world a safer place.
-
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?
It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.
Ok then here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States
Fair enough.
Ok.
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
I can see you missed the point.
Ok I'll prove my point.
http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/
How did this study control for economics and other social factors? Crime has been going down in most Western nations for a really long time, but they do not show the US case is different. Correlation does not equal causation.
Crime in America has been dropping as well. We had always had a higher death rate period compared to other nations simply due to our size. Also most of our gun deaths are coming from large cities (particularly those with restrictive gun laws).
By the military's definition.
Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
You might want to retread that page. It literally says semi-automatic weapons are included the definition and specifically identifies the AR-15.
Ok then here.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
Did I mention a ban at any time? Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?
EDIT: Fixed quotes
Then what do you suggest?
Restrictions on who can buy them and how quickly you can buy them.
Why? How would that have stopped this shooting? Plus lets examine the current process. If you want to kill someone out of rage and passion you must do the following:
1. Have the money to buy a gun.
2. Step outside the house.
3. Get into your car.
4. Get directions to the nearest gun store.
5. Drive to the nearest gun store.
6. Park the car at the gun store.
7. Go inside the gun store.
8. Pick out the gun you want.
9. Converse with the dealer in a way that won't expose you emotional state because they won't sell you one if they see you're emotionally unstable.
10. Go through a BC.
11. Do 7-2 in reverse order.
Periodic proof of ownership and proof of possession of registered guns. These are a couple of half-formed ideas off the top of my head.
Every confiscation started with registration.
-
You realize that in Florida, you can literally be a terrorist with actual ties to terrorist organizations and not allowed to fly on a plane but still get a gun, right?
The background check doesn't check for "Are you likely to murder people" but "Are you on drugs or have been a bad person so far?"
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cms/FPP/FAQs2.aspx
So basically, if a bunch of terrorist want to buy weapons, they should do so in Florida. The FBI and DHS can put them on any list they want but in Florida, they can still buy any gun they want. Then go to any state in the US and kill people.
-
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?
It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.
Ok then here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States
Fair enough.
Ok.
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
I can see you missed the point.
Ok I'll prove my point.
http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/
How did this study control for economics and other social factors? Crime has been going down in most Western nations for a really long time, but they do not show the US case is different. Correlation does not equal causation.
Crime in America has been dropping as well. We had always had a higher death rate period compared to other nations simply due to our size. Also most of our gun deaths are coming from large cities (particularly those with restrictive gun laws).
Why does the USA being a bigger country cause a higher crime rate? I think it's pretty common for larger denser cities to have a larger proportion of the crimes committed. Nothing novel there.
By the military's definition.
Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
You might want to retread that page. It literally says semi-automatic weapons are included the definition and specifically identifies the AR-15.
Ok then here.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Lol. Well this does not change that the AR-15, by the AWB is considered an assault weapon. It's all pointless anyway since a weapon does not have to be automatic to have either a high firing rate or deadly effectiveness.
Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
Did I mention a ban at any time? Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?
EDIT: Fixed quotes
Then what do you suggest?
Restrictions on who can buy them and how quickly you can buy them.
Why? How would that have stopped this shooting? Plus lets examine the current process. If you want to kill someone out of rage and passion you must do the following:
1. Have the money to buy a gun.
2. Step outside the house.
3. Get into your car.
4. Get directions to the nearest gun store.
5. Drive to the nearest gun store.
6. Park the car at the gun store.
7. Go inside the gun store.
8. Pick out the gun you want.
9. Converse with the dealer in a way that won't expose you emotional state because they won't sell you one if they see you're emotionally unstable.
10. Go through a BC.
11. Do 7-2 in reverse order.
There have been many accounts recently of people acquiring an AR-15 in less than 10 minutes. Let's call it 10. Tack on 20 minutes travel time and you have someone who can go from pissed off to ready for battle in less than an hour. Bet they can do it on credit too. If that doesn't seem fast to you then I don't know what to say.
Periodic proof of ownership and proof of possession of registered guns. These are a couple of half-formed ideas off the top of my head.
Every confiscation started with registration.
Good old slippery slope fallacy. Good talk.
-
Every mass murder begins with the culprit waking up that morning. :( Clearly beds are the real threat.
-
The gun violence rate in the US is exceptionally low (in the vast majority of the country) and is in line with other first world nations, so gun control wouldn't affect local gun violence, and certainly wouldn't affect a mass shooting that had been premeditated well in advance.
I think it would be more effective to examine why people perform mass shootings versus banning the tools they used. The US has seen a constant drop in crime rates across the board but gun sales have only gone up. The idea that guns create this sort of crime isn't supported by the data that I've seen.
-
You realize that in Florida, you can literally be a terrorist with actual ties to terrorist organizations and not allowed to fly on a plane but still get a gun, right?
You do realize that the shooter wasn't on the no fly list and only 1 out of 100 are said to be legitimately on the list right?
The background check doesn't check for "Are you likely to murder people" but "Are you on drugs or have been a bad person so far?"
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cms/FPP/FAQs2.aspx
Your point?
So basically, if a bunch of terrorist want to buy weapons, they should do so in Florida. The FBI and DHS can put them on any list they want but in Florida, they can still buy any gun they want. Then go to any state in the US and kill people.
What you're suggesting is circumventing due process.
-
The gun violence rate in the US is exceptionally low (in the vast majority of the country) and is in line with other first world nations, so gun control wouldn't affect local gun violence, and certainly wouldn't affect a mass shooting that had been premeditated well in advance.
I think it would be more effective to examine why people perform mass shootings versus banning the tools they used. The US has seen a constant drop in crime rates across the board but gun sales have only gone up. The idea that guns create this sort of crime isn't supported by the data that I've seen.
If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.
That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.
-
If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.
That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.
Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.
We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.
Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
-
No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.
Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?
It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.
Ok then here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States
Fair enough.
Ok.
It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?
I can see you missed the point.
Ok I'll prove my point.
http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/
How did this study control for economics and other social factors? Crime has been going down in most Western nations for a really long time, but they do not show the US case is different. Correlation does not equal causation.
Crime in America has been dropping as well. We had always had a higher death rate period compared to other nations simply due to our size. Also most of our gun deaths are coming from large cities (particularly those with restrictive gun laws).
Why does the USA being a bigger country cause a higher crime rate? I think it's pretty common for larger denser cities to have a larger proportion of the crimes committed. Nothing novel there.
We are bigger in terms of population. More people, more deaths, period.
By the military's definition.
Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
You might want to retread that page. It literally says semi-automatic weapons are included the definition and specifically identifies the AR-15.
Ok then here.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Lol. Well this does not change that the AR-15, by the AWB is considered an assault weapon. It's all pointless anyway since a weapon does not have to be automatic to have either a high firing rate or deadly effectiveness.
Pistols have the same thing, yet we don't see anyone going after them to ban.
Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?
Did I mention a ban at any time? Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?
EDIT: Fixed quotes
Then what do you suggest?
Restrictions on who can buy them and how quickly you can buy them.
Why? How would that have stopped this shooting? Plus lets examine the current process. If you want to kill someone out of rage and passion you must do the following:
1. Have the money to buy a gun.
2. Step outside the house.
3. Get into your car.
4. Get directions to the nearest gun store.
5. Drive to the nearest gun store.
6. Park the car at the gun store.
7. Go inside the gun store.
8. Pick out the gun you want.
9. Converse with the dealer in a way that won't expose you emotional state because they won't sell you one if they see you're emotionally unstable.
10. Go through a BC.
11. Do 7-2 in reverse order.
There have been many accounts recently of people acquiring an AR-15 in less than 10 minutes. Let's call it 10. Tack on 20 minutes travel time and you have someone who can go from pissed off to ready for battle in less than an hour. Bet they can do it on credit too. If that doesn't seem fast to you then I don't know what to say.
If you can't simmer down within 10 minutes then its not an act of passion but premeditated murder.
Periodic proof of ownership and proof of possession of registered guns. These are a couple of half-formed ideas off the top of my head.
Every confiscation started with registration.
Good old slippery slope fallacy. Good talk.
A slippery slope that has proved itself to be true. Before Hitler confiscated the guns off of Jews the Jews had there guns registered. Before Lenin and Stalin confiscated the guns they had the guns registered. Before Australia had its mandatory buy back the guns were registered. Before the handgun ban and confiscation in England guns had to be registered. Before the ban on all things that look like an AK and confiscated in Canada the guns had to be registered. Before the ban on high capacity magazines in California they had to be registered.
-
If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.
That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.
Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.
We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.
Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
I think we are mostly in agreement. I guess I need to get my thinking straight about contributors to mass shootings, but really any sort of measure to restrict guns, if there is an efficient measure, would ultimately be a band aid. The socio-economic roots of violent crime are what needs addressing and there is evidence that indicates an increase in education will result in a decrease in crime.
Anyway, get you shit cleaned up Americans. I'm tired of talking about it.
-
If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.
That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.
Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.
We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.
Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
With respect, Norway has massive gun restrictions. If the 30/100 is applicable, its hunting rifles. Pistols are very hard to get and assault weapons are nearly impossible.
The police can't even carry a gun on them. They have it in their car and must ask permission to use it.
Norway's mass shooting (singular) was so deadly in large part because it was an island and took police 3 hours to get there.
I think what it boils down to is population density and social anger with little to lose. We're constantly looking at our life and asking "Whose fault is it I'm sad?"
And facebook, our politicians, and our chosen news outlets always seem to answer "That other guy."
A slippery slope that has proved itself to be true. Before Hitler confiscated the guns off of Jews the Jews had there guns registered. Before Lenin and Stalin confiscated the guns they had the guns registered. Before Australia had its mandatory buy back the guns were registered. Before the handgun ban and confiscation in England guns had to be registered. Before the ban on all things that look like an AK and confiscated in Canada the guns had to be registered. Before the ban on high capacity magazines in California they had to be registered.
Before Hitler took jew guns, he expanded gun ownership by removing old restrictions.
Know what else he did? He took all the anger and frustration in the nation and focused it on one group.
If we make this current: imagine Muslims are the new Jews. If the US announced that Muslims weren't allowded guns but all other restrictions were lifted(like you can buy a machine gun unregistered), would you be upset?
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
It was probably a designated 'gun-free' zone.
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
It was probably a designated 'gun-free' zone.
Does Florida have those?
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
It was probably a designated 'gun-free' zone.
Does Florida have those?
I would assume any place where you can buy and drink alcohol prohibits guns.
-
Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
how did you get the idea that this is true?
-
If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.
That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.
Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.
We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.
Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
I think we are mostly in agreement. I guess I need to get my thinking straight about contributors to mass shootings, but really any sort of measure to restrict guns, if there is an efficient measure, would ultimately be a band aid. The socio-economic roots of violent crime are what needs addressing and there is evidence that indicates an increase in education will result in a decrease in crime.
Anyway, get you shit cleaned up Americans. I'm tired of talking about it.
Refreshing to see someone accepting truth for once instead of just finding more and more absurd rhetoric to invalidate it.
-
Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
how did you get the idea that this is true?
I see it too. When different subcultures have to share laws and social behaviors, there is conflict. Its not intentional just a product of human behavior.
-
Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
how did you get the idea that this is true?
I see it too. When different subcultures have to share laws and social behaviors, there is conflict. Its not intentional just a product of human behavior.
Incorrect. Come to Toronto. It's extremely safe and extremely multicultural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto
http://www.blogto.com/city/2016/05/toronto_named_most_diverse_city_in_the_world/
-
Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
how did you get the idea that this is true?
I see it too. When different subcultures have to share laws and social behaviors, there is conflict. Its not intentional just a product of human behavior.
Incorrect. Come to Toronto. It's extremely safe and extremely multicultural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto
http://www.blogto.com/city/2016/05/toronto_named_most_diverse_city_in_the_world/
Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.
-
Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.
Wuh? So we are not poor enough for you? Only poor people, uneducated people can have culture shock and conflict? How is it shallow?
-
If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.
That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.
Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.
We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.
Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.
With respect, Norway has massive gun restrictions. If the 30/100 is applicable, its hunting rifles. Pistols are very hard to get and assault weapons are nearly impossible.
The police can't even carry a gun on them. They have it in their car and must ask permission to use it.
Norway's mass shooting (singular) was so deadly in large part because it was an island and took police 3 hours to get there.
I think what it boils down to is population density and social anger with little to lose. We're constantly looking at our life and asking "Whose fault is it I'm sad?"
And facebook, our politicians, and our chosen news outlets always seem to answer "That other guy."
A slippery slope that has proved itself to be true. Before Hitler confiscated the guns off of Jews the Jews had there guns registered. Before Lenin and Stalin confiscated the guns they had the guns registered. Before Australia had its mandatory buy back the guns were registered. Before the handgun ban and confiscation in England guns had to be registered. Before the ban on all things that look like an AK and confiscated in Canada the guns had to be registered. Before the ban on high capacity magazines in California they had to be registered.
Before Hitler took jew guns, he expanded gun ownership by removing old restrictions.
Know what else he did? He took all the anger and frustration in the nation and focused it on one group.
If we make this current: imagine Muslims are the new Jews. If the US announced that Muslims weren't allowded guns but all other restrictions were lifted(like you can buy a machine gun unregistered), would you be upset?
First place they stilled registered the guns owned by the Jews and using the registration they confiscated the guns. And to answer your question I would be upset that Muslims would be barred from owning guns but not upset about unregistered machine guns.
-
Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.
Wuh? So we are not poor enough for you? Only poor people, uneducated people can have culture shock and conflict? How is it shallow?
Having a bunch of people from different countries and different skin colors isn't cultural diversity when all of those people are highly educated, westernized echelons of their home society. Cultural clashing happens when cultures literally disagree with one another, something Canada's immigration policies distinctly avoid.
-
Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.
Wuh? So we are not poor enough for you? Only poor people, uneducated people can have culture shock and conflict? How is it shallow?
Having a bunch of people from different countries and different skin colors isn't cultural diversity when all of those people are highly educated, westernized echelons of their home society. Cultural clashing happens when cultures literally disagree with one another, something Canada's immigration policies distinctly avoid.
The rates of higher education among Canadian and American immigrants respectively is approx. 50% to 35%. That leaves 50% of our immigrants, who are not highly educated which is a significant portion of our population, so your assertion is just simply not true. Culture clashes do not happen when people disagree, they happen when people cannot work out their disagreements.
-
Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.
Wuh? So we are not poor enough for you? Only poor people, uneducated people can have culture shock and conflict? How is it shallow?
Having a bunch of people from different countries and different skin colors isn't cultural diversity when all of those people are highly educated, westernized echelons of their home society. Cultural clashing happens when cultures literally disagree with one another, something Canada's immigration policies distinctly avoid.
The rates of higher education among Canadian and American immigrants respectively is approx. 50% to 35%. That leaves 50% of our immigrants, who are not highly educated which is a significant portion of our population, so your assertion is just simply not true. Culture clashes do not happen when people disagree, they happen when people cannot work out their disagreements.
You don't work out a disagreement with gang culture or Sharia law. Luckily Canada has a smart enough immigration policy not to import either of those things.
-
We have both of those things.
-
We have both of those things.
Not as much as many other cities. I can guarantee Detroit and Chicago has much more diverse gang culture than Toronto.
-
We have both of those things.
Not as much as many other cities. I can guarantee Detroit and Chicago has much more diverse gang culture than Toronto.
Sure. But it's not like the USA is so radically different from other countries that they can't learn from their successes.
-
We have both of those things.
Not as much as many other cities. I can guarantee Detroit and Chicago has much more diverse gang culture than Toronto.
Sure. But it's not like the USA is so radically different from other countries that they can't learn from their successes.
Toronto isn't the most diverse city of the cultures that it consists of aren't clashing. I say it's Chicago.
-
What kind of neurotic criteria is that? It's only diverse if there is conflict? Bro, watch moar Trek.
-
We have both of those things.
Not as much as many other cities. I can guarantee Detroit and Chicago has much more diverse gang culture than Toronto.
Sure. But it's not like the USA is so radically different from other countries that they can't learn from their successes.
We can't learn from other's success, or even from our own mistakes. We are so trapped in a polarized political system doused in political correctness we can't even admit when there is a problem for fear of offending people.
I want to know, since when did offending someone become worse than allowing terrorists to move freely and kill people.
-
We have both of those things.
Not as much as many other cities. I can guarantee Detroit and Chicago has much more diverse gang culture than Toronto.
Sure. But it's not like the USA is so radically different from other countries that they can't learn from their successes.
We can't learn from other's success, or even from our own mistakes. We are so trapped in a polarized political system doused in political correctness we can't even admit when there is a problem for fear of offending people.
I want to know, since when did offending someone become worse than allowing terrorists to move freely and kill people.
I don't know. It's crazy. Don't offend the gun lobbyists and don't offend the radical elements of society! Lets just call for thoughts and prayers!
-
What kind of neurotic criteria is that? It's only diverse if there is conflict? Bro, watch moar Trek.
A show about a group of people invading other worlds and forcing them to abide by our cultural ideals?
Ethnocentrism ayy lmao
Every Star Trek captain knows the prime directive word for word but they're all exceptionally good at ignoring it. Truly a show that teaches people only good intentions count.
-
What kind of neurotic criteria is that? It's only diverse if there is conflict? Bro, watch moar Trek.
A show about a group of people invading other worlds and forcing them to abide by our cultural ideals?
Ethnocentrism ayy lmao
Every Star Trek captain knows the prime directive word for word but they're all exceptionally good at ignoring it. Truly a show that teaches people only good intentions count.
Don't diss Captain Picard or I will unleash hell on you.
-
Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?
It was probably a designated 'gun-free' zone.
Does Florida have those?
I would assume any place where you can buy and drink alcohol prohibits guns.
A lot of places other than bars and clubs. Movie theaters, stores, restaurants, outdoor/nature areas, etc, if the owner/management is so inclined to do so. A few years ago someone was killed in the Olympic mountains here in WA along a popular hiking trail by a mountain goat. The goat stood over him while he bled out and nobody could get close to save him because they had nothing to use against the goat. If I recall correctly, carrying a firearm in national parks was prohibited at that time. That did change around that general time-frame though, so I could be wrong.
Anyway, if one chooses to head into a world of predators unarmed, go for it. They shouldn't expect me to do the same though.
-
A sad indictment of Americans, anywhere else in the world where problem solving doesn't automatically rely on pulling a gun, the guy would have probably been saved. It's not a predator it's a fucking goat!
-
A sad indictment of Americans, anywhere else in the world where problem solving doesn't automatically rely on pulling a gun, the guy would have probably been saved. It's not a predator it's a fucking goat!
If it was mating season, it might have been deadly to approach. Though its possible to lure them away but at great risk.
Mountain goats kill.
-
A sad indictment of Americans, anywhere else in the world where problem solving doesn't automatically rely on pulling a gun, the guy would have probably been saved. It's not a predator it's a fucking goat!
You're so far removed from the natural order of things that you can't properly imagine a situation involving a hostile wild goat goring someone. A mountain goat could end you.
-
The point is, Model 29 uses this horrific tale to then state “if one chooses to head into a world of predators unarmed, go for it.”, now put me right here if I’m wrong but this happened back in 2010, it is the only recorded instance of said “predator(?)” killing anyone, and the park rangers chased it off by throwing rocks (then shot it later).
A few more points here, it shows the amount of exaggeration, both in the perceived dangers of the outdoors, and the outright paranoid American response to any sort of apparent threat. The fact that around about a 1,000 US/Canadian hunters manage to shoot either themselves or others, every year, resulting in about 100 deaths, will not register in your minds as even a problem. One mad goat and up go the sale of guns, and out goes the cry of “the bastards won’t let me carry my assault rifle at all times, we will be massacred by goats”.
Un-fucking-believable country of deluded Chicken Lickens.
-
throwing rocks?
Well... fuck, that makes everyone who stood around pussies. They have no business being outdoors, armed with a gun or not, if the goat was removable by throwing the most basic weapon humans have ever used: A rock.
-
Assault rifles are already illegal in the US and have been for about four decades.
What people clamor about now are "assault weapons." A term invented by anti-gun politicians to tell people about the big scary military guns. Both pro- and anti-gun sides use fear as a persuasion tool. The difference is that one is a basic right, so the argument to remove it is null.
-
Assault rifles are already illegal in the US and have been for about four decades.
What people clamor about now are "assault weapons." A term invented by anti-gun politicians to tell people about the big scary military guns. Both pro- and anti-gun sides use fear as a persuasion tool. The difference is that one is a basic right, so the argument to remove it is null.
Assault rifles or weapons whatever, semantics is the best you can do? It’s a big gun nobody needs, especially against the massed hordes of homicidal goats, not when you can use rocks.
-
throwing rocks?
Well... fuck, that makes everyone who stood around pussies. They have no business being outdoors, armed with a gun or not, if the goat was removable by throwing the most basic weapon humans have ever used: A rock.
Like I said; It's a fucking goat.
-
You know, it's become obvious to me that America has gone down hill. This generation is crying about guns and needing guns but you know what? That's pussy talk. "Oh help me, I'm weak and powerless without a gun". That's the kind of talk sissy liberals have. Real men don't need guns to protect their family. Real men grab the bad guy's gun and beat the shit out of them. Just look at that fellow who had his singer sister die last week? He beat the shit out of the guy, not pull a gun on him.
And that there christian college shooter? Got jumped by god fearing boys. No guns allowed, just the glory of god and the force of a tackle.
Man up America.
-
You know, it's become obvious to me that America has gone down hill. This generation is crying about guns and needing guns but you know what? That's pussy talk. "Oh help me, I'm weak and powerless without a gun". That's the kind of talk sissy liberals have. Real men don't need guns to protect their family. Real men grab the bad guy's gun and beat the shit out of them. Just look at that fellow who had his singer sister die last week? He beat the shit out of the guy, not pull a gun on him.
And that there christian college shooter? Got jumped by god fearing boys. No guns allowed, just the glory of god and the force of a tackle.
Man up America.
I'm just going to assume this is satire or something.
If not I'll see how you feel when armed intruders break into your house and rape your family in front of you before they kill you all. All because you wanted to be "manly."
It's about being responsible for your own protection, not relying on police who have no real obligation to protect you.
-
You know, it's become obvious to me that America has gone down hill. This generation is crying about guns and needing guns but you know what? That's pussy talk. "Oh help me, I'm weak and powerless without a gun". That's the kind of talk sissy liberals have. Real men don't need guns to protect their family. Real men grab the bad guy's gun and beat the shit out of them. Just look at that fellow who had his singer sister die last week? He beat the shit out of the guy, not pull a gun on him.
And that there christian college shooter? Got jumped by god fearing boys. No guns allowed, just the glory of god and the force of a tackle.
Man up America.
I'm just going to assume this is satire or something.
If not I'll see how you feel when armed intruders break into your house and rape your family in front of you before they kill you all. All because you wanted to be "manly."
It's about being responsible for your own protection, not relying on police who have no real obligation to protect you.
It was but even so, how is a gun going to help if they have a gun too? I'll be surprised and probably not holding my gun. All I'll do is give them another gun.
-
You know, it's become obvious to me that America has gone down hill. This generation is crying about guns and needing guns but you know what? That's pussy talk. "Oh help me, I'm weak and powerless without a gun". That's the kind of talk sissy liberals have. Real men don't need guns to protect their family. Real men grab the bad guy's gun and beat the shit out of them. Just look at that fellow who had his singer sister die last week? He beat the shit out of the guy, not pull a gun on him.
And that there christian college shooter? Got jumped by god fearing boys. No guns allowed, just the glory of god and the force of a tackle.
Man up America.
I'm just going to assume this is satire or something.
If not I'll see how you feel when armed intruders break into your house and rape your family in front of you before they kill you all. All because you wanted to be "manly."
It's about being responsible for your own protection, not relying on police who have no real obligation to protect you.
It was but even so, how is a gun going to help if they have a gun too? I'll be surprised and probably not holding my gun. All I'll do is give them another gun.
Well the truth is, most criminals/people don't actually want to get shot. They came in for easy cash, not a life threatening injury. You keep your gun accessible enough in your room at least you have a chance to protect your family. If the best you got is dialing 911 and going through their 5 minutes of questioning before waiting the supposed 6-11 minutes for police to respond (who wont come busting in btw, because they too don't want to get shot) then you're putting your health and safety into another person's hand instead of being responsible for you own.
I'd rather take my chances. Most likely scenario is once they know you're armed they are going to high tail it the fuck out of there. Now if we live in a society that makes it a criminal offense to own a weapon for personal protection, then the criminals who are not at all deterred by laws, obviously, know that they have their pick of homes to invade and lives to threaten. You might as well hang a "gun free zone" sign in front of your house and see how that helps.
-
Get a goat.
-
Assault rifles or weapons whatever, semantics is the best you can do? It’s a big gun nobody needs, especially against the massed hordes of homicidal goats, not when you can use rocks.
They're basic legal terms on what is and isn't banned. For example, in Europe assault rifles are banned as well, but assault weapons are not. Those "big, scary guns" are readily available in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. Which also means they're available in any Schengen area.
In any case, the most common rifle in America, the AR-15, is .223, which is a pretty standard size for a hunting rifle. Many hunters use .308, which I would prefer. Neither of which is a "big, scary gun." Regardless, you can look back in this thread and see where I pointed out gun ownership and shootings aren't correlated. You don't get more people shooting each other just because they happen to own guns, no matter how much you or anyone else would like to say to the contrary.
throwing rocks?
Well... fuck, that makes everyone who stood around pussies. They have no business being outdoors, armed with a gun or not, if the goat was removable by throwing the most basic weapon humans have ever used: A rock.
Like I said; It's a fucking goat.
No, no, it was a mountain goat. The fucking goats are a common breed in the Middle East, though.
-
Assault rifles or weapons whatever, semantics is the best you can do? It’s a big gun nobody needs, especially against the massed hordes of homicidal goats, not when you can use rocks.
They're basic legal terms on what is and isn't banned. For example, in Europe assault rifles are banned as well, but assault weapons are not. Those "big, scary guns" are readily available in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. Which also means they're available in any Schengen area.
In any case, the most common rifle in America, the AR-15, is .223, which is a pretty standard size for a hunting rifle. Many hunters use .308, which I would prefer. Neither of which is a "big, scary gun." Regardless, you can look back in this thread and see where I pointed out gun ownership and shootings aren't correlated. You don't get more people shooting each other just because they happen to own guns, no matter how much you or anyone else would like to say to the contrary.
Uhh...
Norway no. They are not readily available. Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get. It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license." It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?" If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure. Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.
Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting. There is no correlation. Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings. All it does is allow more guns.
-
Uhh...
Norway no. They are not readily available. Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get. It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license." It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?" If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure. Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.
Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting. There is no correlation. Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings. All it does is allow more guns.
I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."
-
Uhh...
Norway no. They are not readily available. Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get. It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license." It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?" If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure. Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.
Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting. There is no correlation. Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings. All it does is allow more guns.
I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."
That's fair but here its mostly hunting rifles. Anything beyond a shotgun or long rifle is rare.
-
Uhh...
Norway no. They are not readily available. Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get. It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license." It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?" If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure. Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.
Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting. There is no correlation. Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings. All it does is allow more guns.
I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."
Here it's mostly farmers with shotguns and 22's no handguns, definitely no quasi-military stuff, you're not allowed to carry it unless it is on land where you have the owners permission. All licensed.
Handguns were banned after the Hungerford & Dunblane massacres in the 80's & 90's, but to be honest there weren't a lot around.
-
Uhh...
Norway no. They are not readily available. Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get. It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license." It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?" If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure. Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.
Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting. There is no correlation. Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings. All it does is allow more guns.
I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."
Here it's mostly farmers with shotguns and 22's no handguns, definitely no quasi-military stuff, you're not allowed to carry it unless it is on land where you have the owners permission. All licensed.
Handguns were banned after the Hungerford & Dunblane massacres in the 80's & 90's, but to be honest there weren't a lot around.
Fun fact, nearly all of the people that own AR-15s and AK47s in America don't ever shoot anyone with them. A lot of the owners could be said to be farmers, or people who live in rural areas.
Let's no longer sugar coat it. There is a healthy fear of the Government here in America. It has never been shown to be a fair, honest, and reputable institution other than to quell some kind of major unrest.
Domestic surveillance and curtailing personal liberty are two examples of things you can do to an unarmed populace at a much more brazen rate and thoroughness, an example would be Australia.
We don't want AKs and ARs to go hunting with, or even so much for protection from burglars. We want it as a safeguard against threats both foreign and domestic. America was built on overthrowing an oppressive, non representative government, if you can recall, it's not beyond the realm of possibility it will happen again.
-
Uhh...
Norway no. They are not readily available. Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get. It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license." It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?" If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure. Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.
Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting. There is no correlation. Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings. All it does is allow more guns.
I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."
Here it's mostly farmers with shotguns and 22's no handguns, definitely no quasi-military stuff, you're not allowed to carry it unless it is on land where you have the owners permission. All licensed.
Handguns were banned after the Hungerford & Dunblane massacres in the 80's & 90's, but to be honest there weren't a lot around.
Fun fact, nearly all of the people that own AR-15s and AK47s in America don't ever shoot anyone with them. A lot of the owners could be said to be farmers, or people who live in rural areas.
Let's no longer sugar coat it. There is a healthy fear of the Government here in America. It has never been shown to be a fair, honest, and reputable institution other than to quell some kind of major unrest.
Domestic surveillance and curtailing personal liberty are two examples of things you can do to an unarmed populace at a much more brazen rate and thoroughness, an example would be Australia.
We don't want AKs and ARs to go hunting with, or even so much for protection from burglars. We want it as a safeguard against threats both foreign and domestic. America was built on overthrowing an oppressive, non representative government, if you can recall, it's not beyond the realm of possibility it will happen again.
Oppressive is a stretch.
Also, America was built on ripping land away from others then oppressing them. So America is very much what you claim its government is. So they have the government of the people.