0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

[5mn_Major]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

Whether or not an entire body of people can be "great" conversely you've done nothing to prove C&C carriers are by and large awful people or whatever adjectives you've ascribed to them.

Although those with weapons in their possession are more likely to exhibit hostile behaviors (post 397), I'm not sure I said C&C carriers are awful. I would say that based on putting everyone in their vicinity at risk (and that's proven), the entire body of C&C carriers do in fact appear dangerously selfish.

Beyond that, I agree with your post.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

Then prove to me that C&C carriers 'are great people' by countering my points that they are more belligerent (already proven) or that they don't put other innocents at risk (already proven):









Now we're getting somewhere. So doesn't that completely invalidate the only stated benefit of C&C?

I agree with the general premise of all but the part passing judgement on the character of people who have C&C. Add that to the argument and it isn't helpful. Stats, facts, etc are powerful. Labeling people as having a character flaw is just about guaranteed to flame people and give them an excuse do dismiss your valid points.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

I agree with the general premise of all but the part passing judgement on the character of people who have C&C. Add that to the argument and it isn't helpful. Stats, facts, etc are powerful. Labeling people as having a character flaw is just about guaranteed to flame people and give them an excuse do dismiss your valid points.

Well said. But there is a valid point...in terms of a personal choice to put others at risk. I think.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

So what. That doesn't mean the police like C&C:

Police chiefs implore Congress not to pass concealed-carry reciprocity gun law

The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, targets the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which passed the House in December and is now assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Va.

“This legislation,” the letter states, “is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-reciprocity-gun-law/?utm_term=.f2f208e343da

Small sample size, but my friends who are Minneapolis PS don’t like CC

 

[leswp1]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

Well said. But there is a valid point...in terms of a personal choice to put others at risk. I think.

Yes, I would agree with that but that is different than just dismissing people as bad. This reminds me of the concerted effort by tobacco companies to keep their product 'safe' in the public eye. They manipulated data so well they had Docs telling women to smoke to help them with pregnancy (yes, this is a true fact), prescribed smoking for nerves, wt loss, etc. Even with a preponderance of evidence showing harm how long did it take to turn the aircraft carrier of public opinion? And even longer to get people to believe the risks and harm of second hand smoke.

Same thing is happening here. There are decades of evidence showing harm in the presence of guns significantly outweighs any benefit. Just like second hand smoke, there is a higher risk of injury and death when someone has a gun in the domicile. There is absolutely NO benefit or increase in safety to have a gun in the house or on the person. None. In fact there is higher risk of injury and death. There is also a higher risk of injury and death when the person lives in the presence of someone who has a gun. Just like second hand smoke.

How long did it take for it to be acceptable to hold people accountable for smoking around others, esp little kids. We heard/hear all sorts of stuff about how their personal rights are more important than protecting those around them by making them be out of the building. There are still people who feel it is their right to go driving around in a sealed car smoking with a kid in the back seat. Same principle. People are so fixated on their 'rights' they believe they should be able to do what they want, no matter how illogical and not based on fact, even if it causes harm to others or could do so.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

This reminds me of the concerted effort by tobacco companies to keep their product 'safe' in the public eye. They manipulated data so well they had Docs telling women to smoke to help them with pregnancy (yes, this is a true fact), prescribed smoking for nerves, wt loss, etc. Even with a preponderance of evidence showing harm how long did it take to turn the aircraft carrier of public opinion? And even longer to get people to believe the risks and harm of second hand smoke.

Same thing is happening here. There are decades of evidence showing harm in the presence of guns significantly outweighs any benefit. Just like second hand smoke, there is a higher risk of injury and death when someone has a gun in the domicile. There is absolutely NO benefit or increase in safety to have a gun in the house or on the person. None. In fact there is higher risk of injury and death. There is also a higher risk of injury and death when the person lives in the presence of someone who has a gun. Just like second hand smoke.

How long did it take for it to be acceptable to hold people accountable for smoking around others, esp little kids. We heard/hear all sorts of stuff about how their personal rights are more important than protecting those around them by making them be out of the building. There are still people who feel it is their right to go driving around in a sealed car smoking with a kid in the back seat. Same principle. People are so fixated on their 'rights' they believe they should be able to do what they want, no matter how illogical and not based on fact, even if it causes harm to others or could do so.

The pervasiveness of the tobacco culture of the 60s and 70s is similar to that of guns today. The industry is fighting facts in a similar manner. The only difference is that there is a voting block that is looking to obstruct progress. Getting over the tobacco addiction took changes in places where it was used. Once indoor places said 'no thanks', society did as well. Hence retracting C&C, a major factor behind the gun culture, is a significant start.

The broader point is ending the tobacco and slavery addictions took massive changes. The same holds for the gun addiction. We can do it. But as with other societal calamities, limiting purchase of guns for a segment or adding a few more background checks will do nothing.

 

[The Rube]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

Have you ever once addressed anyone elses facts? The answer is no.



Problem #1 with the article: This article is that it throws a bunch of weak facts out - with a faulty approach. When you pile up a ton of false news, you get the illusion of reality. Sic, put your best fact out there rather than a hundred of flawed ones - and try to defend it. Or better yet, respond to any one of the hundreds of facts others post.

Problem #2 with the article: Much of its bogus. It refutes the number of deaths caused by C&C by saying 'well, that's really not so many'.

First point: C&C carriers cause as much crime as they prevent - FBI statistics say that C&C has prevented 50 shooter incidents in 2016/17. Yet it doesn't say that during the same period that C&C holders have murdered a similar number of innocent people. Independently C&C carriers have committed 29 mass shootings since 2007.

Second point: C&C holders are not great people. We've already addressed that with C&C holders fact based anger and belligerence - which is not even addressed. They don't break laws but they are frequently terrible people.

Third point: Strong C&C laws in states increase violence. We've proven time and again how weak gun laws are tied to increased gun deaths. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W

Fourth point: Police do not love C&C. In fact, police recommend NOT pulling out a gun if held up. Give the criminal the money they want.

How come other countries have cleaned up guns and don't have any of these issues?

Yes, you did say that C&C are not great people. Here is the full post.

 

[Drew S.]

Yes, I would agree with that but that is different than just dismissing people as bad. This reminds me of the concerted effort by tobacco companies to keep their product 'safe' in the public eye. They manipulated data so well they had Docs telling women to smoke to help them with pregnancy (yes, this is a true fact), prescribed smoking for nerves, wt loss, etc. Even with a preponderance of evidence showing harm how long did it take to turn the aircraft carrier of public opinion? And even longer to get people to believe the risks and harm of second hand smoke.

Same thing is happening here. There are decades of evidence showing harm in the presence of guns significantly outweighs any benefit. Just like second hand smoke, there is a higher risk of injury and death when someone has a gun in the domicile. There is absolutely NO benefit or increase in safety to have a gun in the house or on the person. None. In fact there is higher risk of injury and death. There is also a higher risk of injury and death when the person lives in the presence of someone who has a gun. Just like second hand smoke.

How long did it take for it to be acceptable to hold people accountable for smoking around others, esp little kids. We heard/hear all sorts of stuff about how their personal rights are more important than protecting those around them by making them be out of the building. There are still people who feel it is their right to go driving around in a sealed car smoking with a kid in the back seat. Same principle. People are so fixated on their 'rights' they believe they should be able to do what they want, no matter how illogical and not based on fact, even if it causes harm to others or could do so.

How do you count something that didn’t happen? People can believe whatever they want, but I think if guns were greatly reduced/banned average people would face significantly more crime.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

Yes, you did say that C&C are not great people. Here is the full post.

Is there a reason why you're making a point that was already raised and addressed four times - including by yourself? See posts #428, #437, #441 and #443.


So you're the big guns guy. Tell us why cops would be against increasing C&C when its supposedly such a positive?

Police chiefs implore Congress not to pass concealed-carry reciprocity gun law

The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, targets the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which passed the House in December and is now assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Va.

“This legislation,” the letter states, “is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f2f208e343da

 

[The Rube]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

Is there a reason why you're making a point that was already raised and addressed four times - including by yourself? See posts #428, #437, #441 and #443.


So you're the big guns guy. Tell us why cops would be against increasing C&C when its supposedly such a positive?

Police chiefs implore Congress not to pass concealed-carry reciprocity gun law

The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, targets the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which passed the House in December and is now assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Va.

“This legislation,” the letter states, “is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f2f208e343da

I merely addressed a simple point brought up by you, no more no less. You had not recalled saying something, I reminded you that you had.

Edit: I did not want any doubt of editing/etc, so I quoted the whole post, even though only one point was addressed by me.

 

[rufus]

How do you count something that didn’t happen? People can believe whatever they want, but I think if guns were greatly reduced/banned average people would face significantly more crime.

You think a lot of stupid chit.

 

[burd]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

I think if guns were greatly reduced/banned average people would face significantly more crime.

Studies or statistics to support that belief?

 

[unofan]

How do you count something that didn’t happen? People can believe whatever they want, but I think if guns were greatly reduced/banned average people would face significantly more crime.

You can think that, and your opinion will continue to carry no weight because it's asinine.

 

[alfablue]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

How do you count something that didn’t happen? People can believe whatever they want, but I think if guns were greatly reduced/banned average people would face significantly more crime.

How do you honestly come to that conclusion?

Is that based in data from countries where guns are restricted in different levels? If not, then it's just a feeling that has no basis in reality. Just like you just said, people can believe whatever they want, and you believe over actually have data to support your "feeling".

Get some data, given the crime rates in the rest of the developed world, MY feeling says that your feeling is very wrong.

 

[BassAle]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

Studies or statistics to support that belief?

his gut tells him more than studies or statistics ever could

 

[alfablue]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

How do you honestly come to that conclusion?

Is that based in data from countries where guns are restricted in different levels? If not, then it's just a feeling that has no basis in reality. Just like you just said, people can believe whatever they want, and you believe over actually have data to support your "feeling".

Get some data, given the crime rates in the rest of the developed world, MY feeling says that your feeling is very wrong.

As an easy, peasy, follow up, my feeling is backed up by data- https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359

Australia banned guns in 1996, and based on their crime rate reporting, it had no impact on the general trend of lower crime across the board. The only *possible* trace to the gun ban could have been a slight increase in armed robbery up to 1998, but that leveled off, and then declined for the last 20 years.

So there you go, real data to demonstrate that banning guns will not increase crime.

 

[Drew S.]

As an easy, peasy, follow up, my feeling is backed up by data- https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359

Australia banned guns in 1996, and based on their crime rate reporting, it had no impact on the general trend of lower crime across the board. The only *possible* trace to the gun ban could have been a slight increase in armed robbery up to 1998, but that leveled off, and then declined for the last 20 years.

So there you go, real data to demonstrate that banning guns will not increase crime.

Easy and relevant are two completely different things. Australia really is nothing like us except being in the developed world. They have less than 10% the population we do, the weather is much better, the economy is significantly better, and it is much more homogenous.

 

[alfablue]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

Easy and relevant are two completely different things. Australia really is nothing like us except being in the developed world. They have less than 10% the population we do, the weather is much better, the economy is significantly better, and it is much more homogenous.

LOL, make all the excuses you want, but the data is still more relevant to your feeling.

I won't even bother to counter your silly reasons why they should be better.

 

[Drew S.]

LOL, make all the excuses you want, but the data is still more relevant to your feeling.

I won't even bother to counter your silly reasons why they should be better.

Fair enough. The truth is none of us know how a gun ban would turn out. I’m reasonable enough to admit as such unlike the vast majority on here.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero

How do you count something that didn’t happen? People can believe whatever they want, but I think if guns were greatly reduced/banned average people would face significantly more crime.

This has to be a parody account at this point.