Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

He's going to to point to me.

I've said the carnage inside a confined space would be the same in a situation with a guy who had a couple handguns as it would with an assault rifle and a sidearm.

If we're talking open field, yeah, you can't hunt with a handgun.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Now, he's just making a rather silly jump in logic

 

[BassAle]

As an owner of several guns, including a few I'd use for home defense, that guys you described is a ****ing nutjob, and I'd agree withyou that he's not really free.

The thing is, I hear of lots of people that are that paranoid. Talk radio and the NRA has done a great job making people afraid to get their ****ing mail in broad daylight and unable to be more than 10 feet from a loaded gun (safety off) at any moment. I've also, first hand, heard people say they hope they get robbed so they can shoot a criminal.

 

[walrus]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I've heard multiple pro-gun people in this thread argue that assault rifles should be treated the same as handguns. If they should be treated the same, then implicitly they are the same. Because if they're different, then we have a reason to treat them differently.

I'm not sure what an assault rifle is but a semi auto rifle is a semi auto rifle whether its an ar15 or a 30.06.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

The thing is, I hear of lots of people that are that paranoid. Talk radio and the NRA has done a great job making people afraid to get their ****ing mail in broad daylight and unable to be more than 10 feet from a loaded gun (safety off) at any moment. I've also, first hand, heard people say they hope they get robbed so they can shoot a criminal.

Ok, those people are either psychopaths or sociopaths. They shouldn't be near a gun.

 

[BassAle]

There was a time when the day of deer hunting opener that all the kids in high school would park on the city street and not the school lot because guns weren't to be on school property. (The season started at noon.)

I'm pretty sure there was enough fire power in those cars to overthrow a small Central American nation. (Hyperbole alert there.)

Yet, we didn't have the world we have today.

One thing that was different: People weren't afraid that the 'gubmint' was going to take their guns and they didn't spend their free time jerking off on their bad *** military wannabe assault rifle dreaming about they day they are lucky enough to have justification to shoot someone.

 

[BassAle]

Ok, those people are either psychopaths or sociopaths. They shouldn't be near a gun.

You sound just like Obama. You must be some kind of *******.



Btw, Those people are more common than you think.

 

[joecct]

Rover, answer this please. Why do you differentiate an assault weapon from any other form of weapon?

Isn't the AR propetly a semi automatic and not an assault weapon?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Depends on who you ask. If it's a Californian, it looks scary then yes.

If you ask someone who has been around guns for more than a minute or two, then no. They are not the same.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I don't need a gun when I'm walking around the streets. It's just the one in a million chance (or really, closer to one in ~20,000 chance given the size of my city) that someone kicks in my patio door and tries to rob me. Or worse.

It's a decent neighborhood, just don't want to take that chance.

This is where the world has changed. Seems as though the gun co. marketing firms have earned their keep. We have been well propagandized that this type of thinking is necessary.

The thing is, I hear of lots of people that are that paranoid. Talk radio and the NRA has done a great job making people afraid to get their ****ing mail in broad daylight and unable to be more than 10 feet from a loaded gun (safety off) at any moment. I've also, first hand, heard people say they hope they get robbed so they can shoot a criminal.

Ok, those people are either psychopaths or sociopaths. They shouldn't be near a gun.

Yet these people are the ones driving the movement that everyone should have a gun, you have to protect yourself and any attempt to 'take their guns away' is a mass conspiracy. I still am waiting patiently for the conspiracy theorists to be right and for the gubmint to conduct mass raids to steal our guns away.

One thing that was different: People weren't afraid that the 'gubmint' was going to take their guns and they didn't spend their free time jerking off on their bad *** military wannabe assault rifle dreaming about they day they are lucky enough to have justification to shoot someone.

Smith and Wesson's stock went up again today. It does after every mass shooting. Anyone else think twice about just how good it is for business that people are spouting the nonsense about the gubmint taking our guns away? Do any of these paranoid people actually stop to think about how foolish this premise is?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

This is where the world has changed. Seems as though the gun co. marketing firms have earned their keep. We have been well propagandized that this type of thinking is necessary.

I disagree with that characterization. When multiple families within a couple mile radius are getting their doors kicked in and beaten to within an inch of their lives, I think having some form of reliable protection comes from an innately human sense of self-preservation.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Someone asked earlier if owning a gun makes you safer, seems the answer is fairly clearly no. Here's 2 articles that are loaded with links to studies showing owning a gun makes you much more likely to be shot:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...e_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I disagree with that characterization. When multiple families within a couple mile radius are getting their doors kicked in and beaten to within an inch of their lives, I think having some form of reliable protection comes from an innately human sense of self-preservation.

This.

I was strongly considering applying for (and would have gotten) every gun permit MN had to offer if my life-path would have continued with my ex-fiancee/her kids. Townhouse, and in an area where crime is growing, and in the stereotypical meth-country (semi-rural, close to a metro area). Don't get me wrong, the area is still more than safe right now, but I would have a family to worry about, not just me. I'd rather have a gun and no need to use it, than the opposite.

As it is, while I'm very pro-gun, I have no need for one right now. Apt complex that is beyond safe, the double-security of getting INTO the building, THEN into my apt...that's enough for right now, for me.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Someone asked earlier if owning a gun makes you safer, seems the answer is fairly clearly no. Here's 2 articles that are loaded with links to studies showing owning a gun makes you much more likely to be shot:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...e_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

So this argument:

Yet, the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002, which, for all intents and purposes, is zero.

is ok to use when advocating against guns for home defense, but when discussing mass shootings, this kind of statistic is met with, "Well, how would you feel if your kid was killed?" Especially given the stats earlier about number of AR-15-type guns used in mass murders.

I know this isn't refuting or attempting to refute your point, just an observation.

Furthermore, this kind of gun-owner:

Despite the astronomical odds against being killed, this fear of home invasion often drives people like Becca Campbell of Ferguson, Missouri, to gun ownership. This past November, Campbell was riding home in a car with her boyfriend after purchasing a gun, preparing for the unrest expected to follow the grand jury decision about whether to pursue criminal charges against the policeman who killed Michael Brown. She joked that “we’re ready for Ferguson,” waving the gun. Distracted, the boyfriend ran into the car ahead of them, and the gun fired, killing Campbell.

has no business owning a gun. That **** should be in the trunk, unloaded, and in a case. Cripes.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

A friend had mentioned to me that if you take out gang violence and suicides, we're on par with much of the world for gun deaths. I have no idea if that is true, have no clue where to look for that stat, etc. The friend is known to not say stuff unless it's backed up by stats.

Any help here?

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

So this argument:

is ok to use when advocating against guns for home defense, but when discussing mass shootings, this kind of statistic is met with, "Well, how would you feel if your kid was killed?" Especially given the stats earlier about number of AR-15-type guns used in mass murders.

I know this isn't refuting or attempting to refute your point, just an observation.

Why would the discussion be limited to mass shootings rather than all shootings? I'll admit I'm on the extreme side where I'd have no problem with the correct steps being taken to go full Australia and pretty much make owning all guns illegal (with sensible exceptions) and buy back everything. Recognizing there is less chance of that happening than being killed in a home invasion, 6 rounds per magazine seems reasonable to me in any type of gun.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Ya know maybe cops wouldnt be so trigger happy if they didnt think every redneck in a trucker hat with a small shvanz was packing heat...food for thought.

Methinks if you asked most cops they wouldnt agree with many of the American Heroes around here...ironic that many of the same people telling us that being a cop is a tough job because their "life is always on the line" are the ones that seem to cavalierly want them in harms way by advocating Cletus needs to fire off 20 runs because his copay doesnt cover Extenze.

And yes, I am being over the top because this post is a satire of how some of the Right sound when they get all hot and bothered after one of these shootings. Notice, no one is coming to take any guns away but **** if the NRA and the Right dont have you all getting the vapors thinking it will happen. At lerast those small business gun owners will be making a tidy prophet on the sheeple listening to Right Wing radio!

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

A friend had mentioned to me that if you take out gang violence and suicides, we're on par with much of the world for gun deaths. I have no idea if that is true, have no clue where to look for that stat, etc. The friend is known to not say stuff unless it's backed up by stats.

Any help here?

This doesn't account for the gang piece, but I can't see that making up the difference. I imagine that other countries also see a contribution from gang related shootings, so that would also account for some of their homicides. Further, I hate that suicides are shoved off to the side like they don't matter. Reducing the availability of guns would make the biggest impact on the suicide rate, and I can't see how that is so easily ignored.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I disagree with that characterization. When multiple families within a couple mile radius are getting their doors kicked in and beaten to within an inch of their lives, I think having some form of reliable protection comes from an innately human sense of self-preservation.

Citation needed on "multiple families".

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Why would the discussion be limited to mass shootings rather than all shootings? I'll admit I'm on the extreme side where I'd have no problem with the correct steps being taken to go full Australia and pretty much make owning all guns illegal (with sensible exceptions) and buy back everything. Recognizing there is less chance of that happening than being killed in a home invasion, 6 rounds per magazine seems reasonable to me in any type of gun.

And right now, USA has SO many guns, legal and illegal, that that kind of action would be fruitless, unless you went full-on police state, and absolutely concretely secured CA/MX borders (every inch), etc.