Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Damuri_Ajashi

First I would point out that we don’t know what happened here.

We know enough. Come on now.

Second, there is no law that can prevent people flipping out any more than there is a law that can make criminals give up their guns. I understand that you feel that the best way to mitigate this uncontroable risk is to just take everyone’s guns and thereby mitigate the risk of people flipping out.

And your proposal is what, then, since you’ve identified the problem as people flipping out rather than being able to kill others when they do? You were asked what you would accept that would have prevented this incident, and you got less than shit - at least shit exists. A little responsibility really is too much to ask of you, isn’t it?

Third the incidence of previously law abiding people flipping out and shooting up the place is relatively rare compared to the incidence of law abiding people engaging in self defense and to the incidence of criminals committing crimes with guns.

About time you supported that claim with some actual, defensible facts, huh? By some standards, *this *qualified as a defensive gun use. :rolleyes:

You are focusing your efforts on a law that would disarm a large law abiding majority of the population that commits a small minority of gun murders but would do nothing to disarm the 7 million felons and gang members that commit a majority of gun murders.

One does what one can. You refuse.

I have never really heard any of these anti-gun folks address how they would deal with all the guns in criminal hands (the guys who commit the majority of gun murders), they seem violently opposed to the idea that a disarmed civilian population might lead to more gun crime (see, almost anyplace where guns are banned but crimianls still have guns).

Australia did it. We can too. If, that is, psychopathic fetishists like you stop preventing it.

However, for some people, guns are purely about self defense, espcially the large group of people in cities who buy a handgun.

This latest yahoo would probably claim he was one, wouldn’t he?

[Stealth_Potato]

@ElvisL1ves

Australia did it. We can too. If, that is, psychopathic fetishists like you stop preventing it.

Speaking as a non-psychopathic, non-fetishist who also opposes the “disarm everybody” plan, I think your demographic analysis may be somewhat incomplete.

@ElvisL1ves

This latest yahoo would probably claim he was one, wouldn’t he?

I hardly see that it matters what he claims, if the facts show pretty clearly that he did not act in self defense.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Stealth_Potato

I think your demographic analysis may be somewhat incomplete.

It would be a hell of a lot harder, sure - but the main reason for that is the number of people who scoff at the idea it can’t be done at all (such as you, apparently), or who insist that we’re somehow fundamentally different in a way that makes it impossible. If the latter is true, the fundamental difference is the number of psychopathic fetishists clinging to their substitutes compared to the civilized world.

I hardly see that it matters what he claims, if the facts show pretty clearly that he did not act in self defense.

Missing that point too - that was to poke at **Damuri’**s lame insistence that defensive gun uses outnumber stupid ones like this one, defensiveness being defined by his faction in such a way that even this would count.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Gang firearms homicides are a small portion of overall firearms homicides.

Upwards of half of firearms homicide offenders have no prior criminal record.

[DragonAsh]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Second, there is no law that can prevent people flipping out any more than there is a law that can make criminals give up their guns. I understand that you feel that the best way to mitigate this uncontroable risk is to just take everyone’s guns and thereby mitigate the risk of people flipping out.

God, you are fucktard of truly epic proportions aren’t you.

The issue isn’t people flipping out, you fucking twat, the issue is people always FUCKING DYING when people do flip out, because they reach for their +6 Instrument of Death Penis Extension when they do flip out.

You think that woman on the porch in Detroit needed to die for knocking on the guy’s door?

You think the guy in the movie theater needed to die for texting during a fucking advertisement?

Go ahead and keep on masturbating to your guns; while you’re at it you can send cookies and a medal to Michael Carter for taking out an armed intruder…oh, no, wait, he shot his 3yr old sonin the fucking head.

Such a small price to pay to be all safe and sound, right?

You guys make me physically ill.

[Stealth_Potato]

@DragonAsh

Such a small price to pay to be all safe and sound, right?

And if all you can offer in response is “Gee, a small handful of people are unstable or irresponsible, better take away everything more dangerous than a toothpick from everybody,” then you’ll continue missing, and missing, and missing the point.
I hope you’re not too thick to understand that painting everybody with the same broad brush, and doing it in such savagely, belligerently stupid grade-school terms (“penis extension,” “masturbating to your guns”), is part of why you face fierce and well-organized (dare I even say well-regulated) resistance instead of understanding and compromise.

No, we don’t think the woman in Detroit needed to be murdered. We don’t think the man in the movie theater in Florida deserved to be gunned down for texting. Stop asking stupid questions, you already knew the answer to both.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

It always just comes down to the butcher’s bill, doesn’t it?

It’s a matter of conscience. How many dead people can be tolerated so that you can pursue your hobby.

For many of us, the current rate is too high. Enjoy your gun. This guy in Florida just paid part of the bill for you to do so.

[DragonAsh]

@Stealth_Potato

No, we don’t think the woman in Detroit needed to be murdered. We don’t think the man in the movie theater in Florida deserved to be gunned down for texting. Stop asking stupid questions, you already knew the answer to both.

Oh, yes, I know it’s a stupid question, because I already know the answer for you is, ‘their deaths are merely collateral damage to my right to own a gun, and I’m perfectly fine with that’.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Stealth_Potato

No, we don’t think the woman in Detroit needed to be murdered. We don’t think the man in the movie theater in Florida deserved to be gunned down for texting. Stop asking stupid questions, you already knew the answer to both.

Yes, we already know the answer to the question “Hey, SP, do you think the gun death rate we have is a problem we need to fix or not, and if so, what would you propose to do about it?” is “No, and no fucking clue, and it’s all your fault anyway for even bringing it up 'cause that only stiffens resistance”.

:rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

@DragonAsh

The issue isn’t people flipping out, you fucking twat, the issue is people always FUCKING DYING when people do flip out

It’s the passive-aggressive approach. See, by identifying the problem solely as basic human behavior itself rather than containing the consequences of it, he’s able to avoid the hard work of identifying and living with a solution. He also gets to disdain anyone else’s efforts to actually do something to save lives in the real world, since they’re so foolish as to even try. It’s a very attractive approach to the responsibility-averse.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@ElvisL1ves

We know enough. Come on now.

Not that it really matters to this discussion but you’re telling me that you don’t know everything but you know enough to say this guy just flipped out? I’ve seen talking heads talk about the stand your ground law in Florida, which implied to me that there were some intervening events between the dead guy texting on his phone and the ex-cop killing him.

And your proposal is what, then, since you’ve identified the problem as people flipping out rather than being able to kill others when they do? You were asked what you would accept that would have prevented this incident, and you got less than shit - at least shit exists. A little responsibility really is too much to ask of you, isn’t it?

Well, that a good point, the problem here (as in suicides) might be that the access to the lethality of guns turns what may be a less than fatal event into a fatal event. Putting aside the constitution (because you’re not proposing gun regulation, you are proposing the criminalaization of gun ownership), we could eliminate guns from the law abiding citizens and we would have fewer deaths when a law abiding citizen flips out because they don’t have access to guns. We would also lose every opportunity for defensive gun use by a law abiding citizen.

Maybe you think it would be worth it and I encourage you to try to get 2/3rds of each house and 3/4ths of the states to repeal the second amendment. Or you could try to organize a constitutional convention where the states might decide that they don’t really want the second amendment. Good luck.

About time you supported that claim with some actual, defensible facts, huh? By some standards, *this *qualified as a defensive gun use. :rolleyes:

Every study (and they have been cited as nauseum in this thread) supports the fact that there is a significant amount of defensive gun use. Your refusal to acknowledge the results of studies from a wide variety of sources including the department fo justice simply confirms your inability to assimilate information that does not conform to your preconceived notions.

You do realize that I’m not talking about the Kleck study that estimated 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, right? The Department of Justice study found about 100K defensive gun uses per year and that was based on a study that was likely to undercount defensive gun uses. Extrapolations from that study by credible criminologists have put the number at 300K-400K. If you want to beat up on the Kleck study and pretend that rebutting the Kleck study means you have rebutted every study, then go ahead, I think most people think you’re an idiot anyway.

One does what one can. You refuse.

You are assuimg that your particular cure is worse than the disease. You have not provided any studies or facts that rebutts the notion that there is a lot of defensive gun use.

Australia did it. We can too. If, that is, psychopathic fetishists like you stop preventing it.

Well, anything is possible but when Australia did it, they didn’t have nearly the level of gun ownership (both among law abiding citizens and among criminals) as we do.

And its not gun fetishists preventing it, its the constitution.

This latest yahoo would probably claim he was one, wouldn’t he?

I assume that will be his defense.

@ElvisL1ves

It would be a hell of a lot harder, sure - but the main reason for that is the number of people who scoff at the idea it can’t be done at all (such as you, apparently), or who insist that we’re somehow fundamentally different in a way that makes it impossible. If the latter is true, the fundamental difference is the number of psychopathic fetishists clinging to their substitutes compared to the civilized world.

You are very large minority of Americans as being fringey.

Missing that point too - that was to poke at **Damuri’**s lame insistence that defensive gun uses outnumber stupid ones like this one, defensiveness being defined by his faction in such a way that even this would count.

So provide any data that defesive gun use doesn’t outnumber stupid gun uses like this one. I have provided links to a handful of studies supporting my psoition. Don’t you think its time for you to cite a study that supports your position. or are you just going to go with your gut on this one?

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Gang firearms homicides are a small portion of overall firearms homicides.

Upwards of half of firearms homicide offenders have no prior criminal record.

You have a cite for any of that? I might have let it go if you had said that the majority of gun murderers do not have a FELONY record. And is certainly true that there are urban areas where gun murders are overwhelmingly committed by felons, largely because noone else is allowed to have a gun in these places.

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

It always just comes down to the butcher’s bill, doesn’t it?

It’s a matter of conscience. How many dead people can be tolerated so that you can pursue your hobby.

For many of us, the current rate is too high. Enjoy your gun. This guy in Florida just paid part of the bill for you to do so.

The butchers bill should be netted for any lives saved, should it?

And if you can prove that the bill is still too high, then feel free to get the constitution amended because I can see nothing short of a total ban on civilian possession of firearms that would have excluded a former police captain from being able to possess a firearm.

@ElvisL1ves

It’s the passive-aggressive approach. See, by identifying the problem solely as basic human behavior itself rather than containing the consequences of it, he’s able to avoid the hard work of identifying and living with a solution. He also gets to disdain anyone else’s efforts to actually do something to save lives in the real world, since they’re so foolish as to even try. It’s a very attractive approach to the responsibility-averse.

I’ve proposed licensing and reigistration, which is not likely to go anywhere but is a hell of a lot more likely than repealing the second amendment. I understand that you don’t think anything short of a total ban on guns is likely to have any effect because someone told you so but you will never get what you want, not in your lifetime, not in your grandchildren’s lifetime.

[DragonAsh]

If you actually think ‘300-400,000 lives are saved by guns each year’, you are clearly, clinically, certifiably, utterly and completely insane, and everyone forever more is allowed to point at you and laugh.
Could you even pull up a thousand stories for 2013 of such cases? Could you find a hundred?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

The data on criminal histories of homicide offenders includes (in one data set, disproportionately so) larger metropolitan areas.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Not that it really matters to this discussion but you’re telling me that you don’t know everything but you know enough to say this guy just flipped out?

That’s what you’re saying happened :rolleyes:, by way of absolving yourself for any responsibility for his having a deadly weapon while he did.

I’ve seen talking heads talk about the stand your ground law in Florida, which implied to me that there were some intervening events between the dead guy texting on his phone and the ex-cop killing him.

Yes, popcorn may have been thrown. And now you’re actually telling us that’s an excuse for homicide. Psychopath.

Well, that a good point, the problem here (as in suicides) might be that the access to the lethality of guns turns what may be a less than fatal event into a fatal event.

Right.

Putting aside the constitution (because you’re not proposing gun regulation, you are proposing the criminalaization of gun ownership), we could eliminate guns from the law abiding citizens

Such as retired cops in Florida? That’s what you mean by a law abiding citizen? :rolleyes:

and we would have fewer deaths when a law abiding citizen flips out because they don’t have access to guns. We would also lose every opportunity for defensive gun use by a law abiding citizen.

And many more people would be alive today because of that. The thought is abhorrent to you, in your psychopathy, of course.

Maybe you think it would be worth it and I encourage you to try to get 2/3rds of each house and 3/4ths of the states to repeal the second amendment.

That is exactly what needs to be done, yes. Part of making that happen is making it clear to everyone that the reasons not to are based in delusions (such as the resisting tyranny stuff you so love) and the psychopathy of allowing killing.

Every study (and they have been cited as nauseum in this thread) supports the fact that there is a significant amount of defensive gun use.

No one has denied that it exists, as you’ve been told numerous times but without the ability to get through the voices in your own head.

Extrapolations from that study by credible criminologists have put the number at 300K-400K.

Credible to whom? You? Why is that?

You are assuimg that your particular cure is worse than the disease.

Killing is worse than living, yes. That you find the point debatable is a symptom of your psychopathy.

You have not provided any studies or facts that rebutts the notion that there is a lot of defensive gun use.

Once again, I haven’t claimed there isn’t any, and no one has. Can you get your voices to shut up for a moment and let that through?

The claim that guns lead to a net savings in lives is yours. Yours. And you have no credible data that supports that claim. On the other hand is the vast, and ever-growing, list of tragic killings every fucking day that you sickly find a way to rationalize.

Well, anything is possible but when Australia did it, they didn’t have nearly the level of gun ownership (both among law abiding citizens and among criminals) as we do.

No shit. But it shows it can be done. And more people are alive today because of it.

And its not gun fetishists preventing it, its the constitution.

It’s you fetishists, and the despairing like Mr. Onion, who prevent the constitution from being amended.

I assume that will be his defense.

But is it your defense for him too? Or are you content to claim he wasn’t a law abiding citizen? :rolleyes:

You are very large minority of Americans as being fringey.

Not fringey - mentally ill. Like you. Mental illness is quite common, and this particular form is for some reason especially common in the US>

So provide any data that defesive gun use doesn’t outnumber stupid gun uses like this one.

When the only stories we see from you people are copied from the NRA magazine and have to go back years, and all we have to do is point to the daily news, that’s already done.

I’ve proposed licensing and reigistration, which is not likely to go anywhere

Convenient, that, huh? Never mind that much of that is already in place and wouldn’t have prevented this latest Law Abiding Citizen from killing a man and destroying his family, it also lets you avoid accepting any responsibility for anything. Which is the point you’re evading, once again.

you will never get what you want, not in your lifetime, not in your grandchildren’s lifetime.

What you want, by your refusal to accept any action that would actually accomplish anything, is to keep the killings coming forever. You’re a sick, sick individual and you need help. Meanwhile, you need to turn in your guns - by your own definition, you, as a mentally ill individual, should not be allowed to have any.

[Acewiza]

Elvis has a rather absurd opinion.

[ElvisL1ves]

How’s third grade coming for you? Do you like your teacher?

[Acewiza]

Actually, I believe “asinine” would be the more correct characterization - jack-assinine.

[ElvisL1ves]

That assessment is certainly worth all the credibility you’ve earned on this board.

When you have something for us, anything at all, let us know. We won’t wait up nights, though.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DragonAsh

If you actually think ‘300-400,000 lives are saved by guns each year’, you are clearly, clinically, certifiably, utterly and completely insane, and everyone forever more is allowed to point at you and laugh.
Could you even pull up a thousand stories for 2013 of such cases? Could you find a hundred?

Now you’re asking for hundres if not thousands of anecdotes? About things that MIGHT have happened? Of course not every defensive gun use prevents a murder. Just as every armed robbery or rape does not result in the death of those who are robbed and raped (although most robberies and all rapes involve assault/battery) a defensive gun use that prevents that robbery or rape does not necessarily prevent a murder, only a robbery or rape. There are about 1.2 million violent crimes reported each year. I don’t have statistics for all of them but for robberies (where the incentive to kill the victim is low) the victim is killed about 4 times out of 1000.

Some defensive gun uses that people like Elvis might not consider a defensive gun use are prophylactic. For example, the defensive use of guns during the LA riots probably saved very few lives if people were just willing to let their livelihoods be burned to the ground by rioters; and in the end, very few people were killed by the defensive gun use during the LA riots.

Perhaps you can provide some cite telling us how frequently a previously law abiding citizen that legally possesses a gun flips out and kills someone?

[Acewiza]

@ElvisL1ves

That assessment is certainly worth all the credibility you’ve earned on this board.

When you have something for us, anything at all, let us know. We won’t wait up nights, though.

Your proclivity to hold opinions on 2A, my credibility or await responses to your inane comments is of no concern to me.

How’s that?