Not everyone agrees with you
And here’s what we’re hoping to accomplish
I was responding to “I don’t trust your source as far as I can throw it,…” if you are going to attack my 'source" you have to specify which source you are attacking. If you dont, i am free to assume you are attacking the actual cite, not the sources the cite is based upon.
However, I am pretty sure begbert didnt really have any real issues with the source, since all of that is easily confirmed. Just wanted to throw a little Ad hominem in there. Knowing the poster like I do, I gave his Ad hominem attack all the response it deserved.
In any case, everything in that cite is easily confirmed.
They dont want to stop mass shootings. They (in a weird backwards way) LIKE mass shootings, since every mass shooting means another surge to ban guns.
Of course most murders are committed with cheap handguns, not assault weapons or “semi-autos”*. But those mass shootings committed with a AR15 clone get so much media attention and so much public demand to “do something” that the "gun grabbers’ will cheerfully use that media attention and public ire to pass any sort of gun control they can. ANYthing to harass and annoy legit gun owners- because all gun owners are murderers, dont cha know?
- altho a cheap handgun can certainly be a semi-auto.
Why? Read obbn excellent post right above yours.
Assault weapons arent the problem. They are maybe responsible for around 2% of gun murders.
Certainly the precedent- that at least some classes of guns can be removed entirely from civilian ownership- would set the stage for then moving the goalposts until we’re down to Fudd guns and maybe .22 target revolvers.
Unlike gun lovers who really hate mass shootings because the bad publicity might make it harder to buy their toys.
I’ve seen a couple of the anti-gun loudmouths on this board exhibit scarcely concealed delight over a mass shooting because it “proved” they were “right.” Antis aren’t the least bit above climbing atop a pile of corpses to exploit heightened emotions.
I’m a bit more concerned with the fact that we have a ‘pile of corpses’ to begin with.
Does that not concern you?
Sure. So let’s repeal the 1st ad so that Mass shooters are no longer encouraged by the media attention they will get. There’s a study by a noted sociologist that media attention and
glorification" of the killers at Columbine let the the increase in school shootings.
We know gun control wont work, lets try media control.
Or just accept the fact that these horrors are very rare and a tiny blip on the overall crime statistics.
While any particular massacre is “rare,” the fact is that about 45% of all American deaths in the 15-24 age group are caused by guns.
This is more of a statement on our overall crime statistics made possible by your preferred gun laws than it is the magnitude of the mass shooting horrors made possible by your preferred gun laws.
OTOH, you did say out loud that 20 massacred 1st graders is a “tiny blip”.
The sad thing is, you’re right. It should horrify you that 20 massacred 1st graders is a tiny blip in the sea of murders that our gun culture encourages. Somehow it doesn’t, though, does it?
Oh joy, just 5 minutes ago, my company’s HR department announced a 4 hour active shooter awareness seminar. I feel so lucky that I get to live in a country where I have the opportunity to learn about active shooters. Thank you all!
Sure, but most are suicides and including suicides as "gun deaths’ is bogus. Suicide is a another problem all by itself, not having to do with high crime rates. Japan has virtually no guns and a high suicide rate.
That still leaves around 10,000 murders a year due to guns- which is far too many. However, assault weapons do not make up a significant number of those murders, maybe 2%.
We could wave a magic wand and remove all the privately held 'assault weapons" and you wouldn’t note that 10,000 go down.
Most murders are committed by handguns.
“Your”? Why do you attribute gun laws to me?
Within the Constitution, there is no way to significantly reduce gun crime or mass shootings. Sure, we could repeal the 2nd, but we could also repeal the 1st, too.
Or the 5th and other amendments which protect criminals.
Oh, bullshit. You’re citing the actual authority, not its transmitter. And what someone else says in response to you doesn’t change that.
It seems like every thread where I run into you these days, you’re being an example of how not to cite. Do better. If you don’t know how, then learn.
It’s so easy to attack cites when you dont bother to use any, isnt it?
I’ll say it. As far as risks to the well-being of 1st graders go, gun massacres don’t even register. It’s certainly not an event to base policy decisions around. At least not rational ones.
People, even or perhaps especially on this board are really, really bad at risk assessment. Basically, the talking point there was to demonstrate how evil the pro-gun folks are…I mean, they are saying that 20 dead children (think of the CHILDREN) are only a ‘blip’…the monsters! But the reality is as you say…it’s a blip. 1200 school traffic related deaths occur in the US, on average, annually. Bus’s are fairly deaths free, but motor vehicle deaths on school grounds are…well, not common, making up less than .4% of motor vehicle deaths, but 1200 is a lot more deaths than the average for mass shootings at schools (I don’t have a percentage, but the average depending on your definition of mass shootings for all ages looks like around 120 per year…and the Las Vegas shooting seems to skew that higher than it really is). Even if we double that it’s still far less than most other things that are likely to kill…well, anyone. It’s a blip. Even actual shootings, regardless of ‘mass’ or not are very low probability events, especially considering the number of guns in the US and sheer number of folks who own one. Millions of owners, 100’s of millions of guns and we are talking about 11K or so, once we take out suicides. This includes accidents, mass shootings, and criminal activity. It’s a staggeringly low number, if folks would engage their brains and really think about what the numbers say.
But this entire subject has gotten so emotional and politically charged that basically people can’t think clearly. And I say that about both sides. The pro-gun folks are so worried about a slippery slope that they can’t see that their actions are actually shifting the pendulum back the other way against them. The anti-gun folks can’t look at gun deaths in any sort of perspective and judge the risk relative to other things that society does that actually have higher risks, if we were indeed talking about deaths and saving lives. But we clearly aren’t talking about that, as can be seen in this thread and the endless ones that came before it. Sadly, we COULD do real, practical things that could mitigate the deaths. We’ve done them for alcohol and tobacco in fact, and we have mitigated the deaths. We’ve done it for pedestrian safety around schools and in cars with seat belts and even with drivers licenses. We could do similar things with guns. IF…we were actually talking about real, rational and well thought out regulations geared towards mitigation, not towards eventual bans. But we aren’t going to do that because both sides are entrenched. This issue is a microcosm of our entire lashed up political system. It’s like when I call a vendor on a multi-vendor issue…basically, both sides are pointing their finger squarely at the other. Sometimes with some justification, but really, WHO…THE FUCK…CARES! All I want is to fix the issue. And on this, all I want is for the two sides to fucking figure it out, and figure out how to work together. Clearly, we have a long way to go still…
(and with that, I’ll get off my drunk soap box and await the flames)
Note that I am NOT a gun-control advocate. To the contrary, when we see what sort of Potus the gunnists and rednecks have inflicted on us as is, imagine what retribution they will go for if their precious guns are taken away. (Present company excepted of course.)
But the arguments of gunnists are so wrong-headed and self-serving, they deserve rebuttal.
The vast majority of murders are NOT committed by Smith & Wessons, so there’s no sense in banning those. Most murders are NOT by Glocks, so that brand should be exempted also. Sig Sauers? Popular perhaps, but the P365 and P320 can each be individually exempted by the above argument. And let’s all agree that it would be foolish to ban Rugers — seldom the murder device of choice.
I thought we had an enlightened society which looks beyond the SINGLE biggest problem, or problems which affect only a majority. Kaposi’s sarcoma is rare, but scientists still seek treatments and cures.
Imagine if we said “Gays are a small portion of society — why give them rights?” Only a few hundred innocent black men are shot dead by cowardly cops each year — too small a number to worry about. A thousand asylum-seeking infants separated from their parents? I’ll worry when the number tops a million.
The fact is we now have millions of schoolchildren in fear for their lives, roused by stupid statements by Trump et al, doing drills to continually remind them that school is a dangerous place. But we are to ignore their plaints to ensure that punks like Zimmerman have the right to hunt coon?
Cite? Methinks you’ve assumed that ALL murders and suicides are by gun.
Are the gun laws we have today the laws you think we should have, or should they be changed in a way that can reasonably be expected to reduce gun deaths?
I say the gun laws you prefer enable criminals to commit tens of thousands of homicides a year and enable sick bastards to commit mass murder.
Roused by irrationality. The same flavor that, when combined with do-something-ism in adults, gives us TSA security theater, the bizarre extremes of stranger danger, GMO labeling laws, and this gem if a thread: Down with "free range parenting"! - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
The solution to irrationality in children is education. For adults it’s education and mockery.