Multiple marines, police officers wounded and killed in attack in Chattanooga, TN
219 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Explosions;48224436]Then we need to make people stop putting stock in medieval books and manuscripts.[/QUOTE]
Then we need to give them something else to put stock into. Something powerful.
[QUOTE=OvB;48224286]There's talk of an isis affiliated tweet mentioning Chattanooga just 15 minutes prior, but have yet to see said tweet.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://imgur.com/e9VNEEk[/img]
[QUOTE=OvB;48224362]Do they have as many guns per capita as the US?[/QUOTE]
Woops completely misread the post before yours but I'm not gonna snip.
Switzerland is a pretty good example. Comperable guns per capita but lower violent crime overall. Although most violent crimes committed so involve guns.
But it's really one of the only countries that really applies as far as I know.
Whatever, my img tags aren't working. [url]http://imgur.com/e9VNEEk[/url]
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
Fucking automerge
[QUOTE=OvB;48224362]Do they have as many guns per capita as the US?[/QUOTE]
Yes, actually. Well they did at least. Look at Australia. They had guns out the ass and a good number of mass shootings until they initiated a gun ban. The exact same rhetoric was used to oppose the ban. "Bad guys will get guns anyways", "There are too many of them to properly get rid of"... ect.
Yet they've seen an enormous drop in gun violence and they haven't had a single mass shooting since then. Weird huh?
At some point we have to admit that these kinds of things just don't happen in any other developed countries with even a fraction of the frequency that it does here.
I like guns. I grew up shooting them and I would certainly never shoot someone with them. My guns are kept in a comicly large safe in the garage because I don't want someone taking them and shooting people, but is it reasonable to expect everyone to lock up their guns all the time? Of course not. People get lazy, people disregard the laws that tell them to lock them up. Who is ever going to check on them and their guns to be sure they have them locked up? The law is unenforceable. People should not have access to lethal weapons with the ease they do now.
Look past the MUH FREEDOMS tunnel vision and look at ourselves. People are dying. A LOT of people are dying. And it's because we don't want to take a hard look at a 200+ year old document that said people should be allowed to own guns, which to them was single shot muskets. They did not say everyone should have access to high powered rifles whose only practical purpose is killing other people.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;48224402]Obviously. Why are you worried about gun related violence as opposed to any other type of violence? Do you think that taking gun violence out of the greater body of violent crimes simply reduces violent crime by that same measure? That's not what happened in the UK or Australia.[/QUOTE]
Because gun violence is lethal. Replace the gun with a bat, or a knife or anything else and the lethality goes down significantly.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224579]high powered rifles whose only practical purpose is killing other people.[/QUOTE]
Care to make some examples?
[QUOTE=SKEEA;48224568]Whatever, my img tags aren't working. [url]http://imgur.com/e9VNEEk[/url]
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
Fucking automerge[/QUOTE]
Yah, but:
[url]http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-falsely-reports-that-isis-tweeted-about-chattanooga-before-attack/[/url]
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224579]Well they did at least. Look at Australia. They had guns out the ass and a good number of mass shootings until they initiated a gun ban.[/QUOTE]
This is not true. Gun crime was decreasing at the same rate for years before the ban and continued decreasing at the same rate after. Please stop spreading this misinformation.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224621]An ar-15 with a 20 round magazine has a much higher chance of killing a lot of dudes than a pistol with 18 rounds.
Sure you can say guns are a tool, but they are a tool made for killing, whether it be varmint, people, or whatever.
Yeah some people (myself included) like to shoot targets, cans or whatever else, but I'm 100% willing to give up that right if it means lives are saved in the process.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely no lives are endangered by my AR-15 ergo confiscating it will save none.
Also weapons classified as "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes. Normally it's bolt action hunting rifles, .22 caliber plinkers, and cheap handguns.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224625]Absolutely no lives are endangered by my AR-15 ergo confiscating it will save none.[/QUOTE]
Do you keep it locked up at all times when you aren't using it? Good for you. Do you really expect that every person capable of getting an ar-15 (almost everyone) will keep it locked up at all times when they aren't using it? Guns kill their owners more than they kill criminals threatening their owners.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224617]This is not true. Gun crime was decreasing at the same rate for years before the ban and continued decreasing at the same rate after. Please stop spreading this misinformation.[/QUOTE]
How about the absolute tanking of mass shooting rates?
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224646]Do you keep it locked up at all times when you aren't using it? Good for you. Do you really expect that every person capable of getting an ar-15 (almost everyone) will keep it locked up at all times when they aren't using it? Guns kill their owners more than they kill criminals threatening their owners.[/QUOTE]
No, it's in a $10 gun cabinet with no door along with seven other long rifles and three pistols.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224651]You're driving to the range, on the way you stop at a gas station for some snacks, a guy breaks into your car and you're down one ar-15.
Someone in your town kills a few cops with an ar-15, what a coincidence![/QUOTE]
This insanely unlikely scenario obviously justifies the confiscation of my rifle. I've been enlightened.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224652]How about the absolute tanking of mass shooting rates?[/QUOTE]
What tanking of mass shooting rates? Mass shootings in Australia have continued with effectively the same regularity.
I have a rifle under my bed in a case but it uses an obscure Japanese cartridge you can only buy online for a hundred dollars (which I have yet to do) so I doubt it'll be a harm to anyone any time soon.
Let's just look at some graphs!
[IMG]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/bin/ip13714.f1.jpg[/IMG]
These are graphs of firearm death rates in Australia pre and post the gun ban.
Also, the report this is attached to states that zero mass shootings have occurred in Australia post-ban.
[URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17170183[/URL]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224651]You're driving to the range, on the way you stop at a gas station for some snacks, a guy breaks into your car and you're down one ar-15.
Someone in your town kills a few cops with an ar-15, what a coincidence![/QUOTE]
He could also steal my car and crash into a church van in a high speed chase and kill 13 Mormons but it's not a good reason to ban cars that are harmless when used with non-malicious intent.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224701]Dude, peoples' guns get stolen all the time, it's a far cry from "unlikely scenario".[/quote]
So we should ban something because it's stolen often? Second, a high rate of theft does not mean it's likely to happen to any particular individual. Why punish [B]me[/B]? I'm not convinced by this argument.
[quote]Cars weren't made to kill things.
You can't hide a car in your coat pocket to take to a shopping mall to kill everyone in the food court.[/QUOTE]
You can't hide an AR-15 in your coat pocket either.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224664]No, it's in a $10 gun cabinet with no door along with seven other long rifles and three pistols.
This insanely unlikely scenario obviously justifies the confiscation of my rifle. I've been enlightened.
What tanking of mass shooting rates? Mass shootings in Australia have continued with effectively the same regularity.[/QUOTE]
In the 18 years prior to the ban there were 13 mass shootings. Since then there has been 1. Google some facts before you go with your gut and refute things you don't want to believe.
Suicide rates stayed steady. Homocide rates did not:
[IMG]http://imgur.com/OCYfYTK[/IMG]
[IMG]http://imgur.com/GCT6V33[/IMG]
If you would like to refute me with facts please feel free.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224706]So we should ban something because it's stolen often?
You can't hide an AR-15 in your coat pocket either.[/QUOTE]
No, but he isn't wrong about guns being stolen a lot.
[url]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf[/url]
And you can get a gun into a group of people way easier than a car.
Even if you couldn't, we will never ban cars because our economy rests on them, and it doesn't rest on guns, so the comparison is a bit silly.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224719]In the 18 years prior to the ban there were 13 mass shootings. Since then there has been 1. Google some facts before you go with your gut and refute things you don't want to believe.
Suicide rates stayed steady. Homocide rates did not:
[IMG]http://imgur.com/OCYfYTK[/IMG]
[IMG]http://imgur.com/GCT6V33[/IMG]
If you would like to refute me with facts please feel free.[/QUOTE]
No, you're right - I made a mistake there. Mass [B]killings[/B] however have continued at the same rate - usually, it seems, carried out with fire, knives, and hammers, so I don't think the guns are the problem. Actually, it looks like mass killings have gone up recently.
And the graphs you're using show pretty plainly that the rate of firearm crime was already decreasing and continued to decrease at the same rate.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224621]An ar-15 with a 20 round magazine has a much higher chance of killing a lot of dudes than a pistol with 18 rounds.[/QUOTE]
Yet it's not a high-powered rifle, and it has other purposes than killing people.
Also it's funny you should mention low-capacity pistols as something less dangerous, considering Cho had absolutely no issues killing a lot of dudes with those.
[QUOTE]I'm 100% willing to give up that right if it means lives are saved in the process.[/QUOTE]
Now consider the kinds of people who want you to give up that right. You have fools babbling about "ghost guns" and "shoulder things that go up", you have hypocritical douches like Eric Holder, Leland Yee, and so on. If you really think those people should hold any amount of power, you're in dire need of a reality check.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224734]The fact you're arguing semantics tells me you're not very confident in your side of the argument's facts.[/QUOTE]
You want to ban "high powered rifles like AR-15s" but can't come up with a scenario in which one is likely to be used in a crime. You have such a weak argument I'm doing you a service by going after semantics.
Gun crime in the US is mostly committed with "innocent" rifles, shotguns and handguns, [B]not[/B] "assault weapons". The AWB was strictly a feel good measure. Do I need to point out that the definition of an assault weapon includes my 100 year old Mauser C96? It's too vague and too ignorant.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224651]You're driving to the range, on the way you stop at a gas station for some snacks, a guy breaks into your car and you're down one ar-15.
Someone in your town kills a few cops with an ar-15, what a coincidence![/QUOTE]
Could you please post a scenario that isn't based on Rube Goldberg logic?
[QUOTE=Aide;48224390]Where there are more guns there is more gun related violence. It's such an obvious answer why even ask the question.[/QUOTE]
Interesting assumption. Explain European countries like Switzerland and Iceland.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224751]You want to ban "high powered rifles like AR-15s" but can't come up with a scenario in which one is likely to be used in a crime. You have such a weak argument I'm doing you a service by going after semantics.
Gun crime in the US is mostly committed with "innocent" rifles and shotguns, [B]not[/B] assault weapons. The AWB was strictly a feel good measure.[/QUOTE]
Aren't most gun crimes committed with hand guns?
It's not the guns that are the problem. It's the people that use the guns that either have no training, are mentally ill, or have very extreme views. The safest person can handle a MG42, while a exceptional person shouldn't even have a .22.
Of coarse theres really no use for a mg42 out of novelty or war situation, but it'd be cool to own one.
[QUOTE=OvB;48224768]Aren't most gun crimes committed with hand guns?[/QUOTE]
I missed them. Yes, I think handguns are probably the most used in crime, but I was mainly focusing on the assault weapon thing - handguns usually don't meet that definition.
Keep in mind that "gun crime" includes a lot of non-violent scenarios.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224782]A guy breaks into your house and takes your gun and kills people.[/QUOTE]
"not based on Rube Goldberg logic"
Come up with an argument that explains how owners of legal firearms are doing something wrong to justify mass confiscation.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;48224262]Because gun control doesn't prevent criminals/terrorists getting their hands on guns if they're determined enough? I'd wager that the weapon used in this shooting wasn't acquired legally.
Britain's probably a special case in terms of firearms law, it's a lot easier to regulate what's coming in and out of the country because of the fact it's an island. Of course some are going to get through, same with any prohibited goods, but I'd be willing to wager that gun crime in the UK would be quite a lot more common if it were part of the continent.
As for the US, I don't know of many examples of CCers/gun owners in general thwarting violent crimes, not at nearly a high enough rate to vindicate that whole side of the argument - not that it doesn't happen but a pistol on your hip is only as valuable as you are prepared to use it.
The one thing I will say this goes to show is how effective the NSA & friends are at preventing terrorism, especially when it was supposedly fucking tweeted about in advance.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Leon;48223971]anti-gun legislation spits in the face of logic and individual rights
i really need to stop trying to automerge[/QUOTE]
these arguments are not supported by research.
a [URL="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703"]study[/URL] conducted by researchers from UC Berkeley and John Hopkins University found that after Connecticut passed "permit-to-purchase" gun-control legislation, gun-related homicides dropped farther and faster than they did in other states. they even created a statistical model of what connecticut's homicide rates might have been if the law wasn't passed, and found that the law led to a 40% reduction. more info on the study's methodology and specifics can be found [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/12/gun-killings-fell-by-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law/?tid=sm_fb"]here[/URL].
the presence of more guns doesn't decrease crime either. in fact, according to a [URL="http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html"]study[/URL] conducted by doctors and researchers with Harvard Medical School, higher levels of gun ownership actually lead to higher firearm homicide rates. this is corroborated by [URL="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409"]two[/URL] [URL="http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/20/6/424.abstract?sid=30a4f9cc-d92f-4a89-812d-087d1404c7b3"]studies[/URL] conducted by Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health and others, which come to the same conclusions. the follow-up study in particular tells us that homicide rates increase as gun ownership increases, not the other way around. [I]another[/I] [URL="http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390"]study[/URL] published by the American Medical Association holds the same trend.
of course, all of these studies involve correlation and cannot completely prove causation. unfortunately, the best way to prove causation, i.e. more research, has been blocked by pro-gun advocates who are afraid that science will prove them wrong. the NRA lobbied a law into congress in 1996 that banned the federal funding of gun research, and even after the ban was lifted two years ago, fear and underfunding leave the CDC unwilling to investigate the issue further.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firewarrior;48224763]Interesting assumption. Explain European countries like Switzerland and Iceland.[/QUOTE]
switzerland is a bad example because it has mandatory military service which means that most people have service rifles even though they don't have ammo at home
they're essentially souvenirs
Even in cases where confiscation has reduced gun crime (which can include improper storage or transport of a firearm) it does not have a meaningful effect on rates of violent crime. Firearms are not whispering in anyone's ears and convincing sane people to go on killing sprees, and the argument that "they make crime more accessible" is not a convincing one to me, either, because someone motivated to commit murder is going to do it with or without a firearm - this has been fairly effectively proven by violent crime statistics.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224820]Don't care about the other purposes of guns in terms of talking crime, they were invented solely as a replacement for bows and crossbows in military use and are still to this day mostly used to kill or threaten people. I mention pistols as less dangerous as they are lower caliber and getting shot by one is less lethal than you'd think, but they are still deadly.
Also I don't care about the gun legislation people, would it really be that difficult if congress just passed some gun legislation without "giving power" to those people?[/QUOTE]
[quote]and are still to this day mostly used to kill or threaten people.[/quote]
Go sit in the corner and think about how wrong you are.
[QUOTE=OvB;48224768]Aren't most gun crimes committed with hand guns?[/QUOTE]
Yes. I really don't think a long gun ban would be that effective. It is pistols that I think hold the highest danger to the public. They don't have a practical purpose beyond homicide.
I am not counting going to the shooting range and other fun activities as practical purposes because that argument allows a lot of really useless stuff to be considered useful.
You can't hunt with a pistol. You could but you'd be an idiot and it's illegal most places since it will usually just injure the animal, not kill it, and that's pretty cruel. You aren't really going to revolt against your oppressive government with a bunch of pistols. They are easy to conceal. They are easy to steal if you think about how common it is for people to leave their gun in their nightstand or some other unlocked place. The size of long guns makes leaving them somewhere in the open impractical.
Also to whoever was arguing that ar-15's do things other than kill they legally don't. They fall under the small caliber hunting laws that prevent people from hunting with pistols. the .223 is less likely to kill the animal so you can't hunt. I'm not sure what else you would do with them besides that. You could get an AR-10 and hunt with that but then it isn't an ar-15 is it?
You can hunt with AR-15s in Texas, I don't know about other places. And there are no laws preventing you from target shooting with AR-15s, which is all mine has ever done. I can promise you mine has never killed a living thing. So yes, they can do other things than kill.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.