"But Chicago, Chicago, Chicago!"

[midnightpulp]

I'd like to ask why conservatives default to this deflection every time a mass shooting occurs (Hannity is doing it now. Yes, I was morbidly curious enough to see how this asshole would spin it)? Cub probably answered the question that it just muddies the waters and confuses debate, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Anyhow, I'll guess what I think conservatives are hoping to achieve.

- They believe focusing on mass shootings is selective outrage and that if Liberals "really cared" about gun violence, they would be incensed 24/7 about inner city gang violence.

False analogy. It's basic human psychology to be more outraged and fearful at events where innocent people are targeted in such places as schools, churches, movie theaters, and Walmarts than it is when you read/hear about gang members killing each other. Yes, unfortunately innocents get caught in drive by crossfire and the like, but there is something just more viscerally horrifying about a guy walking into a Walmart and indiscriminately shooting innocents than a gang shootout. The Christchurch shooting was on a whole 'nother level of deranged.

- They think Liberals avoid talking about inner city gang violence because they happen in "Liberal cities and gun free zones."

Just :lol. Is the fact lost on conservatives that "gun free zones" don't give a shit about black market weapons brought into them? And we'll be a bit politically incorrect here. Liberal cities are typically inhabited by more African-Americans, African-Americans tend to vote democrat. African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of murder by gun. And no, I don't think it's due to any inherent moral deficiency in blacks. We have a pretty good idea of the sociological factors (factors that African-Americans experienced more severely than others) at work that contribute to violent behavior, and ironically enough, many of those sociological factors were created by conservative policy. So to try to suggest that Liberal policy=violence is nonsensical.

And why would conservatives want liberals talking about inner city gun violence? It'll just give libs MORE ammunition (no pun) in the gun control debate. Many of those black market weapons were once "legal weapons." Is this fact lost of them?

I simply don't get the purpose of the "But Chicago" deflection. Help me out.

[RD2191]

Because they've got nothing else.

[Thread]

Because it's there & handy for times like this. We needed it & took it.

& Dayton is turning for us as well.

[Spurminator]

It's not built in logic, it's built on soothing angry conservatives' need to still view libs as the bad guys when one of their own commits a racist terror attack.

That's why you won't get a thoughtful response to this. But it's a good post anyway.

[Thread]

It's not built in logic, it's built on soothing angry conservatives' need to still view libs as the bad guys when one of their own commits a racist terror attack.

That's why you won't get a thoughtful response to this. But it's a good post anyway.

You're stove up because we have a foothold with Chicago anytime we need it---it's there. Without it, we didn't know that Dayton was going to be lucky for us. We had to "Chicago" the battlefield. Dayton came late and worked out...Warren is on the spot there, thank Christ.

[midnightpulp]

It's not built in logic, it's built on soothing angry conservatives' need to still view libs as the bad guys when one of their own commits a racist terror attack.

That's why you won't get a thoughtful response to this. But it's a good post anyway.

I can respect Cub's response. At least he's honest about why they use it, as a deflection his side "needed." But we know Cub sees everything as a game, a troll. But many conservatives probably do believe they're somehow retaking a moral high ground by mentioning Chicago.

[pgardn]

I can respect Cub's response. At least he's honest about why they use it, as a deflection his side "needed." But we know Cub sees everything as a game, a troll. But many conservatives probably do believe they're somehow retaking a moral high ground by mentioning Chicago.

DMC

[DarrinS]

It's because gun violence in Chicago is perpetrated by predominantly those who aren't licenced to carry (hence gun laws wouldn't work), and the city is a Dem stronghold.

But, as I've said, I don't include gang banger gun violence in "mass shooting" incidents.

[Thread]

I can respect Cub's response. At least he's honest about why they use it, as a deflection his side "needed." But we know Cub sees everything as a game, a troll. But many conservatives probably do believe they're somehow retaking a moral high ground by mentioning Chicago.

Correct on my pathology, midst, but, there ain't a real moral high ground anywhere along the battle lines. But, you're right, (people) believe there is, with a straight face no less. People (need) it. I don't. I see thru it and see no need to fool myself.

[Thread]

It's because gun violence in Chicago is perpetrated by predominantly those who aren't licenced to carry (hence gun laws wouldn't work), and the city is a Dem stronghold.

But, as I've said, I don't include gang banger gun violence in "mass shooting" incidents.

Bingo! & the victims on both sides of the gun are black. Trump was going to clean it out upon taking office. Remember? Gonna send federal troops in, etc. Uh, uh. (Chicago) told him:::"Walk away, this isn't for you."

& he walked away.

[midnightpulp]

It's because gun violence in Chicago is perpetrated by predominantly those who aren't licenced to carry (hence gun laws wouldn't work), and the city is a Dem stronghold.

But, as I've said, I don't include gang banger gun violence in "mass shooting" incidents.

And it's a false analogy in any event, as I think the solutions to gang violence are different than they are for mass shooting violence. Gun control would limit mass shootings far more than they would limit gang violence, since the former are often purchased legally by people who I think are too young for gun ownership responsibility. It's unlikely these socially stunted "incels" would travel to some inner city and buy a black market firearm. They probably wouldn't know how to find a black market. And most likely, they would probably be robbed anyhow. People like this El Paso fuck would be fresh prey in the "hood."

Solutions to gang violence are more about dissolving the drug market, whether that be through creating less addicts and thus customers, legalization, etc.

[TSA]

I'd like to ask why conservatives default to this deflection every time a mass shooting occurs (Hannity is doing it now. Yes, I was morbidly curious enough to see how this asshole would spin it)? Cub probably answered the question that it just muddies the waters and confuses debate, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Anyhow, I'll guess what I think conservatives are hoping to achieve.

- They believe focusing on mass shootings is selective outrage and that if Liberals "really cared" about gun violence, they would be incensed 24/7 about inner city gang violence.

False analogy. It's basic human psychology to be more outraged and fearful at events where innocent people are targeted in such places as schools, churches, movie theaters, and Walmarts than it is when you read/hear about gang members killing each other. Yes, unfortunately innocents get caught in drive by crossfire and the like, but there is something just more viscerally horrifying about a guy walking into a Walmart and indiscriminately shooting innocents than a gang shootout. The Christchurch shooting was on a whole 'nother level of deranged.

- They think Liberals avoid talking about inner city gang violence because they happen in "Liberal cities and gun free zones."

Just :lol. Is the fact lost on conservatives that "gun free zones" don't give a shit about black market weapons brought into them? And we'll be a bit politically incorrect here. Liberal cities are typically inhabited by more African-Americans, African-Americans tend to vote democrat. African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of murder by gun. And no, I don't think it's due to any inherent moral deficiency in blacks. We have a pretty good idea of the sociological factors (factors that African-Americans experienced more severely than others) at work that contribute to violent behavior, and ironically enough, many of those sociological factors were created by conservative policy. So to try to suggest that Liberal policy=violence is nonsensical.

And why would conservatives want liberals talking about inner city gun violence? It'll just give libs MORE ammunition (no pun) in the gun control debate. Many of those black market weapons were once "legal weapons." Is this fact lost of them?

I simply don't get the purpose of the "But Chicago" deflection. Help me out.

It is selective outrage and the numbers back it. I don’t buy the “more outraged” bit. Gun homicide is gun homicide. Mass shootings are a tiny percentage of gun homicides, AR15’s are a tiny percentage of firearms used in homicides, yet all the outrage is focused there. Focusing your outrage on mass shootings and AR-15 style rifles won’t put a dent in US gun violence. If people from both sides really cared the focus would be on investing in these violent cities, installing long term job opportunities, fixing the broken home/school system, and getting as many illegally owned handguns off the streets as possible.

[DarrinS]

And it's a false analogy in any event, as I think the solutions to gang violence are different than they are for mass shooting violence. Gun control would limit mass shootings far more than they would limit gang violence, since the former are often purchased legally by people who I think are too young for gun ownership responsibility. It's unlikely these socially stunted "incels" would travel to some inner city and buy a black market firearm. They probably wouldn't know how to find a black market. And most likely, they would probably be robbed anyhow. People like this El Paso fuck would be fresh prey in the "hood."

Solutions to gang violence are more about dissolving the drug market, where that be through creating less addicts and thus customers, legalization, etc.


Not disagreeing with any of what you posted. Just trying to answer your original question.

[Thread]

It is selective outrage and the numbers back it. I don’t buy the “more outraged” bit. Gun homicide is gun homicide. Mass shootings are a tiny percentage of gun homicides, AR15’s are a tiny percentage of firearms used in homicides, yet all the outrage is focused there. Focusing your outrage on mass shootings and AR-15 style rifles won’t put a dent in US gun violence. If people from both sides really cared the focus would be on investing in these violent cities, installing long term job opportunities, fixing the broken home/school system, and getting as many illegally owned handguns off the streets as possible.

Tell it, TSA. Testify!!!

[midnightpulp]

It is selective outrage and the numbers back it. I don’t buy the “more outraged” bit. Gun homicide is gun homicide. Mass shootings are a tiny percentage of gun homicides, AR15’s are a tiny percentage of firearms used in homicides, yet all the outrage is focused there. Focusing your outrage on mass shootings and AR-15 style rifles won’t put a dent in US gun violence. If people from both sides really cared the focus would be on investing in these violent cities, installing long term job opportunities, fixing the broken home/school system, and getting as many illegally owned handguns off the streets as possible.

It's not zero sum. You can be outraged at both events, but yes, there's just something more psychologically troubling about a guy live streaming himself killing 50 people (I know this wasn't a domestic event) or strolling into a public space and killing innocents than a gang shootout. A death is death, but certain methods are just more horrifying. It's like if I read about a murder. Someone murdered with a single shot to the head won't disturb me as much as reading about somehow who was dismembered while they were still alive. The circumstances around these two deaths aren't equal.

Furthermore, gang violence isn't reported nationally to the extent of a mass shooting, but at the local level, there usually is outrage. I was telling DMC about an incident in my city that resulted in an 11 year old being caught in gang crossfire. A lot of outrage and call for laws, solutions, resulting in a law being named after her. And gun violence indeed declined.

[Pavlov]

It is selective outrage and the numbers back it. I don’t buy the “more outraged” bit. Gun homicide is gun homicide. Mass shootings are a tiny percentage of gun homicides, AR15’s are a tiny percentage of firearms used in homicides, yet all the outrage is focused there. Focusing your outrage on mass shootings and AR-15 style rifles won’t put a dent in US gun violence. If people from both sides really cared the focus would be on investing in these violent cities, installing long term job opportunities, fixing the broken home/school system, and getting as many illegally owned handguns off the streets as possible.I personally don't think an incel should be able to shoot 40 people in 30 seconds.

Seems pretty outrageous tbh.

[ducks]

I could fix it in 1 year
Former president from there does not care about where he from
He could be mayor there and fix it
He has no answers for that Windy City

[Pavlov]

I could fix it in 1 year
Former president from there does not care about where he from
He could be mayor there and fix it
He has no answers for that Windy CityWhat is Trump doing about it?

[Thread]

What is Trump doing about it?

Chicago told him to shut up & stay out of Chicago. He shut up & is staying out. They're on their own.

[spurraider21]

What is Trump doing about it?
https://thegolfnewsnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/donald-trump-golf.jpg

[midnightpulp]

I personally don't think an incel should be able to shoot 40 people in 30 seconds.

Seems pretty outrageous tbh.

Me and TSA did talk about this before, and he does agree incels shouldn't be allowed to purchase these firearms. I do think he believes in stringent background checks and even raising the age limit. His argument concerning the AR-15 is that it's the best home defense firearm, especially one that is effective for females. And yeah, fact is women are physically at a man's mercy most of the time, so I don't think it's a bad idea if they have access to an equalizer, so to speak. He elaborated that other weapons, like larger caliber handguns and shotguns have too much recoil and too easily penetrate walls, meaning more chance of, say, hitting your sleeping child in his room.

I think the argument is sound.

[Thread]

https://thegolfnewsnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/donald-trump-golf.jpg

Oh-my-God.

[Spurminator]

His argument concerning the AR-15 is that it's the best home defense firearm, especially one that is effective for females. And yeah, fact is women are physically at a man's mercy most of the time, so I don't think it's a bad idea if they have access to an equalizer, so to speak. He elaborated that other weapons, like larger caliber handguns and shotguns have too much recoil and too easily penetrate walls, meaning more chance of, say, hitting your sleeping child in his room.

I think the argument is sound.

That is a pretty elaborate hypothetical.

How do women protect themselves in countries that don't give them access to such weapons?

[Pavlov]

Me and TSA did talk about this before, and he does agree incels shouldn't be allowed to purchase these firearms. I do think he believes in stringent background checks and even raising the age limit. His argument concerning the AR-15 is that it's the best home defense firearm, especially one that is effective for females. And yeah, fact is women are physically at a man's mercy most of the time, so I don't think it's a bad idea if they have access to an equalizer, so to speak. He elaborated that other weapons, like larger caliber handguns and shotguns have too much recoil and too easily penetrate walls, meaning more chance of, say, hitting your sleeping child in his room.

I think the argument is sound.I think women can practice and learn how to use all manner of firearms. If we're dreaming up scenarios might as well armor plate the baby's room.

[TSA]

It's not zero sum. You can be outraged at both events, but yes, there's just something more psychologically troubling about a guy live streaming himself killing 50 people (I know this wasn't a domestic event) or strolling into a public space and killing innocents than a gang shootout. A death is death, but certain methods are just more horrifying. It's like if I read about a murder. Someone murdered with a single shot to the head won't disturb me as much as reading about somehow who was dismembered while they were still alive. The circumstances around these two deaths aren't equal.

Furthermore, gang violence isn't reported nationally to the extent of a mass shooting, but at the local level, there usually is outrage. I was telling DMC about an incident in my city that resulted in an 11 year old being caught in gang crossfire. A lot of outrage and call for laws, solutions, resulting in a law being named after her. And gun violence indeed declined.

What’s more psychologically troubling to you doesn’t really matter to the numbers. It’s selective outrage and you admit it. Call it for what it is, no shame in that. The pictures of dead kids rip me apart, but that doesn’t change the fact that 10,000+ more people died the same way that year. This isn’t all directed at you, just trying to help you understand why some people react how they do to mass shooting outrage.

[midnightpulp]

That is a pretty elaborate hypothetical.

How do women protect themselves in countries that don't give them access to such weapons?

Personally, I do agree the threat of some kind of home invasion that is done where you'll have the time to retrieve your weapon and fight off the killers is a remote, remote possibility, and for me, the remoteness of that possibility isn't worth buying a firearm over. And I don't live in some protected gated community. But I'm not going to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't be fearful of and how they should personally allay that fear.

I'm sure those countries do have people who are fearful of the "remote possibility" and would like the option to have something like an AR-15 at hand.

[Spurminator]

But I'm not going to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't be fearful of and how they should personally allay that fear.

What if that person fears an incident of 50+ attackers simultaneously and feels they would need a fully automatic firearm to ward off such a threat?

We have to have limits. Currently, it would seem firearms with the capability to kill many people in a short amount of time have more frequent and unique application in mass shootings than in protection from home invasion.

[Pavlov]

What’s more psychologically troubling to you doesn’t really matter to the numbers. It’s selective outrage and you admit it. Call it for what it is, no shame in that. The pictures of dead kids rip me apart, but that doesn’t change the fact that 10,000+ more people died the same way that year. This isn’t all directed at you, just trying to help you understand why some people react how they do to mass shooting outrage.One guy shot 40 people in 30 seconds.

[midnightpulp]

What’s more psychologically troubling to you doesn’t really matter to the numbers. It’s selective outrage and you admit it. Call it for what it is, no shame in that. The pictures of dead kids rip me apart, but that doesn’t change the fact that 10,000+ more people died the same way that year. This isn’t all directed at you, just trying to help you understand why some people react how they do to mass shooting outrage.

Sure, but I guess I'm trying to say that my selective outrage doesn't have any kind of political slant to it. I think some conservatives believe many on the left focus on the mass shootings out of political conveniency, when I believe that it's just because mass shootings are more disturbing.

[pgardn]

What’s more psychologically troubling to you doesn’t really matter to the numbers. It’s selective outrage and you admit it. Call it for what it is, no shame in that. The pictures of dead kids rip me apart, but that doesn’t change the fact that 10,000+ more people died the same way that year. This isn’t all directed at you, just trying to help you understand why some people react how they do to mass shooting outrage.

Then the numbers should tell us we need to do more about automobiles and not worry about guns so much.

[Donald Sterling.]

https://d2u3dcdbebyaiu.cloudfront.net/uploads/atch_img/865/de96dd4f1f6439b4202767f390d81959.jpeg

[pgardn]

derp

derp

[Donald Sterling.]

Oh sorry, i forgot it's a crime of poverty when negros do it :cry

Black mass shooters don't seem to make national news for some reason.

[Pavlov]

Oh sorry, i forgot it's a crime of poverty when negros do it :cryYou forgot you were derp.

[Spurminator]

It's always stuck with me that, in Dallas in 2016, you had a bunch of counter protesters walking around sporting AR-15's and other kinds of high capacity guns... and when someone actually started firing on people, the CORRECT RESPONSE (as acknowledged even by gun people) was to find the nearest cop and hand your gun over.

If that isn't proof that those stupid toys are just for show and nothing more, I don't know what is.

[midnightpulp]

What if that person fears an incident of 50+ attackers simultaneously and feels they would need a fully automatic firearm to ward off such a threat?

This is the slippery slope fallacy here. Furthermore, echoing TSA's description of the AR-15, a feature of it is its low wall penetration, which would make it a safer option than other firearm solutions. We can say a machine gun is a non-starter because when defending yourself against a potential 50 invaders, you might kill innocents across the street, which is unacceptable.

Also, what if I was a person who lost a loved one in home invasion situation where access to a firearm would've saved their lives? I personally vowed to never let that happen again. Should I be denied access to the most (reasonable) effective home defense firearm?

Now that said, I'm taking TSA's description of the AR-15 in good faith. When I suggested low recoil, low penetration weapons like the 9mm handgun, he said it doesn't have the stopping power. Weapons like the .357 and shotguns, too much recoil and not enough rounds. If there's any kind of objective study out there that demonstrates a firearm that has the same effectiveness as the AR, while being lower caliber and having a smaller magazine, it'd be interesting.

[pgardn]

It's always stuck with me that, in Dallas in 2016, you had a bunch of counter protesters walking around sporting AR-15's and other kinds of high capacity guns... and when someone actually started firing on people, the CORRECT RESPONSE (as acknowledged even by gun people) was to find the nearest cop and hand your gun over.

If that isn't proof that those stupid toys are just for show and nothing more, I don't know what is.

I forgot about that.
Common sense prevailed.

[midnightpulp]

It's always stuck with me that, in Dallas in 2016, you had a bunch of counter protesters walking around sporting AR-15's and other kinds of high capacity guns... and when someone actually started firing on people, the CORRECT RESPONSE (as acknowledged even by gun people) was to find the nearest cop and hand your gun over.

If that isn't proof that those stupid toys are just for show and nothing more, I don't know what is.

You're right. No sense in having that weapon as an eternal personal defense solution. It's supposed to be for the home. The debate around it, the debate we're having, is if it's prudent to allow purchase of it? I don't mind females, the elderly, or the otherwise physically impaired to have access to the best defense solution there is if they feel they need it. I would welcome a lower caliber, lower mag firearm that is just as effective.

[pgardn]

This is the slippery slope fallacy here. Furthermore, echoing TSA's description of the AR-15, a feature of it is its low wall penetration, which would make it a safer option than other firearm solutions. We can say a machine gun is a non-starter because when defending yourself against a potential 50 invaders, you might kill innocents across the street, which is unacceptable.

Also, what if I was a person who lost a loved one in home invasion situation where access to a firearm would've saved their lives? I personally vowed to never let that happen again. Should I be denied access to the most (reasonable) effective home defense firearm?

Now that said, I'm taking TSA's description of the AR-15 in good faith. When I suggested low recoil, low penetration weapons like the 9mm handgun, he said it doesn't have the stopping power. Weapons like the .357 and shotguns, too much recoil and not enough rounds. If there's any kind of objective study out there that demonstrates a firearm that has the same effectiveness as the AR, while being lower caliber and having a smaller magazine, it'd be interesting.

Not being a gun guy I would think in the home, close quarters, you want something short barreled. You are more likely to hit things with the barrel I would think.

[Spurminator]

This is the slippery slope fallacy here.

I'm familiar with slippery slopes, but you said you're not going to tell someone what they should and shouldn't be fearful of, nor how to allay that fear. Obviously you agree there are limits to which fears we accept as valid and which ones we deem less important than the greater good.

Unless there have been as many or more lives saved with the use of the kinds of guns regularly used in mass shootings (terror, gang, or otherwise), it's a fair trade. IMO

[Pavlov]

This is the slippery slope fallacy here. Furthermore, echoing TSA's description of the AR-15, a feature of it is its low wall penetration, which would make it a safer option than other firearm solutions. We can say a machine gun is a non-starter because when defending yourself against a potential 50 invaders, you might kill innocents across the street, which is unacceptable.

Also, what if I was a person who lost a loved one in home invasion situation where access to a firearm would've saved their lives? I personally vowed to never let that happen again. Should I be denied access to the most (reasonable) effective home defense firearm?

Now that said, I'm taking TSA's description of the AR-15 in good faith. When I suggested low recoil, low penetration weapons like the 9mm handgun, he said it doesn't have the stopping power. Weapons like the .357 and shotguns, too much recoil and not enough rounds. If there's any kind of objective study out there that demonstrates a firearm that has the same effectiveness as the AR, while being lower caliber and having a smaller magazine, it'd be interesting.
You shoot a guy with a 9mm, he's not stopping at all?

Seriously, a barking dog makes most of them run. Why wouldn't a gun discharge?

[Spurminator]

Now that said, I'm taking TSA's description of the AR-15 in good faith.

Yeah, be careful with that.

Gun enthusiasts like TSA are the types that will argue vehemently, for example, for the legalization of silencers by arguing that silencers don't really work.

[Thread]

You shoot a guy with a 9mm, he's not stopping at all?

Seriously, a barking dog makes most of them run. Why wouldn't a gun discharge?

Bend over. I'll show ya fuckin' discharge!

[pgardn]

You shoot a guy with a 9mm, he's not stopping at all?

Seriously, a barking dog makes most of them run. Why wouldn't a gun discharge?

Im assuming he means after getting hit the attacker also with a gun can still discharge on you.

[pgardn]

Bend over. I'll show ya fuckin' discharge!

Your sperm cells have no tails.
The few that do, swim in circles.

[midnightpulp]

You shoot a guy with a 9mm, he's not stopping at all?

Seriously, a barking dog makes most of them run. Why wouldn't a gun discharge?

I'm not a gun guy, so I don't know the effectiveness of the 9mm in real world situations. I'm of course taking TSA in good faith, since he seemed sincere in that discussion.

[midnightpulp]

I'm familiar with slippery slopes, but you said you're not going to tell someone what they should and shouldn't be fearful of, nor how to allay that fear. Obviously you agree there are limits to which fears we accept as valid and which ones we deem less important than the greater good.

Unless there have been as many or more lives saved with the use of the kinds of guns regularly used in mass shootings (terror, gang, or otherwise), it's a fair trade. IMO

Yes. Obviously we're not going to let someone have an Apache Attack Helicopter because he's afraid of Godzilla or a Red Dawn scenario. Someone who fears 50 invaders coming for them all at the same time is equally irrational.

That's a fair point, but again, it is about a right. I'm sure 9mms, the most popular hand gun, have been used in more murders than life saving situations, but I think we agree a 9mm shouldn't be outright banned. I want much stricter gun control (age limits, more thorough background checks, a tiered licensing structure), but I'm still uneasy about punishing the responsible for the actions of the few. My solution is just to make the proverbial "hoops" someone has to jump through in order to prove themselves responsible for AR-15 ownership more convoluted. If owning that weapon was really that important to them, they wouldn't mind all the jumping.

[Spurminator]

That's a fair point, but again, it is about a right. I'm sure 9mms, the most popular hand gun, have been used in more murders than life saving situations, but I think we agree a 9mm shouldn't be outright banned. I want much stricter gun control (age limits, more thorough background checks, a tiered licensing structure), but I'm still uneasy about punishing the responsible for the actions of the few. My solution is just to make the proverbial "hoops" someone has to jump through in order to prove themselves responsible for AR-15 ownership more convoluted. If owning that weapon was really that important to them, they wouldn't mind all the jumping.

I wouldn't ban 9mm's because their application for defense is reasonable, and their application for multiple murders is limited.

I would like to see production of AR-15's and similar firearms halted to drive up prices and divert ownership to collectors, or, perhaps, people who really feel like they need them for protection.

[Spurtacular]

I personally don't think an incel should be able to shoot 40 people in 30 seconds.

Seems pretty outrageous tbh.

Then stop trying to disarm people in a world full of guns, moron.

[ducks]

What is Trump doing about it?

More then former presidents

[Pavlov]

More then former presidentsWhich is what?

[Chucho]

Even when we're between mass murders, NO ONE wants to talk about Chicago.

It's a deflection for the Red, it's something that's swept under the rug for the Blues.


And there is truth to the Conservative rhetoric that Dems don't care about Chicago or inner city violence at all. They don't. Not saying Conservatives do, but Dems only address it the way it's being addressed when this happens.

There's also reason to discuss inner-city violence when discussing gun control. If people want to kill people, they're going to do it, if they want guns, they're going to get guns. This is why people argue that banning weapons wont stop this from happening, and there is truth to it. But again, it's just part of the truth.

[Thread]

Even when we're between mass murders, NO ONE wants to talk about Chicago.

It's a deflection for the Red, it's something that's swept under the rug for the Blues.


And there is truth to the Conservative rhetoric that Dems don't care about Chicago or inner city violence at all. They don't. Not saying Conservatives do, but Dems only address it the way it's being addressed when this happens.

There's also reason to discuss inner-city violence when discussing gun control. If people want to kill people, they're going to do it, if they want guns, they're going to get guns. This is why people argue that banning weapons wont stop this from happening, and there is truth to it. But again, it's just part of the truth.

Tell it, Chooch. Testify!!!

[clambake]

https://thegolfnewsnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/donald-trump-golf.jpg

holy shit!!!!!!!

its a blonde rosie o'donnell!!!

[weebo]

https://d2u3dcdbebyaiu.cloudfront.net/uploads/atch_img/865/de96dd4f1f6439b4202767f390d81959.jpeg

Do we know if any of these incidences were acts of domestic violence or gang violence, terrorism, or an indiscriminate act of violence against a specific group of people?

[Trill Clinton]

no one wants to talk about how crime in the inner city is at an all time low. they just bring up chicago.

[Chucho]

Do we know if any of these incidences were acts of domestic violence or gang violence, terrorism, or an indiscriminate act of violence against a specific group of people?

It's just a broad cross sampling of mass murder defined as 4+ people gunned down in one instance. Why does it matter beyond "guns+Muricans= Lots of people dead"?

[TSA]

I wouldn't ban 9mm's because their application for defense is reasonable, and their application for multiple murders is limited.


Seung Hui Cho and his 32 victims disagree.

[Chucho]

Seung Hui Cho and his 32 victims disagree.

Wont lie, there is a fucking gem of a crude joke to be made here with he being Asian and using a 9mm...

[Spurminator]

Seung Hui Cho and his 32 victims disagree.

I said limited, you brought up one example. From 2007. Thanks for agreeing.

[Spurminator]

DP

[Thread]

Seung Hui Cho and his 32 victims disagree.

Tell it, TSA. Testify!!!

[weebo]

It's just a broad cross sampling of mass murder defined as 4+ people gunned down in one instance. Why does it matter beyond "guns+Muricans= Lots of people dead"?

I’m guessing that a lot of these mass shootings aren’t easy to relate for most Muricans because most of us aren’t gang members, drug addicted, or in abusive relationships...

[TSA]

I said limited, you brought up one example. From 2007. Thanks for agreeing.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

I didn't agree with you at all.

The 9mm is one of the most commonly used in mass shootings from 1982-2019.

:lol limited

[Chucho]

I’m guessing that a lot of these mass shootings aren’t easy to relate for most Muricans because most of us aren’t gang members, drug addicted, or in abusive relationships...

LOOOLLLK. And the vast majority of us aren't radicalized white males either. So most people can't relate to any kind of mass murder. What does this have to do with your initial post?

[Chucho]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

I didn't agree with you at all.

The 9mm is one of the most commonly used in mass shootings from 1982-2019.

:lol limited


So...you want the 9mm outlawed?

[Spurminator]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

I didn't agree with you at all.

The 9mm is one of the most commonly used in mass shootings from 1982-2019.

:lol limited

The majority of the 9mm's listed on that sheet were used in attacks involving other weapons as well.

But if you think the 9mm is really a dangerous weapon whose use for mass shootings trumps its use for self defense, I'm willing to listen. I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of the 9mm (or any specific gun, really.)

I do think it's cute that of everything I've said, you've decided to nit-pick one of my few statements in FAVOR of a gun's legality.

[Spurminator]

So...you want the 9mm outlawed?

:lol Right? You beat me to it.

[Thread]

The majority of the 9mm's listed on that sheet were used in attacks involving other weapons as well.

But if you think the 9mm is really a dangerous weapon whose use for mass shootings trumps its use for self defense, I'm willing to listen. I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of the 9mm (or any specific gun, really.)

I do think it's cute that of everything I've said, you've decided to nit-pick one of my few statements in FAVOR of a gun's legality.

You can't give up an inch, Spurm. You should know that by now. Your regrets are your own.

[midnightpulp]

no one wants to talk about how crime in the inner city is at an all time low. they just bring up chicago.

Even Chicago was trending toward all-time lows before a 2016 spike from which it's declined. I don't think people remember how bad inner city violence was during the crack epidemic.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Homicide_Rate_in_Los_Angeles.png
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/huffpost%20charts.png
https://mypolicyviews.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/nyc_murder_rate.jpg

^this is why the "But Chicago!" deflection irritates since solutions for inner city crime are different, requiring different discussion. It's a poor analogy to compare inner city violence to mass shootings.

[Thread]

Even Chicago was trending toward all-time lows before a 2016 spike from which it's declined. I don't think people remember how bad inner city violence was during the crack epidemic.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Homicide_Rate_in_Los_Angeles.png
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/huffpost%20charts.png
https://mypolicyviews.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/nyc_murder_rate.jpg

^this is why the "But Chicago!" deflection irritates since solutions for inner city crime are different, requiring different discussion. It's a poor analogy to compare inner city violence to mass shootings.

But, it's a terrific crutch in times of trial & tribulation. It poleaxes Americans, on contact.

[Pavlov]

Seung Hui Cho and his 32 victims disagree.
Did he shoot them all in 20 seconds?

Also sounds like the 9mm had plenty of stopping power.

[TSA]

The majority of the 9mm's listed on that sheet were used in attacks involving other weapons as well.

But if you think the 9mm is really a dangerous weapon whose use for mass shootings trumps its use for self defense, I'm willing to listen. I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of the 9mm (or any specific gun, really.)

I do think it's cute that of everything I've said, you've decided to nit-pick one of my few statements in FAVOR of a gun's legality.

I'm basically just trying to figure out your logic on what you want banned and why.


I wouldn't ban 9mm's because their application for defense is reasonable, and their application for multiple murders is limited.

How do handguns (9mm) get a pass from you when they are the overwhelming cause of all gun deaths? Have handguns used in self defense saved more people than killed?

[Pavlov]

I'm basically just trying to figure out your logic on what you want banned and why.



How do handguns (9mm) get a pass from you when they are the overwhelming cause of all gun deaths? Have handguns used in self defense saved more people than killed?

But women can't use them because reasons!

[TSA]

It's a poor analogy to compare inner city violence to mass shootings.

It is a terrible analogy as one results in thousands more deaths than the other.

[Pavlov]

TSA's faux concern for the inner cities is touching. It's muh assault-TYPE weapons he wants to protect.

[midnightpulp]

It is a terrible analogy as one results in thousands more deaths than the other.

That too, which is why I don't make it. The conservative talking heads make it a point for some reason, likely to deflect/take moral high-ground. We know the solutions to inner city gang violence, as we've seen massive declines with it since the crack epidemic. Mass shooting events? No one really knows the solutions, which is why those events tend to dominate discussion rather than "Chicago!"

[Winehole23]

"Chicago" is folklorical code for SCARY BLACK PEOPLE and offers the two fer of a slap at Obama. That's really all it is.

[spurraider21]

I'm basically just trying to figure out your logic on what you want banned and why.



How do handguns (9mm) get a pass from you when they are the overwhelming cause of all gun deaths? Have handguns used in self defense saved more people than killed?
there is still 2A, and it has been held to protect self defense interests as well. even if handguns are used more often in crime, they are common self defense tools, more so than semi auto rifles. handguns are also simply more commonly owned than semi-auto rifles, so their higher usage in crime isn't particularly shocking.

for now, im content with focusing on best preventing the easy killing of large numbers of people in public areas, while also considering self defense interest of lawful gunowners. that would leave assault type weapons (or honestly, however the fuck you want to characterize them, you know exactly what we're talking about) as an easy target

[midnightpulp]

TSA's faux concern for the inner cities is touching. It's muh assault-TYPE weapons he wants to protect.

I don't think anyone wants to confiscate AR-15s from responsible gun owners. But I think it's ludicrous that an 18 year old can stroll into a gun shop and buy one without much hassle. It's a problem when an AR-15 is easier to buy legally than beer or play blackjack in Vegas.

[spurraider21]

i also dont think beto's mandatory buyback program would pass constitutional muster, especially with the current SCOTUS construct. a voluntary buyback is a better middleground

[Pavlov]

The decline in inner city violence has been a major victory of the last 20 years -- coincident or not to the assault weapons ban or mass incarceration or some would say the generational legality of abortion -- but TSA will never acknowledge the decrease. On the surface we did something really right back then RE: reducing crime but we're currently too busy trying to protect smaller interests to take a real look at what happened.

[midnightpulp]

"Chicago" is folklorical code for SCARY BLACK PEOPLE and offers the two fer of a slap at Obama. That's really all it is.

Personally, I just think it's a weak deflection because they're trying to call out liberal "hypocrisy," i.e. "If you were reaaallllly concerned about gun violence, you'd talk about inner city gang violence 24/7." Okay, let's talk about it. Solutions:

- Repeal of drug prohibition.

Non-starter for the conservatives because "think of the children!"

- Poverty reduction programs (anything from a from a more robust social safety net to increased funding for schools to job training programs).

Non-starter because "raised taxes!"

- Increased funding for drug rehabilitation and mental health programs.

Again, "raised taxes!"

- Prison reform that actually rehabilitates and "corrects" inmates.

Again, "raised taxes!" Conservatives also stupidly think putative punishment is an effective deterrent, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, like that most incarcerated criminals in the developed world factoid.

None of these solutions require any infringement on them as gun owners. In any event, conservatives need to shut the fuck up about "Chicago" because they wouldn't be willing to play ball on any solutions to reduce inner city violence. They would just want to throw more cops and jail time at the problem, which is proven to not work.

[Pavlov]

i also dont think beto's mandatory buyback program would pass constitutional muster, especially with the current SCOTUS construct. a voluntary buyback is a better middlegroundIt's a fine idea but the % of households has been dropping since the 80s. There are more guns in fewer homes. I try to be inclusive as possible so the only two common threads in all of these mass murders is this peculiar violent ideation by angry males in the US and the availability of guns to those males to carry it out. It's overgeneralizing, but if you really want a chance to stop all of these murders, you have to start somewhere.

[Pavlov]

Personally, I just think it's a weak deflection because they're trying to call out liberal "hypocrisy," i.e. "If you were reaaallllly concerned about gun violence, you'd talk about inner city gang violence 24/7." Okay, let's talk about it. Solutions:

- Repeal of drug prohibition.

Non-starter for the conservatives because "think of the children!"

- Poverty reduction programs (anything from a from a more robust social safety net to increased funding for schools to job training programs).

Non-starter because "raised taxes!"

- Increased funding for drug rehabilitation and mental health programs.

Again, "raised taxes!"

- Prison reform that actually rehabilitates and "corrects" inmates.

Again, "raised taxes!" Conservatives also stupidly think putative punishment is an effective deterrent, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, like that most incarcerated criminals in the developed world factoid.

None of these solutions require any infringement on them as gun owners. In any event, conservatives need to shut the fuck up about "Chicago" because they wouldn't be willing to play ball on any solutions to reduce inner city violence. They would just want to throw more cops and jail time at the problem, which is proven to not work.Whitey abandoned places like Chicago and were shocked SHOCKED when they went into decline. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Thread]

Whitey abandoned places like Chicago and were shocked SHOCKED when they went into decline. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

We weren't gonna be bused. No. Uh, uh. You were warned, repeatedly & at length. You've nobody to blame but yourselves. I've no sympathy for you.

Stings, don't it?

[midnightpulp]

We weren't gonna be bused. No. Uh, uh. You were warned, repeatedly & at length. You've nobody to blame but yourselves. I've no sympathy for you.

Stings, don't it?

I thought the black kids were bussed into your schools? Is that what you mean? And why would that be a problem in your day anyway? They wore their pants right, had haircuts you could set your watch to, and didn't listen to rap music since it didn't exist yet.

[Pavlov]

I thought the black kids were bussed into your schools? Is that what you mean? And why would that be a problem in your day anyway? They wore their pants right, had haircuts you could set your watch to, and didn't listen to rap music since it didn't exist yet.He just doesn't like black or brown people. Plain and simple.

[TSA]

Personally, I just think it's a weak deflection because they're trying to call out liberal "hypocrisy," i.e. "If you were reaaallllly concerned about gun violence, you'd talk about inner city gang violence 24/7." Okay, let's talk about it. Solutions:

- Repeal of drug prohibition.

Non-starter for the conservatives because "think of the children!"

- Poverty reduction programs (anything from a from a more robust social safety net to increased funding for schools to job training programs).

Non-starter because "raised taxes!"

- Increased funding for drug rehabilitation and mental health programs.

Again, "raised taxes!"

- Prison reform that actually rehabilitates and "corrects" inmates.

Again, "raised taxes!" Conservatives also stupidly think putative punishment is an effective deterrent, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, like that most incarcerated criminals in the developed world factoid.

None of these solutions require any infringement on them as gun owners. In any event, conservatives need to shut the fuck up about "Chicago" because they wouldn't be willing to play ball on any solutions to reduce inner city violence. They would just want to throw more cops and jail time at the problem, which is proven to not work.

I support every single idea you put forward. How are conservatives stopping democrats from implementing the above in Chicago?

[midnightpulp]

I support every single idea you put forward. How are conservatives stopping democrats from implementing the above in Chicago?

Aren't you a Libertarian? I don't think any conservative Christian (which is the demo that dominates the modern repub party) would be on board with drug legalization. And they typically dislike any and all raised taxes (unless it's for the military). I wasn't talking about you personally "not playing ball," but the mainstream republican party at large.

[Pavlov]

I support every single idea you put forward. How are conservatives stopping democrats from implementing the above in Chicago?
:lol the rube section of Illinois is trying to secede. The ultimate white flight.

[TSA]

there is still 2A, and it has been held to protect self defense interests as well. even if handguns are used more often in crime, they are common self defense tools, more so than semi auto rifles. handguns are also simply more commonly owned than semi-auto rifles, so their higher usage in crime isn't particularly shocking.

for now, im content with focusing on best preventing the easy killing of large numbers of people in public areas, while also considering self defense interest of lawful gunowners. that would leave assault type weapons (or honestly, however the fuck you want to characterize them, you know exactly what we're talking about) as an easy target

If you could magically make every assault type weapon disappear it wouldn't slow the spike we are seeing in mass shootings and the shooters would just use a different firearm with the same capability. Then you could wave your magic wand again and make those disappear and we'd still have mass shootings now just with a different firearm.

[Pavlov]

If you could magically make every assault type weapon disappear it wouldn't slow the spike we are seeing in mass shootings and the shooters would just use a different firearm with the same capability. Then you could wave your magic wand again and make those disappear and we'd still have mass shootings now just with a different firearm.I'm willing to try, especially with the capacities. 40 people were shot in 30 seconds.

I don't know why any sane person wouldn't want to try.

[TSA]

Aren't you a Libertarian? I don't think any conservative Christian (which is the demo that dominates the modern repub party) would be on board with drug legalization. And they typically dislike any and all raised taxes (unless it's for the military). I wasn't talking about you personally "not playing ball," but the mainstream republican party at large.

How are conservatives stopping democrats from implementing the above in Chicago?

[midnightpulp]

How are conservatives stopping democrats from implementing the above in Chicago?

Those would likely be written as state propositions to be voted on. Illinois had a Republican governor from 2015-2019. Illinois' conservative base is likely strong enough to defeat any of those proposals, especially with how tepid the Democratic turnout is during non-Presidental elections. And yes, it's their own damn fault. Younger people tend to lean left and they just don't turnout at the rate as older voters.

[Thread]

I thought the black kids were bussed into your schools? Is that what you mean? And why would that be a problem in your day anyway? They wore their pants right, had haircuts you could set your watch to, and didn't listen to rap music since it didn't exist yet.


No. Both ways. (Clevelanders) fled, leaving Cleveland proper a shit hole.

[spurraider21]

If you could magically make every assault type weapon disappear it wouldn't slow the spike we are seeing in mass shootings and the shooters would just use a different firearm with the same capability. Then you could wave your magic wand again and make those disappear and we'd still have mass shootings now just with a different firearm.
wouldn't be as effective, on average

how many guys is paddock taking out with a 9mm?

[clambake]

wouldn't be as effective, on average

how many guys is paddock taking out with a 9mm?

i've seen john wick. this is how it will go down.

[Spurminator]

How do handguns (9mm) get a pass from you when they are the overwhelming cause of all gun deaths? Have handguns used in self defense saved more people than killed?

You're the NRA talking points expert here, so correct me if I'm missing this analogy...

Cars kill more people than 9mms and I don't think we should ban cars.

It's pretty clear we're talking about the capability to kill many people in a short amount of time, compared against its application for self defense.

[Spurminator]

If you could magically make every assault type weapon disappear it wouldn't slow the spike we are seeing in mass shootings and the shooters would just use a different firearm with the same capability. Then you could wave your magic wand again and make those disappear and we'd still have mass shootings now just with a different firearm.

More hypotheticals.

[Pavlov]

More hypotheticals.I THINK THAT WOULD HAPPEN SO WE MUST NEVER TRY ANYTHING

Something happened the last 20 years to make this country less violent overall and TSA wants to pretend it didn't happen.

[midnightpulp]

No. Both ways. (Clevelanders) fled, leaving Cleveland proper a shit hole.

Wasn't that more due to loss of industry than fear of Blackie?

[TSA]

wouldn't be as effective, on averageWhat makes an assault style weapon more effective than any other semi auto rifle?


how many guys is paddock taking out with a 9mm?couple full auto glocks with 100 round drums....probably the same amount, maybe more since they probably wouldn't jam as much as the rifles he used did.

[TSA]

You're the NRA talking points expert here, so correct me if I'm missing this analogy...

Cars kill more people than 9mms and I don't think we should ban cars.

It's pretty clear we're talking about the capability to kill many people in a short amount of time, compared against its application for self defense.

Why doesn't a 9mm have the capability to kill many people in a short amount of time?

[Thread]

Wasn't that more due to loss of industry than fear of Blackie?

Dude, that city emptied out like shit thru a Christmas goose.

[Pavlov]

What makes an assault style weapon more effective than any other semi auto rifle?Jesus, here we go with the technical jargon bog down tactic. So fucking predictable.


couple full auto glocks with 100 round drums....probably the same amount, maybe more since they probably wouldn't jam as much as the rifles he used did.Well getting rid of 100 round drums seems like a great idea right off the bat. Thanks!:tu

[TSA]

Those would likely be written as state propositions to be voted on. Illinois had a Republican governor from 2015-2019. Illinois' conservative base is likely strong enough to defeat any of those proposals, especially with how tepid the Democratic turnout is during non-Presidental elections. And yes, it's their own damn fault. Younger people tend to lean left and they just don't turnout at the rate as older voters.

I'm not buying it. Illinois is a democratic stronghold much like California and New York.

[Pavlov]

I'm not buying it. Illinois is a democratic stronghold much like California and New York.:lol such bullshit.

2016 presidential election:
http://apps.chicagotribune.com/election_results_geography_president/ai/ai2html-output/big-map-winner-mobile.png

[spurraider21]

What makes an assault style weapon more effective than any other semi auto rifle?
i already told you i dont care what you characerize it as. you know full well what type of weapons we are discussing. for now, lets just say it includes all semi automatic rifles.


couple full auto glocks with 100 round drums....probably the same amount, maybe more since they probably wouldn't jam as much as the rifles he used did.
i'm down for banning any full auto weapons as well. thanks.

i see no reason why anybody would need more than a semi automatic handgun (one pull of trigger, one bullet), or a shotgun (pump or semi auto) for self defense purposes. anything beyond that is just gun fetish and not a compelling individual interest imo

are those still capable of producing murder? yes. mass murder? yes. but they would still be less effective than semi auto rifles.

[TSA]

i already told you i dont care what you characerize it as. you know full well what type of weapons we are discussing. for now, lets just say it includes all semi automatic rifles.You want all semi auto rifles banned now?



i'm down for banning any full auto weapons as well. thanks.Can you name a single mass shooting using a fully automatic weapon?


i see no reason why anybody would need more than a semi automatic handgun (one pull of trigger, one bullet), or a shotgun (pump or semi auto) for self defense purposes. anything beyond that is just gun fetish and not a compelling individual interest imomid and I have discussed this at some length, you are free to find that conversation or just watch some youtube blooper videos of women trying to fire handguns and shotguns.


are those still capable of producing murder? yes. mass murder? yes. but they would still be less effective than semi auto rifles.

What makes semi auto rifles more effective than semi auto handguns in these mass shooting situations?

[koriwhat]

You want all semi auto rifles banned now?


Can you name a single mass shooting using a fully automatic weapon?

mid and I have discussed this at some length, you are free to find that conversation or just watch some youtube blooper videos of women trying to fire handguns and shotguns.



What makes semi auto rifles more effective than semi auto handguns in these mass shooting situations?

most of these dweebs have never shot a gun, not one, and that's the truth to their fear of guns. plus the ideology they subscribe to dictates their every move and here we are.

[Pavlov]

You want all semi auto rifles banned now?


Can you name a single mass shooting using a fully automatic weapon?

mid and I have discussed this at some length, you are free to find that conversation or just watch some youtube blooper videos of women trying to fire handguns and shotguns.



What makes semi auto rifles more effective than semi auto handguns in these mass shooting situations?:lmao operation technical jargon bogdown a success

Why the fuck did you bring up full auto in the first place?

Jesus you're a disingenuous twat.

Blooper videos? Throw another misogynist log on the fire. :lol

[Pavlov]

most of these dweebs have never shot a gun, not one, and that's the truth to their fear of guns. plus the ideology they subscribe to dictates their every move and here we are.

How many guns do you own?

[koriwhat]

How many guns do you own?

0 tbh... i've shot plenty though and want to get a 9mm one of these days just because that was my fav to shoot. my family has quite a few different types even though they're all big libs. i give them hell about it all the time for shits and giggles.

you?

before i ever shot a gun i was against them. in my youth i had a few friends die due to stupidity with guns and viewed guns as the factor for their deaths instead of the idiots who pulled the trigger.

[Pavlov]

0Same here. Left mine with family when I left for college.

They're OK to shoot with my gun owning friends but not worth owning. If I get murdered you guys can call scoreboard.

[koriwhat]

Same here. Left mine with family when I left for college.

They're OK to shoot with my gun owning friends but not worth owning. If I get murdered you guys can call scoreboard.

there's no scoreboard to be had pav. juice, workout, try not to stress, and live life to its fullest. :tu

[Spurminator]

Seung Hui Cho and his 32 victims disagree.


The 9mm is one of the most commonly used in mass shootings from 1982-2019.


How do handguns (9mm) get a pass from you when they are the overwhelming cause of all gun deaths? Have handguns used in self defense saved more people than killed?


Why doesn't a 9mm have the capability to kill many people in a short amount of time?

:lol
That time I got TSA to sound like a volunteer for Moms Demand Action.

As the resident gun expert, and someone who cares deeply about gun safety, I'm sure you can think of ways to limit the potential damage from the various kinds of 9mm, or perhaps even which 9mm's are most relevant for self defense and which ones might be more of the murdering type of weapon.

Getting rid of the 100-round drums you mentioned would be a great start. No one needs that for self defense.

[TSA]

:lol
That time I got TSA to sound like a volunteer for Moms Demand Action.

As the resident gun expert, and someone who cares deeply about gun safety, I'm sure you can think of ways to limit the potential damage from the various kinds of 9mm, or perhaps even which 9mm's are most relevant for self defense and which ones might be more of the murdering type of weapon.

Getting rid of the 100-round drums you mentioned would be a great start. No one needs that for self defense.

:lol that time Spurminator quoted 3 of his own dodges.

[Pavlov]

mid and I have discussed this at some length, you are free to find that conversation or just watch some youtube blooper videos of women trying to fire handguns and shotguns.
q6HVp5PEi1A
:lol TSA

[spurraider21]

q6HVp5PEi1A
:lol TSA
smaller capacity magazines wont help because here's a video of the world record quickdraw guy reloading a gun in 0.002ms

[spurraider21]

What makes semi auto rifles more effective than semi auto handguns in these mass shooting situations?
you tell me, you're the expert. why would one use a semi auto rifle instead of a semi auto handgun if they wanted to drop as many people as possible in as little time as possible?

[TSA]

you tell me, you're the expert. why would one use a semi auto rifle instead of a semi auto handgun if they wanted to drop as many people as possible in as little time as possible?

Disregarding the other questions you skipped over this was your claim :lol.

You said they were more effective, now tell me how you came to that conclusion.

[koriwhat]

Disregarding the other questions you skipped over this was your claim :lol.

You said they were more effective, now tell me how you came to that conclusion.

because of marvel movies! :lmao

[koriwhat]

.

[spurraider21]

Disregarding the other questions you skipped over this was your claim :lol.

You said they were more effective, now tell me how you came to that conclusion.
capacity and stopping power. yeah lets go with that.

https://www.popsci.com/resizer/9gUMcH4mpoEHH0BqzTxymmGRP5k=/1304x1374/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bonnier.s3.amazonaws.com/public/HMZB3WGQ526DTKZCVBNTCPWREE.png

now you tell me. why would one use a semi auto rifle instead of a semi auto handgun if they wanted to drop as many people as possible in as little time as possible?

[koriwhat]

capacity and stopping power. yeah lets go with that.

https://www.popsci.com/resizer/9gUMcH4mpoEHH0BqzTxymmGRP5k=/1304x1374/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bonnier.s3.amazonaws.com/public/HMZB3WGQ526DTKZCVBNTCPWREE.png

now you tell me. why would one use a semi auto rifle instead of a semi auto handgun if they wanted to drop as many people as possible in as little time as possible?

i'd use a shotgun tbh. best home protection yet. you don't even have to be a good aim either.

[spurraider21]

i'd use a shotgun tbh. best home protection yet. you don't even have to be a good aim either.
i'd agree for home protection :tu

i dont know if i'd ever buy a gun, but if i did for home protection, would definitely go with a shotty

[TSA]

capacity and stopping power. yeah lets go with that.

https://www.popsci.com/resizer/9gUMcH4mpoEHH0BqzTxymmGRP5k=/1304x1374/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bonnier.s3.amazonaws.com/public/HMZB3WGQ526DTKZCVBNTCPWREE.png

now you tell me. why would one use a semi auto rifle instead of a semi auto handgun if they wanted to drop as many people as possible in as little time as possible?

What retarded website did you pull this graph from that header is retarded :lol Semi vs pump/bolt action wasn’t even up for debate.

The actual study admits the data is limited and highlights intent of mass shootings (w/rifle) we are discussing compared to active shootings used in study.

“Limitations of this study include the lack of data on specific injuries, demographics, and other details of the incidents. Incidents involving semiautomatic rifles may differ from other incidents in ways that may partially explain the association but could not be controlled (ie, intentionality of the shooter)”


“Semiautomatic rifles are designed for easy use, can accept large magazines, and fire high-velocity bullets, enabling active shooters to wound and kill more people per incident.4”

Handguns can accept just as large sized magazines as the AR-15’s you want banned. Rate of fire is basically the same as well. You are now left with stopping power being the reason you want them banned. Mass shooters are generally not sniping people from hundreds of yards away so then the stopping power angle of the rifle becomes weakened. There are many semi auto rifles with far greater stopping power as well. You aren’t very convincing in your argument.

[Pavlov]

I've never seen TSA flat out lie about guns so much. According to him the army shouldn't be using assault rifles because handguns are just as effective if not moreso but assault type rifles are the ONLY gun females should ever use.

[spurraider21]

What retarded website did you pull this graph from that header is retarded :lol Semi vs pump/bolt action wasn’t even up for debate.

The actual study admits the data is limited and highlights intent of mass shootings (w/rifle) we are discussing compared to active shootings used in study.

“Limitations of this study include the lack of data on specific injuries, demographics, and other details of the incidents. Incidents involving semiautomatic rifles may differ from other incidents in ways that may partially explain the association but could not be controlled (ie, intentionality of the shooter)”


“Semiautomatic rifles are designed for easy use, can accept large magazines, and fire high-velocity bullets, enabling active shooters to wound and kill more people per incident.4”

Handguns can accept just as large sized magazines as the AR-15’s you want banned. Rate of fire is basically the same as well. You are now left with stopping power being the reason you want them banned. Mass shooters are generally not sniping people from hundreds of yards away so then the stopping power angle of the rifle becomes weakened. There are many semi auto rifles with far greater stopping power as well. You aren’t very convincing in your argument.
so are you telling me that the guy who shot up pulse nightclub, mr paddock, the guy who shot up walmart, etc. had no advantage in using a semi auto rifle over a semi auto handgun when it came to the efficiency with which they killed people?

if you were tasked with killing 20 people in one minute or less in a walmart, or to make it less morbid, tasked with killing 20 isis members at a syrian marketplace in one minute or less, and your options for weapons were a 9mm handgun or an AR-15, you'd choose the handgun?

[Chris]

so are you telling me that the guy who shot up pulse nightclub, mr paddock, the guy who shot up walmart, etc. had no advantage in using a semi auto rifle over a semi auto handgun when it came to the efficiency with which they killed people?

if you were tasked with killing 20 people in one minute or less in a walmart, or to make it less morbid, tasked with killing 20 isis members at a syrian marketplace in one minute or less, and your options for weapons were a 9mm handgun or an AR-15, you'd choose the handgun?

Using a bomb seems like a bigger advantage so your argument doesn't really have any legs. Bad people will do bad things regardless of the tools at hand. Acting like this is some kind of band-aid is asinine and you know it.

[spurraider21]

Using a bomb seems like a bigger advantage so your argument doesn't really have any legs.
im for banning bombs too :tu

but i phrased my question with the choice specifically being semi auto rifle or semi auto handgun.


Bad people will do bad things regardless of the tools at hand. Acting like this is some kind of band-aid is asinine and you know it.
100% agree tbh. what is more dangerous though, a bad person with a BB gun or a bad person with a loaded AR-15?

[Chris]

im for banning bombs too :tu

but i phrased my question with the choice specifically being semi auto rifle or semi auto handgun.


100% agree tbh. what is more dangerous though, a bad person with a BB gun or a bad person with a loaded AR-15?

You can ban all the bombs until the cows come home. People will make a homemade bomb or get one on the black market just like an "assault rifle". Asinine.

[spurraider21]

You can ban all the bombs until the cows come home. People will make a homemade bomb or get one on the black market just like an "assault rifle". Asinine.
and yet we see many more shootings than bombings here in the states... just a coincidence tbh. nothing to do with the fact that you can buy one legally, and not the other

even if the shooter didnt acquire HIS gun legally (say he stole it from a legal owner)... the fact that there is such an absurd amount of guns in circulation just makes the ease of access there. you can go to a gun store and buy a gun, break into the home of a known gun owner and steal a gun. no such options for a bomb. consequently, we see very few bombings here

[Chris]

Just put up a sign that says "Gun free zone" and call it a day.

Democrat solutions.

[spurraider21]

Just put up a sign that says "Gun free zone" and call it a day.

Democrat solutions.
strawman solutions

[TSA]

so are you telling me that the guy who shot up pulse nightclub, mr paddock, the guy who shot up walmart, etc. had no advantage in using a semi auto rifle over a semi auto handgun when it came to the efficiency with which they killed people?

if you were tasked with killing 20 people in one minute or less in a walmart, or to make it less morbid, tasked with killing 20 isis members at a syrian marketplace in one minute or less, and your options for weapons were a 9mm handgun or an AR-15, you'd choose the handgun?

In the mass shooting situations we are discussing I don’t really see an advantage of one over the other. Please don’t think I’m being nonchalant when saying this but it’s basically just about spraying as many bullets as possible into a crowd. Rate of fire is about the same, stopping power inside 20 yards is about the same, magazine capacity is the same. I do appreciate this discussion with you as it lead me to do some more research and I found something quite different than the study you presented. Completely different conclusions and now I’m completely stumped.

Handguns more lethal than rifles in mass shootings
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-gunshots/handguns-more-lethal-than-rifles-in-mass-shootings-idUSKCN1OU11G

In public mass shootings in the U.S., victims shot with a handgun were more likely to die than in the events associated with a rifle, according to a new study in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

“With public mass shootings rapidly on the rise, we wanted to know the reasons why people die and if any aspect is preventable,” said lead study author Dr. Babak Sarani of the George Washington University Center for Trauma and Critical Care in Washington, D.C.

Previous studies show that in mass shootings, about 45 percent of people who are wounded during the event die.

“If we’re going to have conversations around gun violence and public mass shootings, we need to know the facts,” Sarani told Reuters Health by phone. “We started down this road of looking at actual autopsies so there would be no speculation.”

Sarani and colleagues analyzed autopsies from 23 mass shootings from FBI records in 2000-2016 to understand where victims were shot, how many times they were shot, the organs that were hit, the firearm type and if any injuries or deaths were preventable. Of the 232 victims whose bodies were autopsied, 73 were shot with handguns, 105 by rifles, 22 by shotguns and 32 by multiple firearms.

The research team found that events with a handgun were associated with a higher percentage of people killed, whereas events involving a rifle were associated with more people shot. About 26 percent of those shot with a handgun had more than one fatal wound, versus two percent of people shot with a rifle. Handguns were also more likely to be associated with brain and heart injuries.

“All of us were shocked. We came to the table with our bias that an assault weapon would be worse,” Sarani said. “This should inform the medical community about what to expect at trauma centers and lawmakers about reasonable gun laws.”

The differences in firearm lethality could be due to several factors, Sarani explained. Close-range handguns and longer-range rifles change the distance between the shooter and victim, as well as the accuracy and velocity of the bullet. Although the higher muzzle velocity of a rifle is typically associated with more accuracy, public mass shootings with handguns tend to lead to more gunshot wounds per victim and a higher likelihood of injuries to vital organs.

[Chris]

Just put up a sign that says "Gun free zone" and call it a day.

Democrat solutions.

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1158927911182884864?s=20

eyup

[spurraider21]

In the mass shooting situations we are discussing I don’t really see an advantage of one over the other. Please don’t think I’m being nonchalant when saying this but it’s basically just about spraying as many bullets as possible into a crowd. Rate of fire is about the same, stopping power inside 20 yards is about the same, magazine capacity is the same. I do appreciate this discussion with you as it lead me to do some more research and I found something quite different than the study you presented. Completely different conclusions and now I’m completely stumped.

Handguns more lethal than rifles in mass shootings
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-gunshots/handguns-more-lethal-than-rifles-in-mass-shootings-idUSKCN1OU11G

In public mass shootings in the U.S., victims shot with a handgun were more likely to die than in the events associated with a rifle, according to a new study in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

“With public mass shootings rapidly on the rise, we wanted to know the reasons why people die and if any aspect is preventable,” said lead study author Dr. Babak Sarani of the George Washington University Center for Trauma and Critical Care in Washington, D.C.

Previous studies show that in mass shootings, about 45 percent of people who are wounded during the event die.

“If we’re going to have conversations around gun violence and public mass shootings, we need to know the facts,” Sarani told Reuters Health by phone. “We started down this road of looking at actual autopsies so there would be no speculation.”

Sarani and colleagues analyzed autopsies from 23 mass shootings from FBI records in 2000-2016 to understand where victims were shot, how many times they were shot, the organs that were hit, the firearm type and if any injuries or deaths were preventable. Of the 232 victims whose bodies were autopsied, 73 were shot with handguns, 105 by rifles, 22 by shotguns and 32 by multiple firearms.

The research team found that events with a handgun were associated with a higher percentage of people killed, whereas events involving a rifle were associated with more people shot. About 26 percent of those shot with a handgun had more than one fatal wound, versus two percent of people shot with a rifle. Handguns were also more likely to be associated with brain and heart injuries.

“All of us were shocked. We came to the table with our bias that an assault weapon would be worse,” Sarani said. “This should inform the medical community about what to expect at trauma centers and lawmakers about reasonable gun laws.”

The differences in firearm lethality could be due to several factors, Sarani explained. Close-range handguns and longer-range rifles change the distance between the shooter and victim, as well as the accuracy and velocity of the bullet. Although the higher muzzle velocity of a rifle is typically associated with more accuracy, public mass shootings with handguns tend to lead to more gunshot wounds per victim and a higher likelihood of injuries to vital organs.
it makes sense. guy with a rifle is going to try to nail guys at farther distances, so accuracy will be diminished. they even said they tend to hit more people (which contradicts claims of them having comparable capacity/net fire rate). its like how stabbings are more fatal than shootings. but mass stabbings are few and far between, much less practical.

by way of example...

guy stabs 2 people, both die
guy shoots 18 guys with handguns, 12 of them die
guy shoots 50 guys with rifles, 25 of them die

the rifle is the least "lethal" of the 3 but still does the most damage, in that scenario. the degree of lethality is less important in the discussion of mass shootings, imo

wouldn't surprise me one bit if automatic weapons were even less "lethal" although ultimately capable of the most damage. if there was a shooting where 70 people died, nobody would take solace in the fact that "well, 700 people were shot at, so it was only a 10% mortality rate"

[TSA]

im for banning bombs too :tu

but i phrased my question with the choice specifically being semi auto rifle or semi auto handgun.


100% agree tbh. what is more dangerous though, a bad person with a BB gun or a bad person with a loaded AR-15?

You’ve always been able to buy a rifle legally here though. That right doesn’t explain the uptick in mass shootings.

[spurraider21]

You’ve always been able to buy a rifle legally here though. That right doesn’t explain the uptick in mass shootings.
you're right

i'm not saying we shouldn't investigate and address the root causes of the uptick. but that doesnt mean that in the meantime, we should continue to let people easily access guns capable of that amount of damage just because it's not the cause of the uptick.

hmm, for some reason, more people are using rifles in mass shootings. but in the meantime, lets keep letting them buy those weapons. what can go wrong?

it's not sound logic

[TSA]

it makes sense. guy with a rifle is going to try to nail guys at farther distances, so accuracy will be diminished. they even said they tend to hit more people (which contradicts claims of them having comparable capacity/net fire rate). its like how stabbings are more fatal than shootings. but mass stabbings are few and far between, much less practical.

by way of example...

guy stabs 2 people, both die
guy shoots 18 guys with handguns, 12 of them die
guy shoots 50 guys with rifles, 25 of them die

the rifle is the least "lethal" of the 3 but still does the most damage, in that scenario. the degree of lethality is less important in the discussion of mass shootings, imo

You just presented a chart and study saying semi auto rifles were more lethal :lol

Are you moving the goalpost now to most non-lethal damage?

[Chris]

Philo :lol

[spurraider21]

You just presented a chart and study saying semi auto rifles were more lethal :lol
the two studies were comparing different things. the one i posted said shootings with rifles ended with more injuries and deaths than with other weapons.

the study you posted said that a victim who is shot is less likely to die when shot by a rifle than handgun.

both could be true. look at the hypothetical numbers i posted which you just quoted. they would be consistent with both studies, for instance


Are you moving the goalpost now to most non-lethal damage?
nope, see above

[spurraider21]

Philo :lol
Chris :lol

[Chris]

BAN ALL THE THINGS!

:lol

[TSA]

you're right

i'm not saying we shouldn't investigate and address the root causes of the uptick. but that doesnt mean that in the meantime, we should continue to let people easily access guns capable of that amount of damage just because it's not the cause of the uptick.

hmm, for some reason, more people are using rifles in mass shootings. but in the meantime, lets keep letting them buy those weapons. what can go wrong?

it's not sound logic


Restrictions on purchasing AR-15 style rifles have only gotten tougher since the uptick in mass shootings started, solely focusing on the firearm and not the root cause is not sound logic. (not saying you are)

This is why I continuously bring up that banning a certain type of firearm won’t curtail shit. There is a serious problem with the people in our country willing to do this and they’ll do it regardless of what is banned.

[spurraider21]

Restrictions on purchasing AR-15 style rifles have only gotten tougher since the uptick in mass shootings started, solely focusing on the firearm and not the root cause is not sound logic. (not saying you are)
completely agree :tu


This is why I continuously bring up that banning a certain type of firearm won’t curtail shit. There is a serious problem with the people in our country willing to do this and they’ll do it regardless of what is banned.
im fine with banning the ones that are more likely to cause more damage in a mass shooting and aren't particular practical for self defense purposes either :tu

studies have shown that people with rifles tend to shoot more people and kill more people per incident (even if the ratio of people killed/shot is lower)

[Chris]

6 Reasons Why The AR-15 Is Actually Ideal For Self-Defense

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/03/22/ar-15-actually-ideal-self-defense/


:lol

[spurraider21]

oh wow. bearingarms.com says AR-15's are good. NO WAY

whats next, chris, a link to peta about how eating beef is bad? :lol

[Chris]

oh wow. bearingarms.com says AR-15's are good. NO WAY

whats next, chris, a link to peta about how eating beef is bad? :lol

lol JAMA graphs

[spurraider21]

lol JAMA graphs
what is JAMA, chris?

[Chris]

what is JAMA, chris?

You posted it.

[Chris]

what is JAMA, chris?

Ignorant of your own sources. What a surprise.

[spurraider21]

You posted it.


Ignorant of your own sources. What a surprise.
i know what it is.

do you? is it comparable to bearingarms.com or peta in that its an advocacy group for policies on that specific issue?

[spurraider21]

You just presented a chart and study saying semi auto rifles were more lethal :lol

Are you moving the goalpost now to most non-lethal damage?


the two studies were comparing different things. the one i posted said shootings with rifles ended with more injuries and deaths than with other weapons.

the study you posted said that a victim who is shot is less likely to die when shot by a rifle than handgun.

both could be true. look at the hypothetical numbers i posted which you just quoted. they would be consistent with both studies, for instance
open mouth, insert foot?

[Chris]

i know what it is.

do you? is it comparable to bearingarms.com or peta in that its an advocacy group for policies on that specific issue?

Doing the Pavlov routine I see. I'm guessing this is just another disconnect.

[TSA]

completely agree :tu


im fine with banning the ones that are more likely to cause more damage in a mass shooting and aren't particular practical for self defense purposes either :tu

studies have shown that people with rifles tend to shoot more people and kill more people per incident (even if the ratio of people killed/shot is lower)

The ones more likely to cause more damage aren’t even used in mass shootings, those same ones aren’t practical for self defense.

In your opinion what makes an AR-15 not practical for self defense?

[Chris]

Unless it's an article from MSNBC or a JAMA graph prepare to be laughed at.

[TSA]

open mouth, insert foot?

Actually, the graph you posted had a header that didn’t even properly name the study it was depicting.

[DMC]

I'd like to ask why conservatives default to this deflection every time a mass shooting occurs (Hannity is doing it now. Yes, I was morbidly curious enough to see how this asshole would spin it)? Cub probably answered the question that it just muddies the waters and confuses debate, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Anyhow, I'll guess what I think conservatives are hoping to achieve.

- They believe focusing on mass shootings is selective outrage and that if Liberals "really cared" about gun violence, they would be incensed 24/7 about inner city gang violence.

False analogy. It's basic human psychology to be more outraged and fearful at events where innocent people are targeted in such places as schools, churches, movie theaters, and Walmarts than it is when you read/hear about gang members killing each other. Yes, unfortunately innocents get caught in drive by crossfire and the like, but there is something just more viscerally horrifying about a guy walking into a Walmart and indiscriminately shooting innocents than a gang shootout. The Christchurch shooting was on a whole 'nother level of deranged.

- They think Liberals avoid talking about inner city gang violence because they happen in "Liberal cities and gun free zones."

Just :lol. Is the fact lost on conservatives that "gun free zones" don't give a shit about black market weapons brought into them? And we'll be a bit politically incorrect here. Liberal cities are typically inhabited by more African-Americans, African-Americans tend to vote democrat. African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of murder by gun. And no, I don't think it's due to any inherent moral deficiency in blacks. We have a pretty good idea of the sociological factors (factors that African-Americans experienced more severely than others) at work that contribute to violent behavior, and ironically enough, many of those sociological factors were created by conservative policy. So to try to suggest that Liberal policy=violence is nonsensical.

And why would conservatives want liberals talking about inner city gun violence? It'll just give libs MORE ammunition (no pun) in the gun control debate. Many of those black market weapons were once "legal weapons." Is this fact lost of them?

I simply don't get the purpose of the "But Chicago" deflection. Help me out.

So it's ok if they kill each other because obviously black lives matter.

You differentiating "inner city gang violence" from "walking into Walmart and shooting everyone" is interesting. What is it about the lives of inner city kids that makes them any less important than people at a Walmart? What if the Walmart was in the inner city? Would it be ok then to shoot it up? Would that be dismissed with the wave of a smug, virtual hand as "those people"?

Some here, you included in this post, seem to imply that "inner city" and "gang" means the same thing, that the deaths are part of an ongoing war of attrition between rival factions. But somehow I'm supposed to go ape shit because someone from the suburbs did it.

[spurraider21]

Actually, the graph you posted had a header that didn’t even properly name the study it was depicting.
agree that the header was inaccurate :tu

the data still contradicted the claim that people with handguns will be able to shoot the same amount of people as people with semi auto rifles. the reason i posted it was for the data, not the header.

do you still think i was moving goalposts and that i was refuting the study i posted?

[DMC]

The ones more likely to cause more damage aren’t even used in mass shootings, those same ones aren’t practical for self defense.

In your opinion what makes an AR-15 not practical for self defense?
He knows jack shit about guns.

You don't need to know about guns to debate gun control. You need to know about guns to debate gun laws though.

[DMC]

agree that the header was inaccurate :tu

the data still contradicted the claim that people with handguns will be able to shoot the same amount of people as people with semi auto rifles. the reason i posted it was for the data, not the header.

do you still think i was moving goalposts and that i was refuting the study i posted?
Wow huge if true, wait till the military finds out they don't need rifles.

[TSA]

agree that the header was inaccurate :tu

the data still contradicted the claim that people with handguns will be able to shoot the same amount of people as people with semi auto rifles. the reason i posted it was for the data, not the header.

do you still think i was moving goalposts and that i was refuting the study i posted?

The data was inadequate and they admit it. They didn’t have enough mass shootings (type we are discussing) with handguns to even attempt a decent comparison.

[spurraider21]

Wow huge if true, wait till the military finds out they don't need rifles.
seriously. all they need are handguns because they're more lethal.

screw that. take away their weapons and just give them cars and alcohol, since more people die from drunk driving than gunshots!

[spurraider21]

The data was inadequate and they admit it. They didn’t have enough mass shootings (type we are discussing) with handguns to even attempt a decent comparison.
challenging their results for having insufficient underlying data is one thing.

trying to assert that the i was suddenly claiming the opposite of the study i linked is entirely different. do you acknowledge that the latter never occurred?

[DMC]

seriously. all they need are handguns because they're more lethal.

screw that. take away their weapons and just give them cars and alcohol, since more people die from drunk driving than gunshots!

Rifles have longer lethal range due to accuracy. A handgun might kill you from 100 yards but you'd be lucky to hit a 10'x10' wall at that distance with it. Take a simple .223 iron sights and you could put rounds through a 1'x1' window at 100 yards all day long. That along with rapid target acquisition make the semi-auto rifle more effective in urban combat situations than the handgun. The handgun is only used as backup or right up close and personal like cops usually get.

You're also comparing apples to oranges. The odds of being killed by a drunk driver are far greater than the odds of being killed in a mass shooting in the US. If you were in the military in a war zone, engaged in conflict... your odds of being killed by gunfire increase.

There's no reason to be retarded about it.

[spurraider21]

Rifles have longer lethal range due to accuracy. A handgun might kill you from 100 yards but you'd be lucky to hit a 10'x10' wall at that distance with it. Take a simple .223 iron sights and you could put rounds through a 1'x1' window at 100 yards all day long. That along with rapid target acquisition make the semi-auto rifle more effective in urban combat situations than the handgun. The handgun is only used as backup or right up close and personal like cops usually get.

You're also comparing apples to oranges. The odds of being killed by a drunk driver are far greater than the odds of being killed in a mass shooting in the US. If you were in the military in a war zone, engaged in conflict... your odds of being killed by gunfire increase.

There's no reason to be retarded about it.
i think we're on the same page. people trying to claim that assault rifles are no more effective in these mass shootings than a 9mm would be are disingenuous, and that's my point.

we're not even at what the appropriate solution would be, or if there is even a need to make changes (i doubt TSA and I would be on the same page there), but even getting him to acknowledge that these rifles are probably more effective in the mass shooting scenario is like pulling teeth

[ducks]

Why now Pop and Kerr? Clinton? Nope. Bush. Nope. Obama? Nope. Why now and what do you want them to do? How about start by gathering up all the illegal and stolen guns from drug dealers and the gangs? How about going to Chicago and seeing the results of 40 shootings over the weekend.

[Pavlov]

Wow huge if true, wait till the military finds out they don't need rifles.
That's TSA's argument tbh.

[Splits]

i think we're on the same page. people trying to claim that assault rifles are no more effective in these mass shootings than a 9mm would be are disingenuous, and that's my point.

we're not even at what the appropriate solution would be, or if there is even a need to make changes (i doubt TSA and I would be on the same page there), but even getting him to acknowledge that these rifles are probably more effective in the mass shooting scenario is like pulling teeth

The data set from that study seems inadequate and heavily skewed by including Vegas where the shooter was hundreds of yards away:
Table 1


Case Fatality Rate by Incident and Firearm Type



Event location
Year
Case fatality rate, %
People shot by firearm, n


Handgun
Shotgun
Rifle
Multiple


San Diego, CA
1984
53.7
8
6
0
8


Edmond, OK
1986
71.4
15
0
0
0


Jonesboro, AR
1998
33.3
1
0
1
3


Jefferson County, CO
1999
35.1
3
5
0
6


Melrose Park, IL
2001
50.0
3
0
0
1


South Bend, IN
2002
66.6
0
0
0
4


Chicago, IL
2003
100.0
7
0
0
0


Sawyer County, WI
2004
66.0
0
0
6
0


Lancaster, PA
2006
44.4
0
5
0
0


Crandon, WI
2007
85.7
7
0
0
0


Colorado Springs, CO
2007
50
0
0
5
0


Dekalb, IL
2008
19.2
3
0
0
1


Carthage, NC
2009
72.7
0
8
0
0


Hialeah, FL
2010
57.1
4
0
0
0


Tucson, AZ
2011
31.6
6
0
0
0


Seal Beach, CA
2011
88.9
7
0
0
1


Copley Township, OH
2011
87.5
8
0
0
0


Oakland, CA
2012
70.0
7
0
0
0


Seattle, WA
2012
83.3
3
1
0
1


Oak Creek, WI
2012
60
0
0
0
7


Santa Monica, CA
2013
55.6
5
0
1
0


Orlando, FL
2016
48.0
0
0
49
0


Las Vegas, NV
2017
10.6
0
0
58
0


Case fatality rate = number of persons killed/(number of persons killed + injured).



https://www.journalacs.org/action/showFullTableImage?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl1&pii=S1072751518321926

[ElNono]

Because it's politically expedient. It hits a lot of talking points: lenient policing, darkies, extreme poverty, Dem territory, high drug abuse. It's the prototypical whataboutism.

Perhaps the biggest difference with mass shootings is that the rampant-crime-in-big-city problematic has been solved a number of times before (without the need of conservative leadership/policies either). New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, too many to list.

As it's typical with these deflections, it does nothing to debate or advance solutions for Chicago or Mass shootings. Basically a waste of time.

[AaronY]

Well its pretty simple as explained by this chart and this meme i made a while back:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBVeAU1XYAUCEvW?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBVd29_WsAEfFvL?format=jpg&name=small

[AaronY]

Better question based on the above chart is why crime is plummeting so much in liberal run cities overall but Rs are not interested in that question God knows why

[boutons_deux]

MSNBC host torches Ivanka Trump for tweeting ‘flippantly’ about gun violence in Chicago

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Ivanka-Trump-phone.jpg

tweeting about gun violence in Chicago without first checking the facts.

faced strong criticism from Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who said she got the most basic facts wrong in a pair of tweets sent out after mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1054179226100908032/i5ZXfFdE_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump)Ivanka Trump (https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump)
✔@IvankaTrump
(https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump)· 21h
As we grieve :lol Ivanka is grieving? :lol

over the evil mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton,

let us :lol pretentiously speaking for "us" :lol

not overlook that Chicago experienced its deadliest weekend of the year.


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1054179226100908032/i5ZXfFdE_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump)


Ivanka Trump
(https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump)✔@IvankaTrump
(https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump)
With 7 dead and 52 wounded near a playground in the Windy City- and little national outrage or media coverage- we mustn’t become numb to the violence faced by inner city communities every day.

(https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1158773175657881601)11:13 AM - Aug 6, 2019 (https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump/status/1158773175657881601)


Lightfoot criticized the president’s daughter for tweeting out inaccurate “nonsense” instead of reaching out to engage in a productive dialogue

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/msnbc-host-torches-ivanka-trump-for-tweeting-flippantly-about-gun-violence-in-chicago/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1049 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/msnbc-host-torches-ivanka-trump-for-tweeting-flippantly-about-gun-violence-in-chicago/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1049)

[midnightpulp]

So it's ok if they kill each other because obviously black lives matter.

You differentiating "inner city gang violence" from "walking into Walmart and shooting everyone" is interesting. What is it about the lives of inner city kids that makes them any less important than people at a Walmart? What if the Walmart was in the inner city? Would it be ok then to shoot it up? Would that be dismissed with the wave of a smug, virtual hand as "those people"?

Some here, you included in this post, seem to imply that "inner city" and "gang" means the same thing, that the deaths are part of an ongoing war of attrition between rival factions. But somehow I'm supposed to go ape shit because someone from the suburbs did it.

This is the misconception I was talking about, if that Liberals, gun control advocates, etc aren't talking about "Chicago!" with the same fervor as a mass shooting, they must not "care," enough, even though I explained at the local level, there's plenty of "caring" and outrage. Quite simply, deaths that are gang related don't get the same national press coverage because of their frequency.

And again, it's cheap whataboutism, because the potential solutions to the respective events are different. I ask again, what's the "Chicago" deflection hoping to achieve? What response do conservatives want? Here's a response, "Yes, it's an issue and we should brainstorm solutions about it, just like we're brainstorming solutions about solving mass shootings." There, done. Now what?

To me, the "Chicago!" deflection just seems like it's trying to steer dialogue away from gun control debate, because if you entertain discussing "Chicago!" with conservatives they can retake command of the debate and talk about how gun control won't do anything in that regard because those guns are bought illegally, attempting to connect that non-sequitur logic to a potential mass shooting solution. "Well, gun control has done a lot of good for Chicago, hasn't it?" This is intellectually dishonest because mass shooters buy their weapons legally. And maybe these socially stunted, "incel" mass shooters would buy their weapons illegally, but putting more obstacles in front of them vs. just walking into a gun shop and walking out with a weapon is good nonetheless.

"Chicago!" is a lazy, shitty, intellectually dishonest deflection.

[midnightpulp]

Well its pretty simple as explained by this chart and this meme i made a while back:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBVeAU1XYAUCEvW?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBVd29_WsAEfFvL?format=jpg&name=small

This basically ends the debate. We fuckin' KNOW, and have known for nearly 100 years, the major factors behind inner city gang violence. Poverty+black market alcohol/drug markets. When those are reduced, crime is reduced.

We do not know what kind of solutions would work in solving mass shootings. We might have some theories, but nothing in practice obviously. And that's why those events tend to dominate discussion vs. "Chicago!"

[TSA]

Rifles have longer lethal range due to accuracy. A handgun might kill you from 100 yards but you'd be lucky to hit a 10'x10' wall at that distance with it. Take a simple .223 iron sights and you could put rounds through a 1'x1' window at 100 yards all day long. That along with rapid target acquisition make the semi-auto rifle more effective in urban combat situations than the handgun. The handgun is only used as backup or right up close and personal like cops usually get.
The mass shootings being discussed aren't situations where the shooter is taking 100+ yard shots. In a classroom or church I don't think there is much difference between a handgun or a rifle both equipped with the round magazine.

[Thread]

Tell it, Ivanka. Testify!!!

[Monostradamus]

http://i65.tinypic.com/2emehwk.jpg

[Chris]

^Woke Chicago guy just figuring out how Media operates. Shit's wild cuz.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1159247641043247104?s=20

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1159247641043247104?s=20Media story about the mass shooters criticizes media stories about the mass shooters.

Also, Trump drew even more attention to them today.:tu

[Monostradamus]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1159247641043247104?s=20
Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

[TSA]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917891830274X

[Chris]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

^didn't read the article

[koriwhat]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

you should try it... the bullet in the head thing tbe. :tu

[TSA]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.For mass shooters, achieving fame -- or infamy -- is a frequent driver

On Friday, evidence mounted that Harper-Mercer was acutely attuned to the fame that comes to those who commit armed murder on a spectacular scale. Combing through the gunman’s online comments for clues to his motives, investigators found Harper-Mercer recently extolled the benefits of armed mayhem.

“I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a post about Vester Flanagan, who in August shot two news reporters on live television in Roanoke, Va.

“A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,” Mercer wrote.

University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford said that fame -- or infamy -- has emerged as a common thread in mass shootings since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold predicted on videotapes left behind that their armed rampage at Columbine High School would be one for the history books.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-mass-shooters-fame-infamy-20151002-story.html

[Pavlov]

For mass shooters, achieving fame -- or infamy -- is a frequent driver

On Friday, evidence mounted that Harper-Mercer was acutely attuned to the fame that comes to those who commit armed murder on a spectacular scale. Combing through the gunman’s online comments for clues to his motives, investigators found Harper-Mercer recently extolled the benefits of armed mayhem.

“I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a post about Vester Flanagan, who in August shot two news reporters on live television in Roanoke, Va.

“A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,” Mercer wrote.

University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford said that fame -- or infamy -- has emerged as a common thread in mass shootings since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold predicted on videotapes left behind that their armed rampage at Columbine High School would be one for the history books.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-mass-shooters-fame-infamy-20151002-story.htmlBut how would you know if he's Antifa?

[Monostradamus]

^didn't read the article
Fuck no I didn’t

[Chris]

Fuck no I didn’t

:lol

[Monostradamus]

For mass shooters, achieving fame -- or infamy -- is a frequent driver

On Friday, evidence mounted that Harper-Mercer was acutely attuned to the fame that comes to those who commit armed murder on a spectacular scale. Combing through the gunman’s online comments for clues to his motives, investigators found Harper-Mercer recently extolled the benefits of armed mayhem.

“I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a post about Vester Flanagan, who in August shot two news reporters on live television in Roanoke, Va.

“A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,” Mercer wrote.

University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford said that fame -- or infamy -- has emerged as a common thread in mass shootings since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold predicted on videotapes left behind that their armed rampage at Columbine High School would be one for the history books.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-mass-shooters-fame-infamy-20151002-story.html
Oh, now you show up.

[Xevious]

The mass shootings being discussed aren't situations where the shooter is taking 100+ yard shots. In a classroom or church I don't think there is much difference between a handgun or a rifle both equipped with the round magazine.
This is a ~13 minute video of an interview with a couple guys at Federal with regards to balistic gel and different handgun calibers, but I think it illustrates the difference between handgun wounds and rifles wounds pretty well. They start talking about rifles at around the five minute mark.

T6kUvi72s0Y

The 10 peso version is that when projectiles reach that magic 2200 feet per second (which handguns cannot do), it severely changes how our body handles it. Handguns poke holes, rifles cause tissue damage 6-8 inches away from the path of the bullet.

[Pavlov]

This is a ~13 minute video of an interview with a couple guys at Federal with regards to balistic gel and different handgun calibers, but I think it illustrates the difference between handgun wounds and rifles wounds pretty well. They start talking about rifles at around the five minute mark.

T6kUvi72s0Y

The 10 peso version is that when projectiles reach that magic 2200 feet per second (which handguns cannot do), it severely changes how our body handles it. Handguns poke holes, rifles cause tissue damage 6-8 inches away from the path of the bullet.TSA knows all of this. He just plays dumb when it's bad news about muh guns.

[ElNono]

Copycats have always been an issue, tbh... and there's without a doubt some degree of morbosity in people wanting to know who this guy was, and what was he/she thinking. Just like people that slow down/stop to see a car crash.

That said, in this day and age, if actual facts are not published, they'll be replaced with made up shit. That also happens all too often. "FBI insiders" and all sorts of imaginary friends coming out with to happily agree with one side or the other in the political spectrum.

In light of that, I prefer factual information.

[Thread]

Copycats have always been an issue, tbh... and there's without a doubt some degree of morbosity in people wanting to know who this guy was, and what was he/she thinking. Just like people that slow down/stop to see a car crash.

That said, in this day and age, if actual facts are not published, they'll be replaced with made up shit. That also happens all too often. "FBI insiders" and all sorts of imaginary friends coming out with to happily agree with one side or the other in the political spectrum.

In light of that, I prefer factual information.

El, with a cogent post. Congratulations, you broke your cogent post cherry.

[spurraider21]

Copycats have always been an issue, tbh... and there's without a doubt some degree of morbosity in people wanting to know who this guy was, and what was he/she thinking. Just like people that slow down/stop to see a car crash.

That said, in this day and age, if actual facts are not published, they'll be replaced with made up shit. That also happens all too often. "FBI insiders" and all sorts of imaginary friends coming out with to happily agree with one side or the other in the political spectrum.

In light of that, I prefer factual information.
i find it funny that there's guy on this forum (not naming names) who thinks that media publishing names of the shooters is a bigger deal than the guns themelves, and yet said poster always scours twitter/4chan pages like "laguna beach antifa" to rapidly learn the identity of the shooter and prove that the it was a deranged socialist, etc

[Pavlov]

i find it funny that there's guy on this forum (not naming names) who thinks that media publishing names of the shooters is a bigger deal than the guns themelves, and yet said poster always scours twitter/4chan pages like "laguna beach antifa" to prove that the shooter was a deranged socialist, etc:lol dude still thinks Paddock was either ISIS or a gun control advocate.

[DMC]

i think we're on the same page. people trying to claim that assault rifles are no more effective in these mass shootings than a 9mm would be are disingenuous, and that's my point.

we're not even at what the appropriate solution would be, or if there is even a need to make changes (i doubt TSA and I would be on the same page there), but even getting him to acknowledge that these rifles are probably more effective in the mass shooting scenario is like pulling teeth

It depends on the circumstances. In a room, a handgun is just as deadly. Outside where folks can run, not so much.

[DMC]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

But everyone dies eventually. This is why I think many of these folks are on the verge of suicide, and decide to go out this way. They should make suicide easier.

[DMC]

This basically ends the debate. We fuckin' KNOW, and have known for nearly 100 years, the major factors behind inner city gang violence. Poverty+black market alcohol/drug markets. When those are reduced, crime is reduced.

We do not know what kind of solutions would work in solving mass shootings. We might have some theories, but nothing in practice obviously. And that's why those events tend to dominate discussion vs. "Chicago!"

What good does knowing do to those who continue to die in Chicago? Oh so you know, big fucking deal.

[DMC]

Better question based on the above chart is why crime is plummeting so much in liberal run cities overall but Rs are not interested in that question God knows why

Sure, why is crime plummeting when gun ownership is at an all time high, when almost every state has a reciprocity law.

The thing no one has mentioned and your meme doesn't cover is why "mass shootings" are so broadly defined and considered the crux of the issue. The issue in this instance is predictability. Unpredictable locale, not knowing which particular person is on the verge of going off the reservation, too many "Rampage" movie copy cats. Sure you can predict there will be mass shootings in Chicago, and you can predict many of the reasons.. drugs, money, gang affiliation, skirmishes... that kind of shit. But because you cannot predict where or why the next idiot will kill 40 unarmed people, you are left looking for things like skin color and focusing all your effort on blaming whatever easier target you can lump into the mix. In this case that's Donald Trump. I guess that comedian chick holding up a bloody severed head of the POTUS wasn't problematic at all.

The real issue is that people cannot defend themselves and cops cannot respond fast enough. Even 1 minute isn't enough to save some. So sure, the solution is an individual one, protect yourself. Have situational awareness, have a plan and the ability to send lead back the other way. The excuses about "you might hit innocent people!" doesn't mean shit to me if I am about to be gunned down. If someone doesn't do something to stop them, they will continue to go for the high score.. the one the media keeps track of and reminds us of just before the Netflix special is made that basically makes these people evil villain famous like Bundy.

It's telling how many can name shooters, but cannot name a single victim.

[spurraider21]

It depends on the circumstances. In a room, a handgun is just as deadly. Outside where folks can run, not so much.
no doubt. fully agreed as to both... was hoping TSA would at least be honest and acknowledge the second part of that comment :lol

[DMC]

no doubt. fully agreed as to both... was hoping TSA would at least be honest and acknowledge the second part of that comment :lol

The evidence is easy to find, just look at how many rounds police officers fire at fleeing vehicles and who they call in to handle outside situations, snipers and urban assault teams armed with MP5s and M4s. You can fire into a packed crowd with any lethal energy weapon and kill a lot of people. Rapid individual target acquisition is a different matter. Anyone who cares to find out for themselves can rent rifles and handguns at ranges. Do a 5 round at 50 yards in 5 seconds with each. See what your grouping looks like. Tight rifle grouping at 50 yards means more accurate shot placement at 100 yards. Your handgun test will be lucky to put 5 rounds on paper.

[midnightpulp]

What good does knowing do to those who continue to die in Chicago? Oh so you know, big fucking deal.

I'm not an Illinois resident, so I don't what props have been passed/are being considered to deal with Chicago's violence. I am a Southern California resident within ear shot of LA and saw this region's murder rate decline MASSIVELY from the crack epidemic peak.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Homicide_Rate_in_Los_Angeles.png

Over this time, some factors were more effective community outreach, less aggressive incarceration of juveniles, anti-drug programs, and the 1989 Assault Weapons ban.

[Xevious]

It depends on the circumstances. In a room, a handgun is just as deadly. Outside where folks can run, not so much.
All guns of all calibers are deadly. And if you are firing at a bunch of children huddled in a closet... who's to say? But if we eliminate the capacity argument, the rate of fire, accuracy, etc... a rifle shooting a rifle round into center mass is a much more effective manstopper than a pistol of any caliber. That's not even debatable. So when a shooter with a AR/AK enters a school or a department store where somebody with a handgun might have to engage from distance if they want to stop the threat (down a hallway or whatever), all those other variables come into play as well and it isn't a fair fight at all.

[Pavlov]

Sure, why is crime plummeting when gun ownership is at an all time highThe number of households with guns is lower than is was in 1990.

[midnightpulp]

Sure, why is crime plummeting when gun ownership is at an all time high, when almost every state has a reciprocity law.

The thing no one has mentioned and your meme doesn't cover is why "mass shootings" are so broadly defined and considered the crux of the issue. The issue in this instance is predictability. Unpredictable locale, not knowing which particular person is on the verge of going off the reservation, too many "Rampage" movie copy cats. Sure you can predict there will be mass shootings in Chicago, and you can predict many of the reasons.. drugs, money, gang affiliation, skirmishes... that kind of shit. But because you cannot predict where or why the next idiot will kill 40 unarmed people, you are left looking for things like skin color and focusing all your effort on blaming whatever easier target you can lump into the mix. In this case that's Donald Trump. I guess that comedian chick holding up a bloody severed head of the POTUS wasn't problematic at all.

The real issue is that people cannot defend themselves and cops cannot respond fast enough. Even 1 minute isn't enough to save some. So sure, the solution is an individual one, protect yourself. Have situational awareness, have a plan and the ability to send lead back the other way. The excuses about "you might hit innocent people!" doesn't mean shit to me if I am about to be gunned down. If someone doesn't do something to stop them, they will continue to go for the high score.. the one the media keeps track of and reminds us of just before the Netflix special is made that basically makes these people evil villain famous like Bundy.

It's telling how many can name shooters, but cannot name a single victim.

No one wants to grab yer guns. But it's a ridiculous inconsistency in this country that you can legally buy an AR-15 before you can legally buy a beer. I want reasonable laws ensuring that gun owners are worthy of gun ownership, just like we have laws ensuing motorists are worthy of driving (minimum age [and yeah, 16 is too young], proving competency through a licensing test, etc).

Aren't you a science guy? The pre-frontal cortex, which regulates impulse control, planning, and morality, isn't fully developed all the way until 25. Do you think the still developing brain of an adolescent paired with a firearm is a good combination? Yeah, we can wax poetic about pastoral America when little Johnny got his first 22 at ten and never went on a rampage, but the respective environments aren't the same. Back then, no Internet, sensationalized media, psychotropic drugs, etc, etc. The Internet isn't going away. Sensationalized media isn't going away. And there's no legislation you can pass that will limit those institutions. Perhaps giving kids SSRIs at 10 years old will go away, but what we can control are certain legal restrictions of firearm purchase. I see a 21 year old minimum age purchase as a starting point that both sides can agree on. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that, unless either side is trying not to cede a "victory" to the other.

[Xevious]

No one wants to grab yer guns. But it's a ridiculous inconsistency in this country that you can legally buy an AR-15 before you can legally buy a beer. I want reasonable laws ensuring that gun owners are worthy of gun ownership, just like we have laws ensuing motorists are worthy of driving (minimum age [and yeah, 16 is too young], proving competency through a licensing test, etc).

Aren't you a science guy? The pre-frontal cortex, which regulates impulse control, planning, and morality, isn't fully developed all the way until 25. Do you think the still developing brain of an adolescent paired with a firearm is a good combination? Yeah, we can wax poetic about pastoral America when little Johnny got his first 22 at ten and never went on a rampage, but the respective environments aren't the same. Back then, no Internet, sensationalized media, psychotropic drugs, etc, etc. The Internet isn't going away. Sensationalized media isn't going away. And there's no legislation you can pass that will limit those institutions. Perhaps giving kids SSRIs at 10 years old will go away, but what we can control are certain legal restrictions of firearm purchase. I see a 21 year old minimum age purchase as a starting point that both sides can agree on. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that, unless either side is trying not to cede a "victory" to the other.
The only way I see that flying is if they raise the military enlistment age as well.

[DMC]

I'm not an Illinois resident, so I don't what props have been passed/are being considered to deal with Chicago's violence. I am a Southern California resident within ear shot of LA and saw this region's murder rate decline MASSIVELY from the crack epidemic peak.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Homicide_Rate_in_Los_Angeles.png

Over this time, some factors were more effective community outreach, less aggressive incarceration of juveniles, anti-drug programs, and the 1989 Assault Weapons ban.

Whatever has been passed, it's not the issue. The issue is that it's treated like we can do even less about something we claim to understand but we think we have some control over random mass shootings and can pin these down to loser basement dwellers who live on 8 chan and never get laid, and have poor eyesight and fair skin.

So "but Chicago is a known issue, we know why it happens" - yet can't do anything about it

Then "however these random mass shootings are out of the blue, unknowns... and we have no idea why they happen.. but it's because of Trump and incel and white" - yet can't do anything about it either.

[midnightpulp]

The number of households with guns is lower than is was in 1990.

It's also another strawman. "Violence is at a low! See, guns good!"

We are not talking about gun violence in total. What isn't at a fuckin low is mass shootings. I don't care how much percentage cold blooded mass shootings are of the overall firearm homicide rate, ANY percent is unacceptable. And yes, any homicide by firearm is unacceptable, but as I said, we've put theory into practice to help lower overall gun violence that was mainly concentrated in the inner city. Now we need to put theory into practice to try and lower the rate of mass shootings. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this?

[DMC]

The only way I see that flying is if they raise the military enlistment age as well.

Non lawyers probably won't cover all the necessary loopholes. You have to be 21 to purchase beer. Who here drank before they were 21, and purchased the beer? Yeah it's not the same, but unless individuals can do ID and background checks, then someone saying they are 21 with a fake ID can buy a gun from a private seller. The only solution is to say all gun sales have to go through an FFL.

[DMC]

It's also another strawman. "Violence is at a low! See, guns good!"

We are not talking about gun violence in total. What isn't at a fuckin low is mass shootings. I don't care how much percentage cold blooded mass shootings are of the overall firearm homicide rate, ANY percent is unacceptable. And yes, any homicide by firearm is unacceptable, but as I said, we've put theory into practice to help lower overall gun violence that was mainly concentrated in the inner city. Now we need to put theory into practice to try and lower the rate of mass shootings. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this?

Unacceptable, more unacceptable

Some pigs are more equal than others

Mass shootings in Chicago aren't as equal as mass shootings in El Paso.

[Pavlov]

It's also another strawman. "Violence is at a low! See, guns good!"

We are not talking about gun violence in total. What isn't at a fuckin low is mass shootings. I don't care how much percentage cold blooded mass shootings are of the overall firearm homicide rate, ANY percent is unacceptable. And yes, any homicide by firearm is unacceptable, but as I said, we've put theory into practice to help lower overall gun violence that was mainly concentrated in the inner city. Now we need to put theory into practice to try and lower the rate of mass shootings. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this?DMC is too busy making everything personal on here to actually give a shit about gun violence much less offer any possible solutions.

[midnightpulp]

Whatever has been passed, it's not the issue. The issue is that it's treated like we can do even less about something we claim to understand but we think we have some control over random mass shootings and can pin these down to loser basement dwellers who live on 8 chan and never get laid, and have poor eyesight and fair skin.

So "but Chicago is a known issue, we know why it happens" - yet can't do anything about it

Then "however these random mass shootings are out of the blue, unknowns... and we have no idea why they happen.. but it's because of Trump and incel and white" - yet can't do anything about it either.

So because we don't fully understand it, it's not worth trying something? I think it's a pretty logical conclusion that if you throw more obstacles in front of the prospective "incel" en route to firearm purchase, the frequency of these shootings would drop. To what degree, who knows? In any event, a 21 year old minimum age purchase along with a licensing requirement should be an uncontroversial compromise.

[midnightpulp]

Unacceptable, more unacceptable

Some pigs are more equal than others

Mass shootings in Chicago aren't as equal as mass shootings in El Paso.

You're still strawmanning, playing the "If you realllllly cared," game. I just said any murder by firearm is unacceptable. But in the case of "Chicago!" theory is being put into practice, and even in that city, we've seen theory-in-practice reduce the homicide rate. In the case of mass shootings, NO THEORY is being put into practice while these shootings are at all time highs in a very testy and divided period in American history.

[Pavlov]

You're still strawmanning, playing the "If you realllllly cared," game.Anything to keep from actually discussing the subject.

[DMC]

No one wants to grab yer guns. But it's a ridiculous inconsistency in this country that you can legally buy an AR-15 before you can legally buy a beer. I want reasonable laws ensuring that gun owners are worthy of gun ownership, just like we have laws ensuing motorists are worthy of driving (minimum age [and yeah, 16 is too young], proving competency through a licensing test, etc).

Aren't you a science guy? The pre-frontal cortex, which regulates impulse control, planning, and morality, isn't fully developed all the way until 25. Do you think the still developing brain of an adolescent paired with a firearm is a good combination? Yeah, we can wax poetic about pastoral America when little Johnny got his first 22 at ten and never went on a rampage, but the respective environments aren't the same. Back then, no Internet, sensationalized media, psychotropic drugs, etc, etc. The Internet isn't going away. Sensationalized media isn't going away. And there's no legislation you can pass that will limit those institutions. Perhaps giving kids SSRIs at 10 years old will go away, but what we can control are certain legal restrictions of firearm purchase. I see a 21 year old minimum age purchase as a starting point that both sides can agree on. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that, unless either side is trying not to cede a "victory" to the other.

If you served in the military then maybe you have a leg to stand on, maybe not. People have been sent to die at age 18 for a long time. Telling them they can carry a gun in Iraq but not in their home town is chickenshit. But I'm ok with not owning a semi-auto rifle or handgun prior to age 21. How many of these shooters were over that age?

"no one wants to grab yer guns" is bullshit. Plenty do, they just don't have the balls to try to introduce the bill. They want their position of power more than they want any reform. I'm all for banning guns outright. I encouraged it before and will again. Obama didn't do anything in 12 years though, and you know the GOP isn't going to. Who has the balls to actually do it?

The pre-frontal cortex gets tried as an adult at 18.

[Pavlov]

If you served in the military then maybe you have a leg to stand onDMC throws up another imaginary barrier to discussion.

[DMC]

You're still strawmanning, playing the "If you realllllly cared," game. I just said any murder by firearm is unacceptable. But in the case of "Chicago!" theory is being put into practice, and even in that city, we've seen theory-in-practice reduce the homicide rate. In the case of mass shootings, NO THEORY is being put into practice while these shootings are at all time highs in a very testy and divided period in American history.

You don't have enough data on mass shootings to build anything close to what Chicago has though. What's the number of shootings in Chicago this year compared to the number of people killed in mass shootings elsewhere in the US?

What is being put into practice is being armed as an individual. Like I said, the solution that prevents anyone from having to make a hard choice that might be seen as insensitive is to worry about yourself, protect yourself. How many mass shootings happen in police stations or gun shows?

Media calls the Garlic festival shooting a mass shooting, 3 people killed. You get 4 killed in Chicago and it's ho hum, not listed. One killed in a Walmart in Mississippi, and that's listed as a mass shooting but 4 more killed in a home in Chicago and the home set ablaze... nothing. Nope, not a mass killing that needs to be mentioned.

[Pavlov]

What is being put into practice is being armed as an individual.Still false.

The number of households with guns today is lower than in 1990.

[DMC]

There have been 273 fatalities so far this year, and 1,067 injured, according to the Gun Violence Archive. This is nationwide "mass shootings"

According to recent crime statistics released to CBS Chicago, 1,229 people have been shot in Chicago, about 100 fewer than the first six months of 2018, and the lowest total since 2015. Police also said there have been 236 murders through the end of June, 21 fewer than the same time period last year.

[DMC]

Still false.

The number of households with guns today is lower than in 1990.

non sequitur

as usual

[midnightpulp]

If you served in the military then maybe you have a leg to stand on, maybe not. People have been sent to die at age 18 for a long time. Telling them they can carry a gun in Iraq but not in their home town is chickenshit. But I'm ok with not owning a semi-auto rifle or handgun prior to age 21. How many of these shooters were over that age?

"no one wants to grab yer guns" is bullshit. Plenty do, they just don't have the balls to try to introduce the bill. They want their position of power more than they want any reform. I'm all for banning guns outright. I encouraged it before and will again. Obama didn't do anything in 12 years though, and you know the GOP isn't going to. Who has the balls to actually do it?

The pre-frontal cortex gets tried as an adult at 18.

I've forever been against the minimum age 18 for military service.


The pre-frontal cortex gets tried as an adult at 18.

Science doesn't care about our arbitrary determination of an "adult." That said, I do agree that children who commit heinous acts should be removed from society, arbitrary adult or not. A 12 year old killing his parents because they took away his Xbox probably won't grow up to be a productive adult, so he probably should be committed lifetime to an institution.

[Pavlov]

non sequitur

as usual:lol your whole argument is that crime is down because gun ownership is up. On a household basis, it's just not true.

[DMC]

I've forever been against the minimum age 18 for military service.

Ok as long as you are against it.


Science doesn't care about our arbitrary determination of an "adult." That said, I do agree that children who commit heinous acts should be removed from society, arbitrary adult or not. A 12 year old killing his parents because they took away his Xbox probably won't grow up to be a productive adult, so he probably should be committed lifetime to an institution.

But the law does care about science. We are talking about 18 year olds being tried as adults. We aren't talking about 12 year olds. Don't move the goalposts.

[DMC]

:lol your whole argument is that crime is down because gun ownership is up. On a household basis, it's just not true.

More guns than ever = gun ownership is up, someone has to own them.

However I was throwing out another cause vs correlation that could just as easily be credited with the statistical differences between years. Whatever the case, so what if crime fell? What does it have to do with mass shootings? California isn't immune to them either.

[Pavlov]

More guns than ever = gun ownership is up, someone has to own them..So your average criminal is afraid a dude is carrying several guns opposed to one?


so what if crime fell?

:lmao you REALLY don't give a shit about any of this

[midnightpulp]

You don't have enough data on mass shootings to build anything close to what Chicago has though. What's the number of shootings in Chicago this year compared to the number of people killed in mass shootings elsewhere in the US?

What is being put into practice is being armed as an individual. Like I said, the solution that prevents anyone from having to make a hard choice that might be seen as insensitive is to worry about yourself, protect yourself. How many mass shootings happen in police stations or gun shows?

Media calls the Garlic festival shooting a mass shooting, 3 people killed. You get 4 killed in Chicago and it's ho hum, not listed. One killed in a Walmart in Mississippi, and that's listed as a mass shooting but 4 more killed in a home in Chicago and the home set ablaze... nothing. Nope, not a mass killing that needs to be mentioned.

You have some fantasy that the "hero" in question is going to quick draw and take down the shooter within seconds (and most of them are wearing body armor now). The military vet who lead many people to their safety was armed and stated that in a gun fight, the first thing you do is find cover (obviously). If he engaged, someone with a AR-15 and 100 round drum is pinning him down. He was the "good guy with the gun," but acted in a way that saved considerable more lives if he tried to be Rambo. Mass shooters also have the element of surprise. If one walks into a crowded bar, he's killing a few before anyone draws. Your solution only limits casualties. I want solutions that limit events.

Everyone is armed at gun shows and police stations. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to be armed at all times throughout their daily lives, especially considering the population of children, the elderly, who are too young, physically unable to use firearms. And no, I don't want to live in the fuckin' Wild West so a segment of our population can buy their toys as hassle free as humanly possible. And even in the Wild West, many cities were "gun free zones." Even they weren't stupid enough to let everyone walk around carrying.

[Pavlov]

DMC is one step away from victim blaming. If he actually keeps talking about this....

[midnightpulp]

Ok as long as you are against it.


But the law does care about science. We are talking about 18 year olds being tried as adults. We aren't talking about 12 year olds. Don't move the goalposts.

How does the law care about science here? Science shows 18 is still a developmental period and not a fully formed "adult." My example by bringing up the 12 year old is that I think someone fucked up enough to murder at any age will be a problematic adult. Violence in childhood (torturing animals, etc) is a pretty good predicator of violence in adulthood.

[DMC]

You have some fantasy that the "hero" in question is going to quick draw and take down the shooter within seconds (and most of them are wearing body armor now). The military vet who lead many people to their safety was armed and stated that in a gun fight, the first thing you do is find cover (obviously). If he engaged, someone with a AR-15 and 100 round drum is pinning him down. He was the "good guy with the gun," but acted in a way that saved considerable more lives if he tried to be Rambo. Mass shooters also have the element of surprise. If one walks into a crowded bar, he's killing a few before anyone draws. Your solution only limits casualties. I want solutions that limit events.

Everyone is armed at gun shows and police stations. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to be armed at all times throughout their daily lives, especially considering the population of children, the elderly, who are too young, physically unable to use firearms. And no, I don't want to live in the fuckin' Wild West so a segment of our population can buy their toys as hassle free as humanly possible. And even in the Wild West, many cities were "gun free zones." Even they weren't stupid enough to let everyone walk around carrying.
Defending yourself isn't being fucking Rambo. Don't be a pussy. You cower and get shot in the head like all those people or you fight back. I would fight back. I might die. I might die either way. I am a military vet, I don't give a shit what he says. The cop in Florida who did nothing was criticized for not doing anything, but he wasn't in harms way yet somehow he's supposed to walk in and engage the guy with the rifle. However someone in the thick of it needs to cower and die because well, don't want to risk getting killed. You won't limit events because you won't know the ones you've prevented. Limiting casualties is the only solution and even then, I am the primary casualty I am trying to prevent.

Don't bifurcate the situation to never armed vs always armed. If you want to protect yourself and you are concerned about this kind of thing, you'll do what's required. Otherwise you'll hope you don't become one of the unlucky ones and experience an event, and hope someone does something about it.

The reason police stations and gun shows aren't attacked is because the shooter wants max casualties with minimum personal risk. Every time another gun free zone is created where people are packed in like sardines, it's feeding time for the crazies. Churches, schools, theaters, bars, stores (not all stores are gun free zones, but the odds are most people in one aren't carrying and I've not seen any armed protection for anything but the money drop).

It's odd, we put 2 cops at banks but none where our most precious resources are. It makes you wonder if human life is really that important. That's why I said protect yourself first. If you don't want to, that's your choice. You won't talk me into being a victim.

[DMC]

How does the law care about science here? Science shows 18 is still a developmental period and not a fully formed "adult." My example by bringing up the 12 year old is that I think someone fucked up enough to murder at any age will be a problematic adult. Violence in childhood (torturing animals, etc) is a pretty good predicator of violence in adulthood.

Do you want to raise the voting age to 21 as well? Perhaps even 25?

I mean any crime, even possession of a controlled substance. You'll be tried as an adult at 18. You can vote at 18. You are emancipated at 18.

Like it or not, 18 is the legal age of adulthood. Still, they can drag the gun age to 21. I don't have a problem with it.

[Pavlov]

And there it is.

[DMC]

And there it is.

You found your colostomy bag?

[Pavlov]

You found your colostomy bag?Is that an edgy handicap joke, DMC? Is this where you want to go now, tough guy?

[DMC]

Is that an edgy handicap joke, DMC? Is this where you want to go now, tough guy?

I should have said "Shit sack".

Think of Prince tune... Pop life.

Hey there Pavlov..

What you puttin in your bag
Is that where all your dukey goes
The river of urine flow
Down your catheter
It gets hot
But there won't be no nurses
when the shit sack blows

[Pavlov]

I should have said "Shit sack".

Think of Prince tune... Pop life.

Hey there Pavlov..

What you puttin in your bag
Is that where all your dukey goes
The river of urine flow
Down your catheter
It gets hot
But there won't be no nurses
when the shit sack blowsSo edgy handicap jokes is where you want to go with this discussion?

Seems like the opposite of the brave warrior genius you want to be to us tbh.

[midnightpulp]

Defending yourself isn't being fucking Rambo. Don't be a pussy. You cower and get shot in the head like all those people or you fight back. I would fight back. I might die. I might die either way. I am a military vet, I don't give a shit what he says. The cop in Florida who did nothing was criticized for not doing anything, but he wasn't in harms way yet somehow he's supposed to walk in and engage the guy with the rifle. However someone in the thick of it needs to cower and die because well, don't want to risk getting killed. You won't limit events because you won't know the ones you've prevented. Limiting casualties is the only solution and even then, I am the primary casualty I am trying to prevent.

Don't bifurcate the situation to never armed vs always armed. If you want to protect yourself and you are concerned about this kind of thing, you'll do what's required. Otherwise you'll hope you don't become one of the unlucky ones and experience an event, and hope someone does something about it.

The reason police stations and gun shows aren't attacked is because the shooter wants max casualties with minimum personal risk. Every time another gun free zone is created where people are packed in like sardines, it's feeding time for the crazies. Churches, schools, theaters, bars, stores (not all stores are gun free zones, but the odds are most people in one aren't carrying and I've not seen any armed protection for anything but the money drop).

It's odd, we put 2 cops at banks but none where our most precious resources are. It makes you wonder if human life is really that important. That's why I said protect yourself first. If you don't want to, that's your choice. You won't talk me into being a victim.

The cop in Florida was unfairly criticized, and is a good cautionary tale about how that little thing called human nature (as it relates to flight or flight) gets in the way of action. The vet in El Paso was a combat vet and relied on his training, which is to get to cover.

I am concerned about it, and trying to do what's required. I just don't see it as some example of "freedom" that I should be required to endure a lifestyle change so others can play with their toys. I can say the same thing that if gun ownership was so important to the other side, going through a more comprehensive licensing test and background check shouldn't be an issue for them. And I guess this is where the impasse is. Still, I think my position is more flexible since I don't want to ban guns, AR-15s, etc, and just make their acquisition stricter. They still get their guns at the end of the day, while your logic demands I buy a gun if I want a safety increase. I'd rather the safety increase come through limiting the ways a shooter can buy a firearm.

[DMC]

The cop in Florida was unfairly criticized, and is a good cautionary tale about how that little thing called human nature (as it relates to flight or flight) gets in the way of action. The vet in El Paso was a combat vet and relied on his training, which is to get to cover.

I am concerned about it, and trying to do what's required. I just don't see it as some example of "freedom" that I should be required to endure a lifestyle change so others can play with their toys. I can say the same thing that if gun ownership was so important to the other side, going through a more comprehensive licensing test and background check shouldn't be an issue for them. And I guess this is where the impasse is. Still, I think my position is more flexible since I don't want to ban guns, AR-15s, etc, and just make their acquisition stricter. They still get their guns at the end of the day, while your logic demands I buy a gun if I want a safety increase. I'd rather the safety increase come through limiting the ways a shooter can buy a firearm.

This kind of strawman is why the debates stall. If you think the shooter was playing with his toys, how serious are you taking it? It won't be an issue until you realize you're in one of these suddenly, then it will be too late to choose. You'd be hard pressed to go through a more comprehensive background check and training than I've been through to have a CHL. We aren't talking about owning a gun. We are talking about having a gun when you need it. You can own a hundred guns, they are useless if you don't have one when you need it. These shooters, by and large, don't have criminal backgrounds.

Since you cannot pinpoint why these events happen, you cannot measure increased or decreased safety. In fact, in many of these discussions, safety is a feeling instead of a condition. In reality we are only as safe as we make ourselves, individually. You could be shot in the head when you walk out of your home, or someone could come in and do it while you are sitting there. Feeling safe because of some legislation seems like a popular placebo. Being safe because you have the ability to defend yourself, not so much. The hyperbole you use to describe a person who has the ability to defend themselves illustrates you haven't spent any time in the military and probably depend on local LEO to save your life and hope the scenario plays out in your favor. There are several dead today who may have had similar thoughts.

You cannot create that legislation. You cannot change or even stem the flow of guns to people who shouldn't have guns. You can debate it. When it comes to personal security, that's still a personal choice.

If you were in that Walmart when that guy came in shooting, would you rather have a gun or not have a gun? If you had a gun, would you return fire or hide and hope you're not discovered?

[DMC]

So edgy handicap jokes is where you want to go with this discussion?

Seems like the opposite of the brave warrior genius you want to be to us tbh.

:lmao

Today's male

Defending your own life is bravado now. :lol

[Pavlov]

:lmao

Today's male

Defending your own life is bravado now. :lolposting edgy handicap jokes is defending your life?

Today's male indeed :lmao

[DMC]

posting edgy handicap jokes is defending your life?

Today's male indeed :lmao

You think that's edgy?

:lol today's Chumplov

[Pavlov]

You think that's edgy?

:lol today's ChumplovDMC promising he can be edgier.

:lol today's try hard tough guy

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159572647031627776?s=20

[Pavlov]

:lol Qhris and his celebrity worship

[DMC]

DMC promising he can be edgier.

:lol today's try hard tough guy

Chumpy claiming to know about hard, tough guys. Do tell.

[Pavlov]

Chumpy claiming to know about hard, tough guys. Do tell.I'm calling you a try hard tough guy.

Which means I don't think you're really a tough guy. The fact I had to explain that to you proves you aren't as smart as you want people to think you are.


Jesus.

[koriwhat]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159572647031627776?s=20

wow something i totally agree with and i'm no bible thumper either.