Mass Shooting & Gun Violence |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 58K
  • Politics 
ZZLPHeels said:
The police engage in gun battles somewhere in the US at least daily. They don't carry 5-shot pistols because they know that doing so would put them at a tremendous tactical disadvantage make it harder for them to shoot and kill 30 dogs a day.
Click to expand...
More than 7 in 10 police can go a whole career without firing their weapons. the ones getting into gun battles are choosing to do so repeatedly because they're bad at their jobs and don't know or care to deescalate.
 
Mass shootings have been committed by white, black, Latino and Asian people, by Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated people, by mentally ill and mentally well people, by cisgender and trans people, by Christians, Muslims and people of other religions, by men and (a few) women.

The ONLY universal characteristic of mass shootings is the gun. And yet, that's the only part of it Republicans refuse to talk about.

(To be clear, I'm not talking about you, ZZLP, as I know you're not a Republican, and you're definitely willing to talk about the guns.)
 
JD Vance says that psychiatric medications is the root cause of mass shootings in America.

We don't need gun reform; we need psychiatric medication reform

Hopefully RFK Jr. will ban all psychiatric medications and solve this crisis

A ban on psychiatric medication + nationally mandated thoughts and prayers = no more mass shootings
 
UNCRx85 said:
Looks like they want to try.

What a colossally ignorant idea to float. I've been among the most pessimistic about this second administration, and this almost surprises me.
Click to expand...
No vaccines solves autism
No psychiatric medications and kids having guns in schools solve mass murders

RFK Jr. is making America safe again.

www.rawstory.com

RFK Jr. complains kids can't 'bring their guns' to school amid 'over-medicated nation'

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested there was a problem in the United States because children could not "bring their guns" to school. During a news conference in Texas on Thursday, Kennedy was asked about whether he considered mass shootings a public...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
heelinhell said:
No vaccines solves autism
No psychiatric medications and kids having guns in schools solve mass murders

RFK Jr. is making America safe again.

www.rawstory.com

RFK Jr. complains kids can't 'bring their guns' to school amid 'over-medicated nation'

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested there was a problem in the United States because children could not "bring their guns" to school. During a news conference in Texas on Thursday, Kennedy was asked about whether he considered mass shootings a public...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
Click to expand...
Lunacy.

At least dem elected leaders don't force us to eat shit and say it's delicious on a daily basis.
 
akillesheel said:
More than 7 in 10 police can go a whole career without firing their weapons. the ones getting into gun battles are choosing to do so repeatedly because they're bad at their jobs and don't know or care to deescalate.
Click to expand...

"More than 7 in 10 women can go a whole lifetime without being sexually assaulted. The ones getting raped are choosing to do so because they are bad at observing their surroundings and don't know or care to deescalate."

Aside from your comment being horribly uninformed and victim-blaming, it completely avoids the point. Once again, can you direct me to a single law enforcement agency in the United States that issues their officers 5 shot revolvers?
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I’m for most of that as long as the gun licensing class is free and offered frequently so that there are no difficulties attending it. Also, hard no on the 5 bullet limit. That would essentially disarm law-abiding citizens and would do nothing to disarm criminals who already own those weapons illegally. The average citizen is not a Delta Force operator who can be expected to land nothing but headshots on a moving target while under fire.
Click to expand...
So your argument appears to be:

ordinary citizens can't shoot accurately and spray bullets every which way, so we should make sure they can pack even more bullets into their guns so they can shoot more?

This is exactly like saying that Jackie Manuel should have been told to shoot MORE 3s, since it took him so many tries to make one. And you think others are the ones not living in reality?

You simply do not understand the concept of "self-defense." Self-defense does not let you hurt innocent people indiscriminately -- not in Gaza, or in Louisville, or Grandma at the mall
 
ZZLPHeels said:
"More than 7 in 10 women can go a whole lifetime without being sexually assaulted. The ones getting raped are choosing to do so because they are bad at observing their surroundings and don't know or care to deescalate."

Aside from your comment being horribly uninformed and victim-blaming, it completely avoids the point. Once again, can you direct me to a single law enforcement agency in the United States that issues their officers 5 shot revolvers?
Click to expand...
i mean, if you can't tell the difference between performing an action and having something done to you, i don't think i can really converse with you about anything. that's just a fundamental lack of understanding the world at even a juvenile level. what a gross thing to say for no reason because that comparison falls apart with even the barest hint of scrutiny.

and you're, predictably, missing my point, not the other way around. i am saying that an argument based on police practice holds no water with me in this subject, because police as an institution are not committed to reducing violence - ergo, when you're arguing about ways to effectively reduce violence, telling me what is given to those with an essentially indiscriminate license to kill simply will not move me nor any other reasonable person.
 
I'm sure it's come up on here in this thread before, but I wonder how much a difference it would make if they released de-identified photos of injuries inflicted in these events (with parent/guardian/victim consent, of course... and maybe that precludes this altogether, anyway). Something to convey the actual carnage and shock/shake half this country out of it's 2A doldrum. The literal, "to infinity and beyond" interpretation of the 2A is absurd. And this is self-evident.
 
superrific said:
So your argument appears to be:

ordinary citizens can't shoot accurately and spray bullets every which way, so we should make sure they can pack even more bullets into their guns so they can shoot more?

This is exactly like saying that Jackie Manuel should have been told to shoot MORE 3s, since it took him so many tries to make one. And you think others are the ones not living in reality?

You simply do not understand the concept of "self-defense." Self-defense does not let you hurt innocent people indiscriminately -- not in Gaza, or in Louisville, or Grandma at the mall
Click to expand...
Your argument is like saying that UNC should have to play against Alabama in football, but UNC isn’t allowed to wear pads or helmets.
 
akillesheel said:
i mean, if you can't tell the difference between performing an action and having something done to you, i don't think i can really converse with you about anything. that's just a fundamental lack of understanding the world at even a juvenile level. what a gross thing to say for no reason because that comparison falls apart with even the barest hint of scrutiny.

and you're, predictably, missing my point, not the other way around. i am saying that an argument based on police practice holds no water with me in this subject, because police as an institution are not committed to reducing violence - ergo, when you're arguing about ways to effectively reduce violence, telling me what is given to those with an essentially indiscriminate license to kill simply will not move me nor any other reasonable person.
Click to expand...
When the people who encounter violence most frequently and who are the most trained to engage in gunfights carry more ammunition rather than less of it, they are the experts. Citizens should not be expected to be able to outshoot a Delta Sniper in order to have the means to defend themselves.
 
akillesheel said:
i mean, if you can't tell the difference between performing an action and having something done to you, i don't think i can really converse with you about anything. that's just a fundamental lack of understanding the world at even a juvenile level. what a gross thing to say for no reason because that comparison falls apart with even the barest hint of scrutiny.

and you're, predictably, missing my point, not the other way around. i am saying that an argument based on police practice holds no water with me in this subject, because police as an institution are not committed to reducing violence - ergo, when you're arguing about ways to effectively reduce violence, telling me what is given to those with an essentially indiscriminate license to kill simply will not move me nor any other reasonable person.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's really weird that he went with victim blaming when referring to the magazine capacity of guns. In his mind, police are always the victims, just like Israel is always a victim and the lives of other people just don't matter. He is, btw, an emergency responder.

And of course it's like saying that nuclear stockpiles are good because everyone has them, regardless of their potential to destroy the human race.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Your argument is like saying that UNC should have to play against Alabama in football, but UNC isn’t allowed to wear pads or helmets.
Click to expand...
It isn't like that at all. You are bad at arguments. Logic is not your strong suit.

The point is quite simple: if there's a bad guy shooter in the mall, it is a bad idea to rely on grandma to stop the shooter if grandma can't shoot. It's not to give grandma 30 bullets to spray around.

Or to use your analogy, if a UNC-Bama game would have us wearing no pads, then DON'T PLAY THE GAME. That's the right solution. It's not "give UNC 200 players so we can keep running out replacements for the guys who get concussions or broken bones."
 
superrific said:
It isn't like that at all. You are bad at arguments. Logic is not your strong suit.

The point is quite simple: if there's a bad guy shooter in the mall, it is a bad idea to rely on grandma to stop the shooter if grandma can't shoot. It's not to give grandma 30 bullets to spray around.

Or to use your analogy, if a UNC-Bama game would have us wearing no pads, then DON'T PLAY THE GAME. That's the right solution. It's not "give UNC 200 players so we can keep running out replacements for the guys who get concussions or broken bones."
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about the mall. I’m talking about an intruder or several intruders breaking into your house. There is no “don’t play the game” option. You’re in the game at that moment and can’t get out of it. Do you want a helmet and pads or not?
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I’m not talking about the mall. I’m talking about an intruder or several intruders breaking into your house. There is no “don’t play the game” option. You’re in the game at that moment and can’t get out of it. Do you want a helmet and pads or not?
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity then...how would you feel about outlawing large capacity or swappable magazines outside of one's private property and/or home?
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I’m not talking about the mall. I’m talking about an intruder or several intruders breaking into your house. There is no “don’t play the game” option. You’re in the game at that moment and can’t get out of it. Do you want a helmet and pads or not?
Click to expand...
So I would like to see the numbers on how many folks actively protect their home from invaders with guns
versus
The number of suicides and shooting deaths of family members at Homes with guns
It is from a societal view a real net negative to have guns in Homes -like maybe 100 or 1000 to 1, maybe 10,000-1?
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I’m not talking about the mall. I’m talking about an intruder or several intruders breaking into your house. There is no “don’t play the game” option. You’re in the game at that moment and can’t get out of it. Do you want a helmet and pads or not?
Click to expand...
I'd prefer a shotgun. Or at least that's what I've read is the best home defense weapon.

But anyway, what you're talking about is vanishingly rare. There are maybe 50K defensive gun uses annually in America. That's all DGUs in all settings. A percentage of those occur in the home environment. And that's all defensive gun usage -- that is, defense of property and personal, and it's just a total count without regard to whether the attacker has a gun. So somebody thinks you're not home, sneaks into your home, and you brandish a gun and he runs away. That's a DGU but the magazine size made no difference at all since the attacker was not armed.

Keep in mind that there are about 10 gun deaths every year from armed home intrusion. That's right, 10. I don't know about injury rates. So even if we assume that 75% of households are armed and that self-defense is effective, that means that there are maybe 30 defensive gun uses that require a large mag. Per year.

30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top