Mass Shooting & Gun Violence |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 85K
  • Politics 
Bobfripp said:
Gee, I wonder what's different about Australia/Canada/England/Wales than the USA? Why is the USA so bad? Could it be ....

200.gif
Click to expand...
There are a lot of differences between the USA and the other places that you brought up. Cultural, legal, social, etc.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
The problem is that the criminals are already well-armed and would not be impacted at all by any legislation banning firearms. The result would be the law-abiding citizen is helpless to defend themselves against well-armed criminals. When seconds count, the police are minutes to hours away.
Click to expand...
Yea, that's the lie that the right loves to use.

Studies show that a person with a gun in the home is more likely to harm themselves or a loved on than a criminal.
Statistics from the brady bill clearly showed a difference when that was law compared to before and after.

The idea that everyone can use a gun in self defense is ridiculous, First it takes training to even use a gun efficiently and effectively under normal conditions, it will be much harder in the face of danger with adrenalin amped up and your mind going into fight or flight mode. Very few are going to practice enough to be proficient with a gun and comfortable in the situation of defending their home.

Then there's the fact that a burglar, thief, or any other criminal who is committing a crime may also have a gun and be more skilled with it. I watched a video on social media (don't know the timing when this happened) where a guy got out of his car in a road rage incident with a gun, as he approached the other car the driver of the other car pulled out a gun, they both shot each other.

I'm not against gun ownership.

We need to change the laws to allow the archiving of gun crime data into databases for better study.

We need to change the narrative and stop letting the right control it with the "They will take your guns" bullshit. 99% of gun owners never use their gun to hurt another person, many believe in gun safety, change the narrative and we could get enough support for better, more consistent laws at a federal level.

And, I really believe, that those laws would reduce gun violence, without punishing safe gun owners and reducing the criminals willing to take the risk of using a gun to commit a crime.

So, basically I completely disagree with your premise.

When seconds count Bubba will probably shoot himself in the foot or shoot his sleeping wife and the criminal in his home will either escape or kill Bubba.
 
UNCatTech said:
Yea, that's the lie that the right loves to use.

Studies show that a person with a gun in the home is more likely to harm themselves or a loved on than a criminal.
Statistics from the brady bill clearly showed a difference when that was law compared to before and after.

The idea that everyone can use a gun in self defense is ridiculous, First it takes training to even use a gun efficiently and effectively under normal conditions, it will be much harder in the face of danger with adrenalin amped up and your mind going into fight or flight mode. Very few are going to practice enough to be proficient with a gun and comfortable in the situation of defending their home.

Then there's the fact that a burglar, thief, or any other criminal who is committing a crime may also have a gun and be more skilled with it. I watched a video on social media (don't know the timing when this happened) where a guy got out of his car in a road rage incident with a gun, as he approached the other car the driver of the other car pulled out a gun, they both shot each other.

I'm not against gun ownership.

We need to change the laws to allow the archiving of gun crime data into databases for better study.

We need to change the narrative and stop letting the right control it with the "They will take your guns" bullshit. 99% of gun owners never use their gun to hurt another person, many believe in gun safety, change the narrative and we could get enough support for better, more consistent laws at a federal level.

And, I really believe, that those laws would reduce gun violence, without punishing safe gun owners and reducing the criminals willing to take the risk of using a gun to commit a crime.

So, basically I completely disagree with your premise.

When seconds count Bubba will probably shoot himself in the foot or shoot his sleeping wife and the criminal in his home will either escape or kill Bubba.
Click to expand...
With adequate precautions in place, the odds of a gun in someone’s home harming someone in that home are essentially zero. Having been on the other end of an home invasion that was thwarted by our firearms, there is no scenario in which I would give that protection up. The police were in fact minutes away when seconds counted. Something that I have witnessed numerous times in my career. The first shooting I ever responded to involved a young woman home alone in broad daylight when two men kicked in her door while she was screaming and on the phone with 911. Once they broke through the door she shot the first man through and dropped him. The second one took off. Had she not been armed, the outcome would have been far different. This woman wasn’t specially trained, and neither is my wife.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
With adequate precautions in place, the odds of a gun in someone’s home harming someone in that home are essentially zero. Having been on the other end of an home invasion that was thwarted by our firearms, there is no scenario in which I would give that protection up. The police were in fact minutes away when seconds counted. Something that I have witnessed numerous times in my career. The first shooting I ever responded to involved a young woman home alone in broad daylight when two men kicked in her door while she was screaming and on the phone with 911. Once they broke through the door she shot the first man through and dropped him. The second one took off. Had she not been armed, the outcome would have been far different. This woman wasn’t specially trained, and neither is my wife.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that worked out for you, but your anecdote doesn't override the data. You can claim that no one gets hurt with their guns at home, but the data disagrees, it happens.

Statistically how do you believe your 4 or 5 incidences compare in a country with more guns than people. Hopefully you understand that they are not statistically significant.


AND in not asking that you give it up. I'm saying that if we actually study the information, that currently isn't in databases due to the NRA, we should be able to better regulate and reduce crime.

THAT IS THE GOAL, TO REDUCE CRIME.
 
UNCatTech said:
I'm glad that worked out for you, but your anecdote doesn't override the data. You can claim that no one gets hurt with their guns at home, but the data disagrees, it happens.

Statistically how do you believe your 4 or 5 incidences compare in a country with more guns than people. Hopefully you understand that they are not statistically significant.
Click to expand...
The data shows that 99.9% of legal gun owners never harm anyone with their firearms. Hopefully you understand that the 0.1% of legal gun owners that do are not statistically significant. No one is forcing you to buy a gun. However, you aren't taking mine.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
There are a lot of differences between the USA and the other places that you brought up. Cultural, legal, social, etc.
Click to expand...
In other words, those places have better cultural, legal, social, etc. than the USA. Got it.
So we're helpless at reducing gun violence.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
The data shows that 99.9% of legal gun owners never harm anyone with their firearms. Hopefully you understand that the 0.1% of legal gun owners that do are not statistically significant. No one is forcing you to buy a gun. However, you aren't taking mine.
Click to expand...
Did you read what I wrote?

We agree, I said that I my first post.

I believe that everyone that is hurt by a gun is statistically significant, I think there's a difference in significance where a life is involved.

I own about ten guns, and I support working to reduce murders perpetrated by people with guns or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
UNCatTech said:
Did you read what I wrote?

Goddamn man I said that I my first post.

Fuck you you stupid fucking moron. Keep living in your world of lies believing that everyone's out to get you and you have to have a gun at all times for protection. You must be one hell of a wimp that a gun is the only way you feel safe.

And you are wrong, everyone that is hurt by a gun it's statistically significant, but you're to fucking stupid to understand the difference between your anecdotes and human life.

I own about ten guns, but I don't live in the fantasy world you live in, so I support working to reduce murders perpetrated by people with guns or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yup, I live in a fantasy world when someone tries to break into my own fucking house. I live in a fantasy world where I treat victims of gun violence on a regular basis. Live your life all you want, but don't you dare tell me how to fucking live mine. Enjoy having your head up your ass.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Yup, I live in a fantasy world when someone tries to break into my own fucking house. I live in a fantasy world where I treat victims of gun violence on a regular basis. Live your life all you want, but don't you dare tell me how to fucking live mine. Enjoy having your head up your ass.
Click to expand...
you'd think regularly treating victims of gun violence would make you eager to reduce its incidence, not eager to perpetrate it.
 
akillesheel said:
you'd think regularly treating victims of gun violence would make you eager to reduce its incidence, not eager to perpetrate it.
Click to expand...

It does. Get guns out of the hands of criminals and wannabe gangsters and I'd probably never have to go to a shooting again. I'm also very aware of how long it actually takes help to get to you once you call 911. You better be prepared to be on your own for a half hour or longer in the event of a home invasion.
 
@ZZLPHeels

I apologize. I should not have said that to you.

I've edited my post to remove the unnecessary statements toward you.

I'm sure it's that I'm just in a bad mood and struggling with other things, but I have to be better.

It did sort of bother me that you use a statistic that I actually used in my first post. It makes me think that you didn't read the first post.

Also, I edited the second to be clear that I'm not saying that you should lose that right to defend yourself.

Again, I over reacted and was unnecessarily mean for no reason. I apologize.
 
UNCatTech said:
@ZZLPHeels

I apologize. I should not have said that to you.

I've edited my post to remove the unnecessary statements toward you.

I'm sure it's that I'm just in a bad mood and struggling with other things, but I have to be better.

It did sort of bother me that you use a statistic that I actually used in my first post. It makes me think that you didn't read the first post.

Also, I edited the second to be clear that I'm not saying that you should lose that right to defend yourself.

Again, I over reacted and was unnecessarily mean for no reason. I apologize.
Click to expand...

All good. It happens. I apologize for lashing out at you as well. I know you are better than that, and I'd like to believe I am as well. We're good.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
All good. It happens. I apologize for lashing out at you as well. I know you are better than that, and I'd like to believe I am as well. We're good.
Click to expand...
Please do read my edited post. I'm not against anyone owning guns or self defense. My only concern would be that people get training.

I do want more consistent federal laws to hopefully reduce the number of mass shootings and crimes where a gun is used. And I do believe that the right laws executed properly will make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top