Nothing On The Buffalo Mass Shooting?

[DPR]

Team gun doesn't want to meet in the middle? Seriously? Name one other part of the bill of rights that's been eroded upon as much as the second? Everytime there has been a compromise by the "team gun" side, it has eroded rights of Americans and when those acts fail, does "team no guns" return those rights? No, they say they didn't go far enough. They ignore the fact that those things aren't being enforced, so we can't know if they would work, no, they just want to take more, and more, and more, until in the end, the only people with weapons to defend themselves will be the criminals on the street or the puppets of the criminals in office.

I'll ask the same question here that I did in the other thread. If approximately 90% of these mass shootings could have been prevented with the enforcement of current laws, why do you believe that passing more laws will be a miracle salve?

We have no-knock raids on houses based on hearsay and this stupid motherfucker wants us to think the 2A is the most trampled on amendment?

[ivegostdacityblues]

No, I don't. I never bring up third world shitholes because they're low hanging fruit. I'm not lazy like the anti-gun crowd and media are. China routinely has knife attacks injuring or killing 4 or more. France averages a knife attack killing or wounding 2 or more at least once a week. If you truly look, and use a lot of google translate, you can find foreign language sources to back this up. In Europe, there is a mass casualty event that happens almost monthly. The difference is that their events rarely make the news here unless the death tolls near 100s, or are islamic terrorism.

My dude, multi casualty shootings we have more that one a day.

[DSMoneypit]

The truth is, these people do not want compromise and are unwilling to do so. Their answer, "just do a better job enforcing the law...yeeeee-hawww!" The actual real world data using countries that are similar to us is staggering. They also love to say "laws in other countries restricting guns have been proven not to work" yet countries like Australia and the UK have seen incredible success with their restrictions.

As I have pointed out numerous times, the data is there all you have to is bother to do some simple fucking research by using those nations own criminal databases to see for yourself. Those laws haven't been incredibly successful, in fact they haven't done shit really aside from lead to increases in minor crimes (at least that's what their data shows). What the data actually shows, in Australia for example (you can use abs.gov.au/ausstats and dig around for yourself) is that prior to the 1996 gun law, they were already seeing a decline in gun homicides. In 1980, 0.8% of gun deaths were homicides. In 1995 it had dropped to 0.3%. Care to guess what that number is today? I'll make it easy for you it's still roughly the same. There has been an overall drop, but that's due to an almost 50% reduction in suicides since the ban. So I guess there is that.

You will find similar numbers in the UK, France, Germany, etc...all of the poster childs for the anti-gun debate as proof that gun laws work. All those really do, when you study them, is prove that we are different cultures.

Would you like to guess what the US's was over the same time period?


For good or ill, the gun is a part of American culture. We need to find a way to fix this while understanding that we are intrinsically different from those places. But, in my most humble of opinions, the very first step has to be better enforcement of the laws currently on the books. Let's give that a shot, and if in a decade it hasn't worked, then let's look into other options. You, Deschet, and any other rational intelligent adult should know that knee jerk reactions lead to poorly considered options. Enforce the laws we have and give them time to take affect. Hell, I'd even be up for a temporary moratorium on the sale of semi-automatic rifles as long as there is a guarantee in law that it will be rescinded when it's proven to not have done a thing, the same way the last one was handled.

[DSMoneypit]

We are talking about gun related violence. Why can't they use guns? Because their countries restrict who can and cannot have a gun. No one is saying this will stop whackos from trying to commit murder, but it sure as shit limits the scope. Ive said we need to focus on mental health issues as well, but there is no logical argument at this point against making changes to our gun policies...because intended or not, its not fucking working. How many more innocent children need to die? I will gladly trade a knife attack wounding 2, over a gun attack killing 19 children.

No, we weren't. We were talking about mass casualty events. Then, when your shit got pushed in for being wrong, you moved the goal line.

[DSMoneypit]

The fourth. Civil forfeiture, warrantless wiretaps, stingrays, etc.

Also the tenth with unitary executive theory practiced by both parties.

Saying the patriot act and war on drugs would have sufficed for the 4th. I'm still not sure it is afar as the Second has been reduced. I mean for almost 140 years, you could own any weapon the military could without any restrictions.

And before people say that's because all the military had were cannons and muskets. No, that is not true. Up until the NFA of 1934, you could own anything (if you could pay for it) the military could. This included naval warships, machine guns, fighter planes, and tanks.

[JTrain]

No, we weren't. We were talking about mass casualty events. Then, when your shit got pushed in for being wrong, you moved the goal line.

No, even with knife attacks, you've lost here. You've yet to show one single data point that shows countries with strict gun law have as many mass attacks/deaths as we do here. Your example was google it, I think France had a knife attack once! Same thing as a gun killing 19 children.

[DPR]

Saying the patriot act and war on drugs would have sufficed for the 4th. I'm still not sure it is afar as the Second has been reduced. I mean for almost 140 years, you could own any weapon the military could without any restrictions.

And before people say that's because all the military had were cannons and muskets. No, that is not true. Up until the NFA of 1934, you could own anything (if you could pay for it) the military could. This included naval warships, machine guns, fighter planes, and tanks.

Fighter planes and tanks were first introduced in 1915 according to the googs. And those initial prototypes were almost certainly garbage. When they started to develop them a bit better, the government banned them for personal use. Same with machine guns. The Maxim was introduced in 1884 and handheld automatic rifles didn't make their way into the world until 1892 if I'm reading google correctly. Again, as they became more practical, they were outlawed.

Naval warships doesn't even dignify a response as that's completely stupid. Only some ultra-rich megalomaniac has the capacity to buy, outfit and staff a naval warship.

But nice effort at making a dumb point. You're on fire here.

[DSMoneypit]

No, even with knife attacks, you've lost here. You've yet to show one single data point that shows countries with strict gun law have as many mass attacks/deaths as we do here. Your example was google it, I think France had a knife attack once! Same thing as a gun killing 19 children.

Fuck you dude, the evidence is there, I've shared it so many times on this board when having this same argument with Beamer. The simple facts are these. 1st world nations have similar rates of mass casualty events. Guns aren't used in them as often, which is why they rarely make the news here. You have to go to foreign news sources to get the information. Hell, knife attacks are so bad and so frequent in the UK that they're trying to ban knives. But sure, those are just a once a decade type of crime according to you. As with everything else in the world, narratives matter. The news in the US isn't going to tell you what the average gun homicide rate in Australia was in Australia before they banned semi-automatic weapons and that it didn't change significantly post ban because they know it doesn't support their narrative. Here, I will give you data collected by the Australian government showing just how little effect their ban had on gun crime.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...2?OpenDocument (this is an official Australian Government report, it was created to provide a data point for use in studying the actual effects of the ban)

Here is another government report. Unfortunately this is a PDF, but it's still enlightening about the ineffectiveness of the program.

https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default...0-05/sr002.pdf

If you bother to read them, you'll find that pre-ban gun homicides were responsible for approximately 1/5th of all homicides in Australia and 25% of all suicides. Please check the US numbers and let me know how those stack up.

You'll also see that those numbers remained constant even after the ban. The overall number of them went down, but as the graphs and data points show, so did the number of all homicides. Something that you will find occurring in every 1st world nation over the same time period.

But you couldn't care less about learning the truth when it comes this, you pretend ro care when kids are killed in a schools but don't give a rats ass when kids are murdered at a far higher rate in urban areas. Fuck you and you're faux moral high ground. Until you've done the actual research that I have into this stuff, you best sit your ass down and shut up.

[DSMoneypit]

Fighter planes and tanks were first introduced in 1915 according to the googs. And those initial prototypes were almost certainly garbage. When they started to develop them a bit better, the government banned them for personal use. Same with machine guns. The Maxim was introduced in 1884 and handheld automatic rifles didn't make their way into the world until 1892 if I'm reading google correctly. Again, as they became more practical, they were outlawed.

Naval warships doesn't even dignify a response as that's completely stupid. Only some ultra-rich megalomaniac has the capacity to buy, outfit and staff a naval warship.

But nice effort at making a dumb point. You're on fire here.

I swore to quit responding to you, but this response from you was so fucking gutless, it required a rebuttal.

My point: The government allowed people to own the exact same weapons the military owned with no restrictions until 1934. This included Machine guns, fighters, tanks, etc...

Your response: "but those weapons sucked back then"

The Thompson submachine gun was invented in 1915 iirc, was used by the army and marines all the way into the Korean war. The BAR was invented in the 1910s and was used in both world wars. The Browning 1919 (invented in 1919 obviously)30 cal machine gun is still in use today in some nations, and was used in the US military until 60s or 70s. The Browning M2, well that was 1918 and it's still in use today with our military. But sure, the only reason they let civilians have those was because they were garbage and the government didn't ban them until they got better. Wrong dumbass. The government didn't ban them until 1986. And even then they didn't really ban them. You can't buy a newly manufactured one, but you sure as hell can go and buy any of the firearms I mentioned as long as they were made and registered before May of 86. They added regulations to them because of the crime sprees during prohibition. You know, the government passing stupid laws limiting rights, and criminals taking advantage of them. Seems to be a common theme.

[JTrain]

Fuck you dude, the evidence is there, I've shared it so many times on this board when having this same argument with Beamer. The simple facts are these. 1st world nations have similar rates of mass casualty events. Guns aren't used in them as often, which is why they rarely make the news here. You have to go to foreign news sources to get the information. Hell, knife attacks are so bad and so frequent in the UK that they're trying to ban knives. But sure, those are just a once a decade type of crime according to you. As with everything else in the world, narratives matter. The news in the US isn't going to tell you what the average gun homicide rate in Australia was in Australia before they banned semi-automatic weapons and that it didn't change significantly post ban because they know it doesn't support their narrative. Here, I will give you data collected by the Australian government showing just how little effect their ban had on gun crime.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...2?OpenDocument (this is an official Australian Government report, it was created to provide a data point for use in studying the actual effects of the ban)

Here is another government report. Unfortunately this is a PDF, but it's still enlightening about the ineffectiveness of the program.

https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default...0-05/sr002.pdf

If you bother to read them, you'll find that pre-ban gun homicides were responsible for approximately 1/5th of all homicides in Australia and 25% of all suicides. Please check the US numbers and let me know how those stack up.

You'll also see that those numbers remained constant even after the ban. The overall number of them went down, but as the graphs and data points show, so did the number of all homicides. Something that you will find occurring in every 1st world nation over the same time period.

But you couldn't care less about learning the truth when it comes this, you pretend ro care when kids are killed in a schools but don't give a rats ass when kids are murdered at a far higher rate in urban areas. Fuck you and you're faux moral high ground. Until you've done the actual research that I have into this stuff, you best sit your ass down and shut up.

None of this says what you think it does. You are used to arguing this shit with folks who wont call you out for cherry picking stats to illustrate your ill-conceived point of view. I'll spell this out clearly for you sweetie pie...No country like ours has the amount of mass shootings and attacks that we do. What you are attempting to do is combine it with "all firearm deaths. This has only been about mass attacks. Now punkin, tell me how many mass shootings have occurred in Australia since implementing stricter gun control. Same with the UK. How many mass shootings have happened since tighter gun law? You know the answer, you just don't want to say it.

Also, still waiting on you to show me one single data source showing other countries like us have the same amount of mass shootings/attacks that we do.

[JTrain]

Just for my own amusement:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/w...a-britain.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/109900858
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2-tally-number

The US accounts for roughly 5% of the worlds population but is responsible for 31% of all mass shootings in the world. Like I said, a staggering number.

[Deschet]

I swore to quit responding to you, but this response from you was so fucking gutless, it required a rebuttal.

My point: The government allowed people to own the exact same weapons the military owned with no restrictions until 1934. This included Machine guns, fighters, tanks, etc...

Your response: "but those weapons sucked back then"

The Thompson submachine gun was invented in 1915 iirc, was used by the army and marines all the way into the Korean war. The BAR was invented in the 1910s and was used in both world wars. The Browning 1919 (invented in 1919 obviously)30 cal machine gun is still in use today in some nations, and was used in the US military until 60s or 70s. The Browning M2, well that was 1918 and it's still in use today with our military. But sure, the only reason they let civilians have those was because they were garbage and the government didn't ban them until they got better. Wrong dumbass. The government didn't ban them until 1986. And even then they didn't really ban them. You can't buy a newly manufactured one, but you sure as hell can go and buy any of the firearms I mentioned as long as they were made and registered before May of 86. They added regulations to them because of the crime sprees during prohibition. You know, the government passing stupid laws limiting rights, and criminals taking advantage of them. Seems to be a common theme.

Can you allow for the fact that the exponential advancement of military-grade hardware necessitates making some, if not most, illegal to own for the average citizen?

Surely, you have a line. Is it stealth aircraft, which poses a massive breech of national security? Is it predator drones? M1 Abrams battle tanks? Nukes? Where is the line? Because, assuming you have one, then you’ve already accepted a degree of gun control.

Now. Are you of a mind that part of the reasoning for unfettered gun ownership is to serve as a check to the power of a despotic government. I’d like your comments on the record… sans insult, if possible.

[JTrain]

highest # of school shootings by country, 2022:
us: 288
mexico: 8
s africa: 6
india: 5
nigeria: 4
pakistan: 4
afghanistan: 4
canada: 2
france: 2
brazil: 2

Then theres this from 2009-2018:

[Deschet]

highest # of school shootings by country, 2022:
us: 288
mexico: 8
s africa: 6
india: 5
nigeria: 4
pakistan: 4
afghanistan: 4
canada: 2
france: 2
brazil: 2

Then theres this from 2009-2018:

Anyone can manipulate statistics, man. LOL…

[sctrojan]

As I have pointed out numerous times, the data is there all you have to is bother to do some simple fucking research by using those nations own criminal databases to see for yourself. Those laws haven't been incredibly successful, in fact they haven't done shit really aside from lead to increases in minor crimes (at least that's what their data shows). What the data actually shows, in Australia for example (you can use abs.gov.au/ausstats and dig around for yourself) is that prior to the 1996 gun law, they were already seeing a decline in gun homicides. In 1980, 0.8% of gun deaths were homicides. In 1995 it had dropped to 0.3%. Care to guess what that number is today? I'll make it easy for you it's still roughly the same. There has been an overall drop, but that's due to an almost 50% reduction in suicides since the ban. So I guess there is that.

You will find similar numbers in the UK, France, Germany, etc...all of the poster childs for the anti-gun debate as proof that gun laws work. All those really do, when you study them, is prove that we are different cultures.

Would you like to guess what the US's was over the same time period?


For good or ill, the gun is a part of American culture. We need to find a way to fix this while understanding that we are intrinsically different from those places. But, in my most humble of opinions, the very first step has to be better enforcement of the laws currently on the books. Let's give that a shot, and if in a decade it hasn't worked, then let's look into other options. You, Deschet, and any other rational intelligent adult should know that knee jerk reactions lead to poorly considered options. Enforce the laws we have and give them time to take affect. Hell, I'd even be up for a temporary moratorium on the sale of semi-automatic rifles as long as there is a guarantee in law that it will be rescinded when it's proven to not have done a thing, the same way the last one was handled.

Dude, just stop. You are demanding that everybody acts and behaves responsibly exactly like you.

That will never happen so what next?