Nothing On The Buffalo Mass Shooting?

[JTrain]

Anyone can manipulate statistics, man. LOL…

Right, thats all Im doing...just trying to make it look worse than it really is to win a debate on the internet...

[sctrojan]

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.

Now we know that DS is a fucking gun nut who won't compromise on anything so the rest of us have to go grab his guns

He's the guy who won't give in to common sense gun regulation reform that everybody keeps saying is supported by 75% of the nation

[Deschet]

Right, thats all Im doing...just trying to make it look worse than it really is to win a debate on the internet...

It’s funny. I was arguing with a friend on Facebook… because, apparently, I’m that bored. My response was something to the effect of this:

The problem is that, for many, our collective minds are already made up, formed in the impenetrable vacuum of our own confirmation bias and fueled by tribalistic and polarizing politics.

Instead of asking someone WHY they feel a certain way (an inquiry for knowledge and understanding) it’s often phrased as, “How COULD you feel that way?” This puts people on the defensive, and we instinctively fight back when cornered.

The instinct to corner others with gotcha moments often supersedes genuine effort to understand a conflicting viewpoint. “That’ll show them!” They cry.

However, I find when people ascribe to this orthodoxy, they’re not actually listening to those with whom they’re conversing, and instead, planning their next attack, in what becomes an ineffective and inevitable chess match.

You’ve heard me say this before, but if we listen/read 66% of the time and talk 33% of the time, we could get more accomplished in terms of conversation.

After all, proportionately, we have two eyes and ears but one mouth/thumb (yes, I’m typing with one thumb; also, it supports my analogy). This was first espoused by Epictetus, back when I was a young child, sometime before 135 AD… but it still holds true.

So… listen to those with whom you disagree rather than pondering how you’ll make them look silly. By plotting your next statement before reading and understanding theirs, you stop truly listening. And, if you’re not actively listening, you’ve already lost before your next gotcha moment lands.

But? It tracks here. You and I included, it’s fun to make people look silly. We can both do that. Easily. Usually, we refrain. But, the urge is still there. DSM gets fired-up and insults people’s intelligence — ironically mixing up too and to — and, to wit, I’m not immune to it either.

But, I question how much we really listen/comprehend one another. It’s easy to ask, “WTF can you possibly think this way?” It’s much harder to ponder the “Why” part.

[JTrain]

It’s funny. I was arguing with a friend on Facebook… because, apparently, I’m that bored. My response was something to the effect of this:



But? It tracks here. You and I included, it’s fun to make people look silly. We can both do that. Easily. Usually, we refrain. But, the urge is still there. DSM gets fired-up and insults people’s intelligence — ironically mixing up too and to — and, to wit, I’m not immune to it either.

But, I question how much we really listen/comprehend one another. It’s easy to ask, “WTF can you possibly think this way?” It’s much harder to ponder the “Why” part.

I have a family full of DSM's. I've posted with him for many years, hes a truly good person...that said, when he starts insulting, name calling and and saying fuck you, Im going to be a little more prickly. In the end, its true, most of us go into topics like this with our minds heavily made up with no room for compromise. Id like to think I understand where his argument is coming from (like I said, my whole family is made up of that ilk)...but understanding and letting a flawed logic go uncontested are two different things. Ive largely kept my mouth shut and not argued gun politics on here through most of these horrible shootings. I've hit my limit with it.

[DSMoneypit]

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.

When have I ever advocated for us to own tanks or any of that other shit. I was simply pointing out how fucking hypocritical and ignorant the anti-gun crowd is when it comes to gun laws. I advocaye for background checks, I just want the system fixed. I advocate for waiting periods and stricter requirements for owning firearms. The only thing I am vehemently opposed to is a gun registry. I do not trust our government, they have proven time and again to not care about the rights of its citizens, so I sure as hell don't trust them with a firearm registry. Especially considering when given a partial one, politicians used it to target their constituents by releasing that information to a paper.

[DSMoneypit]

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.

Concerning this, I think it is well established that an armed populace (to an extent) does have some control over preventing a despotic regime. The key to this is that every dictator ever has removed arms from their citizens.

Does this mean that armed populaces with no regulations are a guarantee against it? No, I mean we elected Trump. There are a good number of extremist this nation that probably would have supported his attempt to overthrow the government, more than the number that showed up on 1/6. I doubt they would have been successful because a lot more of the armed population wouldn't have supported him. It's those extremists, and the idiot cowards that commit mass murders are a parts of the reason why I am not opposed to things like background checks and waiting periods.

I'm not even totally against restrictions on semiautomatic rifles. I'm against bans because they won't work in my opinion, and all of the proposals are made by fucking idiots that don't know what they're talking about.

[DSMoneypit]

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.

Well considering that mass shootings weren't really an issue in those nations before they made their gun bans, I fail to see why you're surprised they're not an issue after. The US has been having mass shootings since, well, forever as far as I can find. But if you want to limit it to just random acts of violence, since at least the 60s.

Read the last paragraph from my post you quoted again. Thanks for proving you're a fucking hypocrite who doesn't truly care about kids being killed. I'm gonna go DPR here, you only care when its a mass shooting that killed them.

Here's a hint, solve one issue and you limit the other. If you target gun violence in general, you'll be far more successful at preventing mass shootings.

[DSMoneypit]

Anyone can manipulate statistics, man. LOL…

Yep, because less than 10 of those 288 were random mass shootings like Uvalde. Some were shootings at football games between groups of teens having a fight. Some were drug deals going bad in parking lot between people that had nothing to do with the school. Others were shootings after hours between teachers. Students committing suicide without shooting anyone else.

I mean for fuck's sake, some of the "school shootings" included in that total include a father who shot a principal for strangling his son.

There have been 87 shootings at schools that qualify as mass shootings, 201 less than Jtrains number (since he only wants to discuss mass shootings). Of those, here are some facts.

42 of those resulted in 1 or less deaths (most of the deaths were the shooter).

25 had 10 or victims (wounded and dead)

17 had 5 or more deaths.

7 had 10 more deaths.

Of the other 201, well you've got a bunch of murder suicides, accidents where kids brought guns to show off like they're toys, parenta fighting over custody, etc...

So again, the vast majority of these have shit all to do with assault rifles, and a good number wouldn't happen if we taught kids gun safety.

[Deschet]

Concerning this, I think it is well established that an armed populace (to an extent) does have some control over preventing a despotic regime. The key to this is that every dictator ever has removed arms from their citizens.

Does this mean that armed populaces with no regulations are a guarantee against it? No, I mean we elected Trump. There are a good number of extremist this nation that probably would have supported his attempt to overthrow the government, more than the number that showed up on 1/6. I doubt they would have been successful because a lot more of the armed population wouldn't have supported him. It's those extremists, and the idiot cowards that commit mass murders are a parts of the reason why I am not opposed to things like background checks and waiting periods.

I'm not even totally against restrictions on semiautomatic rifles. I'm against bans because they won't work in my opinion, and all of the proposals are made by fucking idiots that don't know what they're talking about.

Okay. And, where have you seen me say, “BAN ALL GUNS MEAOW!”? I haven’t. But, if we’re getting into the tyranny thing, we also have to get into Framer’s Intent. And that leads us to the Second Amendment itself.

I assume you know your history, and thus, don’t need a lecture. Can we both conclude that, prior to a standing army, militias were our primary means of defense?

For now, let’s go no deeper than that.

[JTrain]

Yep, because less than 10 of those 288 were random mass shootings like Uvalde. Some were shootings at football games between groups of teens having a fight. Some were drug deals going bad in parking lot between people that had nothing to do with the school. Others were shootings after hours between teachers. Students committing suicide without shooting anyone else.

I mean for fuck's sake, some of the "school shootings" included in that total include a father who shot a principal for strangling his son.

There have been 87 shootings at schools that qualify as mass shootings, 201 less than Jtrains number (since he only wants to discuss mass shootings). Of those, here are some facts.

42 of those resulted in 1 or less deaths (most of the deaths were the shooter).

25 had 10 or victims (wounded and dead)

17 had 5 or more deaths.

7 had 10 more deaths.

Of the other 201, well you've got a bunch of murder suicides, accidents where kids brought guns to show off like they're toys, parenta fighting over custody, etc...

So again, the vast majority of these have shit all to do with assault rifles, and a good number wouldn't happen if we taught kids gun safety.

The hilarious part about this is you think these are good numbers for you. 7 shootings of 10 deaths or more is 7 too fucking many. 17 of 5 or more is 17 too fucking many. 25 with 10 victims is 25 too fucking many. Those numbers are still more than any country in the world...thats if we accept your bullshit framing. You still lose.

[DSMoneypit]

Okay. And, where have you seen me say, “BAN ALL GUNS MEAOW!”? I haven’t. But, if we’re getting into the tyranny thing, we also have to get into Framer’s Intent. And that leads us to the Second Amendment itself.

I assume you know your history, and thus, don’t need a lecture. Can we both conclude that, prior to a standing army, militias were our primary means of defense?

For now, let’s go no deeper than that.

I can see what you're intending to imply, but I respectfully disagree. All most all of the founding fathers, who played a significant part in framing the basis for the constitution, were quite vocal that an armed populace was a good thing. Most notably James Madison who wrote and George Mason who had an influence in it's creation. But I'm sure you knew that. What I'm not sure of is whether you really believe that the amendment was only to avoid a standing military and not that they also intended to keep the population armed in general.

[DSMoneypit]

The hilarious part about this is you think these are good numbers for you. 7 shootings of 10 deaths or more is 7 too fucking many. 17 of 5 or more is 17 too fucking many. 25 with 10 victims is 25 too fucking many. Those numbers are still more than any country in the world...thats if we accept your bullshit framing. You still lose.

I don't think they're good numbers. I think they're horrible. I am just pointing out how harmful lies like the one you posted are. The numbers are bad enough, there's no need to exaggerate them. By exaggerating them, you're showing the weakness of your position.

[JTrain]

I don't think they're good numbers. I think they're horrible. I am just pointing out how harmful lies like the one you posted are. The numbers are bad enough, there's no need to exaggerate them. By exaggerating them, you're showing the weakness of your position.

Its not an exaggeration, those are factual numbers. There have been 288 shootings at schools this year. Nowhere else in the world has there been more than 10. Why is that? Ease of access + Poor mental health care. We can and need to fix both, and the answer is not just enforce the laws that got us here.

[CheaterMichael]

Dumb question but does anything like the NRA exist in other countries?

[daCat]

I wonder how many people wanting gun control will still feel the same about it when Trump is elected again and decides to seize complete power.