Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nothing On The Buffalo Mass Shooting?

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JTrain
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    No there haven't. Unless you're using the same criteria as this group who said there have been almost 2000 school shootings since 1950. Then you read the rationale behind that number. It includws anytime a gun was brandished or fired, or a bullet hit school property, no matter when the event happened and whether there were any victims.

    Post your methodology. I posted government studies, with actual numbers concerning Australia, which you dismissed but at least I posted actual studies that support my position. You posted a meme with nothing to support it. The only numbers I can find for this year is 27 from gunpolicy.org. None of which were active shooter mass shootings other than Uvalde.
    You either ignored the posts I made with links, or didnt care to click them. I'll let you choose which. The Australia numbers show that since tighter gun laws there have been 0 mass shootings in the country. None of this makes the point you think you are making. Children are dying because our sick citizens have easy access to guns. This notion that cutting a number down to where we are still significantly worse than everyone else and should do nothing is absurdism.

    https://www.fastcompany.com/90755612...has-had-dozens

    So for the record...your argument here has been:

    1. Other countries do it too!
    2. Changing things in other countries hasnt fixed anything (It has, literally to the point where the problem is non existent)
    3. Our laws would work if they were enforced (Then why havent they)
    4. Changing things would be hard, so lets not even try! Aww dead kids, but lets go shootin' our ARs out back for Murica!

    I hope you use better arguments when speaking to people IRL.

    Leave a comment:


  • sctrojan
    replied
    Originally posted by Deschet View Post

    Yes. They were mindful of these things. They were also very fearful of a standing army, and as they had no design for there to be one, included the 2A in the Bill of Rights.

    Madison (and Mason) indeed proposed it primarily to bolster state militias. Remember, that the 2A was an anti-federalist measure and, the well-regulated militia clause can be argued as clearly defining the rationale for gun ownership. After all, these were not men that minced words, and if they didn’t intend to qualify the amendment, they wouldn’t have included the militia clause. As they did include it, it’s therefore reasonable to conclude this.

    Regardless, it’s not logical to conclude that any civilian force, no matter how armed-to-the-teeth, could ever, at this point, present even a tiny threat to the government. Thus, the militia point as a bulwark against government tyranny is rendered moot.
    Whenever gun nuts like DS read the 2nd everything prior to the dangling participle is ignored.

    Leave a comment:


  • sctrojan
    replied
    Originally posted by daCat View Post
    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.
    You fucks had your chance on 1/6 and left your guns at home.

    So let's fucking dispense with DS concern about armed citizens uprising against a despotic govt.


    Trump tried to grab power but our institutions held. There are going to be other repubs who will try shit and Dems will fucking protect us all.

    No need for citizens to own guns

    Leave a comment:


  • sctrojan
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    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.
    So you don't trust our govt for gun registries why is that an infringement on your privacy? The 4th and the 1st protect your 2nd.

    I suppose you don't trust the govt for voter id info either which means voting is fraudulent forever.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by JTrain View Post

    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.
    No there haven't. Unless you're using the same criteria as this group who said there have been almost 2000 school shootings since 1950. Then you read the rationale behind that number. It includws anytime a gun was brandished or fired, or a bullet hit school property, no matter when the event happened and whether there were any victims.

    Post your methodology. I posted government studies, with actual numbers concerning Australia, which you dismissed but at least I posted actual studies that support my position. You posted a meme with nothing to support it. The only numbers I can find for this year is 27 from gunpolicy.org. None of which were active shooter mass shootings other than Uvalde.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deschet
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    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.
    Yes. They were mindful of these things. They were also very fearful of a standing army, and as they had no design for there to be one, included the 2A in the Bill of Rights.

    Madison (and Mason) indeed proposed it primarily to bolster state militias. Remember, that the 2A was an anti-federalist measure and, the well-regulated militia clause can be argued as clearly defining the rationale for gun ownership. After all, these were not men that minced words, and if they didn’t intend to qualify the amendment, they wouldn’t have included the militia clause. As they did include it, it’s therefore reasonable to conclude this.

    Regardless, it’s not logical to conclude that any civilian force, no matter how armed-to-the-teeth, could ever, at this point, present even a tiny threat to the government. Thus, the militia point as a bulwark against government tyranny is rendered moot.

    Leave a comment:


  • daCat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • JTrain
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by JTrain View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by Deschet View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JTrain
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deschet
    replied
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by Deschet View Post

    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.
    Last edited by DSMoneypit; 05-26-2022, 06:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSMoneypit
    replied
    Originally posted by JTrain View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X