-->
@n8nrgim
I posted it earlier. I am not going to spoon feed you to the "Common sense science"
Tired Pro-Gun Talking Points
Posts
Total:
190
-->
@n8nrgim
i do know, most schools are gun free zones,
But the ones in the very middle of high crime cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York which are not gun free zones (they have armed guards) seem to NEVER be targeted.
There is a common sense reason for that.
Those schools are absolutely saturated with guns with no incidents of mass shootings. Care to explain this?
-->
@Greyparrot
having armed guards is a unique form of defense. that shouldn't count as to whether having concealed carry or lots of guns there makes a difference. to be clear, i'm on the fence about teachers having guns, cause i know guns introduce murder more than if the gun isn't there and mass shootings are rare, but i also know teachers are usually good character.
-->
@Greyparrot
since you usually ignore the most important points....
"u need to show the proportion of gun free zones versus the rate they are targeted."
-->
@Greyparrot
to be clear, i can be convinced concealed carry is good, even though i'm skeptical right now, but that wouldnt change anything else, the overwhelming other evidence, that i've posted.
-->
@n8nrgim
having armed guards is a unique form of defense. that shouldn't count as to whether having concealed carry or lots of guns there makes a difference. to be clear, i'm on the fence about teachers having guns, cause i know guns introduce murder more than if the gun isn't there and mass shootings are rare, but i also know teachers are usually good character.
I am also on the fence about it since we have never tried universal carry in schools, but what we DO know is that in areas saturated with guns like inner cities, mass shootings are non-existent precisely because there are no gun-free schools there. If a school can't afford an armed guard to stop mass shootings, wouldn't concealed carry be an option on the table?
-->
@Greyparrot
all i can do is keep harping you on the exact stats. i can't just take your word on it, sorry.
-->
@n8nrgim
i can't just take your word on it, sorry.
Nor should you. go look up how many inner city schools in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles were targeted for mass shootings.
-->
@Greyparrot
this article says the science on gun free zones is inconclusive.
i dont know anything except everything else i've said.
-->
@Greyparrot
As long as there is no dried semen on the cut out targets, I am ok with this.
You're kind of an excuse for a human being. Do you not have a job?
-->
@n8nrgim
this article says the science on gun free zones is inconclusive.
So which is it. Is the science "common sense" or is it inconclusive?
If it is inconclusive, shouldn't we figure it out before more kids die?
-->
@badger
sometimes he claims he's retired and living it up on his investments, and sometimes he's claiming to be a shrewd welfare queen. i dont think grayparrot fully respects reality or understands himself, so i dont think it's possible for others to fully make sense of him or his arguments either.
-->
@Outplayz
Like ban AR's is like saying ban Honda's bc most accidents involve a Honda.
This is a self defeating argument. If all guns were the same them there is no reason gun advocates would be so passionate about buying particular ones. An assault weapons ban would therefore not impact them at all.
But of course we know that's false. A product designed to me more powerful and more efficient will be better at achieving the goal. And since the entire point of a gun, the thing it is literally designed to do, is kill people... Forcing mass shooters to settle for something less effective will certainly save lives.
Quite literally having everyone armed is probably the one solution that would put the biggest dent into this problem. I mean, we've never done it so i'm not sure how it will play out... will bar fight deaths outweigh any other positive?
Arming every single individual in the country is not something we just try to see what happens. That's insane.
You're literally arguing that the solution to a country plagued with gun violence is to add more guns. This is hardly any different than arguing that the solution to the opiod crisis is to increase the flow of opioids.
The idea that a good guy with guns is the answer to mass shootings is just wrong. Common sense alone refutes this. It doesn't take much of an imagination to recognize the chaos that would ensue if a mass shooter went on a rampage in a room full of guns - everyone would pull out their guns and no one would know who the shooter is. And this isn't just speculative, there have been a number of examples of this. In Tuscon for example when Gabby Giffords was shot there was a good guy with a gun on the scene and he almost shot one of the individuals who wrestled the shooter down and took his gun.
-->
@Greyparrot
Outlawing guns while having no controls in place to stop guns from coming in is worthless.How do you know this? We have never tried universally permitted conceal carry laws in the country yet. Maybe the NRA is wrong about universal concealed carry?Can you accept the fact that the NRA could be wrong?
How do I know this? What?
It's basic common sense, but doesn't even look like you were responding to what you quoted. In fact none of you're post addresses anything I said, which I guess is not surprising.
-->
@Greyparrot
@badger
You're kind of an excuse for a human being. Do you not have a job?
Pretty sure he’s a teacher, but he takes a crap load in government welfare even though he doesn’t need it. The government is too incompetent to do anything about it, sooo man’s literally living life
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, MAD would prevent mass shootings. If everyone had a gun, even the lunatics will realize that by the time they pull out their gun, 10 other people will have theirs ready to go as well. Waste of time really at that point. Just a thought
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm just surprised doubleR accepts the premise that the NRA can't be wrong about universal concealed carry.
Why is the NRA immune from scrutiny?
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just surprised doubleR accepts the premise that the NRA can't be wrong about universal concealed carry.
What a stupid comment. You know damn well that I never said nor implied anything like this. As usual, you are not here for serious conversation but rather to play games and troll.
-->
@ILikePie5
Honestly, MAD would prevent mass shootings. If everyone had a gun, even the lunatics will realize that by the time they pull out their gun, 10 other people will have theirs ready to go as well. Waste of time really at that point. Just a thought
So your position is; 'more guns = less gun violence'. Is that correct?
-->
@Double_R
Rapid crowd outside his house chanting their rant and rave ...More Guns! More Guns! More Guns!....as they march on Washington Ave toward the the Capital Building.....and capital police poop their pants.
Then the Republicans all come out in front of Capital with tapping pistols in holsters on their hips and holding asault rifles above there heads in respect of Charlton Heston, they all shout in unison.....From My Dead Hands! From My Dead Hands! From My Dead Hands!
The Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel and his wifel lift their rifles above their heads and taunt the capitol police to come and ...Just Try and Remove These Assault Rifles from our Hands!....
Then the Trumpet appears on top of the capitol building holding above his head.............
And the masses go wild and charge to building in support of the leaders of their massive USA gun movement to hand out assault weapons to any citizen who wants one and they all shout in unison, ...... Revolution! Revolution! Revolution!
Then Republicans across USA nation start taking over news stations shouting...Climate is not an Issue, Climate Is Not an Issue!, Climate is not an Issue!
Then the Trumpets Republicans in military make their move with banners on their tanks stating .....Make America Great Again!..Make America Great Again! Make America Great Again!
-->
@Double_R
So your position is; 'more guns = less gun violence'. Is that correct?
Depends. If an active shooter is neutralized, does that count as “gun violence.” What’s the metric deaths or violence? Cause it sure as hell will prevent more deaths imo
-->
@ILikePie5
Mass shootings are not the only way people are killed by guns, they're just the event that capture everyone's attention.
The idea of arming everyone might work to prevent large body counts resulting from a crazed gunman opening fire on a crowd, but that also means everyone carries a firearm in every other instance where a firearm might do a lot more damage then good.
So I ask, do you believe more guns = less gun violence? It's a simple question no matter how complicated you try and make it. You can deflect by pointing to defensive gun usages but the only reason the vast majority of people need a gun to defend themselves is because the aggressor has a gun, so this argument is pretty much worthless.
I'm not advocating for taking away everyone's guns as the political right loves to cartoonishly portray, there's a balance to everything. But imagine for one second a society with no guns at all except in the hands of law enforcement. Do you seriously believe that this society would be less safe then what you are proposing?
-->
@ILikePie5
I've heard of those who are good at cultivating life
Traveling on the road, they do not encounter rhinos or tigers
Entering into an army, they are not harmed by weapons
Rhinos have nowhere to thrust their horns
Tigers have nowhere to clasp their claws
Soldiers have nowhere to lodge their blades
Why? Because they have no place for death
many adults are no different than children. i dont think anyone disputes this. but the gun nuts will instinctively say children shouldn't have guns but any non criminal adult should be able to, and some nuts say all non criminal adults should have one. so think about it. if children have problems hitting each other with hammers, isn't it better to discourage kids from having hammers, especially the bad ones? to say it's better to give all the good kids hammers is expecting the world to be divided into good guys and bad guys. good kids act up and hit kids with hammers too. the point, if you give a bunch of adults guns, it's like giving a bunch of kids hammers. of course more problems will arise than good things. half of adults are no better than children. full stop.
-->
@ILikePie5
do you think it's better to give all well behaved kids hammers if there's a problem with bad kids hitting others with hammers? do you honestly think half of adults are any better than children?
if kids can't handle guns, does anyone think every non criminal over 18 would be able to handle guns too? per arming everyone who's not a criminal. half of a adults are no better than kids, so it's basically like arming kids.
-->
@ILikePie5
Honestly, MAD would prevent mass shootings. If everyone had a gun, even the lunatics will realize that by the time they pull out their gun, 10 other people will have theirs ready to go as well. Waste of time really at that point. Just a thought
It's a whole lot of the reason you have mass shootings in the first place for sure. It's also the reason your cops shoot and kill so many people. I don't know what kinda science you do on this, but it seems obvious to me. The only guns I ever see are along with those army escorts for cash vans, and the shit is spooky, and people steer clear. I mean, everyone's got that dumb friend who liked to play edgy with knives or whatever, right. There's an anxiety about this shit. This shit lends a different aspect to people. You lot are batshit crazy tbh.
-->
@Double_R
The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is. [**]
Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is. [**]
-->
@3RU7AL
The reasons for this I think are common sense. If we had the ability to single out the good guys and only give them guns, then of course this would be a good thing. But there's no way to know who is a good guy, so arming every good guy necessarily results in arming bad guys as well. Like I've said plenty of times already, nearly every mass shooter is a law abiding citizen until they fire the first bullet.
Moreover, the whole idea of needing a good guy with a gun presumes the bad guy are also going to get them. If there are less guns because guns are harder to get, then statistically, there will be less armed bad guys. That's common sense.
Another reason for this is also quite simple; if you know the other guy has a gun, you are more likely to reach for yours. The other guy being armed puts you're life in danger, making you defensive. Turns out fearing for one's own life is not a great de-escalator, just ask the police.
The last part of it is basic math. There's about 400 million guns in the US, so let's perform the following excercise; count from 400M down to zero. At each number list the number of Americans who will likely be killed by guns based on the total number of guns in the country. Take note at how the lower the number of guns gets, the lower the death toll gets until you get to zero guns, where, logically, you can only have zero gun deaths.
This is why I ask whether people believe more guns = less gun violence. I'd love to know how their math works.
-->
@Double_R
Reducing guns also means a possibility of Marxists taking over, which would cause far more deaths if they had control of all the guns.
vivre libre ou mourir