You know the biggest irony of them all is that the 2nd amendment is (unfortunately) meant to defend terrorist movements being armed against the government and police.
I don't think anybody has really read it properly.
Tired Pro-Gun Talking Points
Posts
Total:
190
The founding fathers were terrorists.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes actually in a way you are right, George Washington was very likely a high functioning Sociopath and let's see how America began in the first place.
-->
@Greyparrot
Reducing guns also means a possibility of Marxists taking over, which would cause far more deaths if they had control of all the guns.
Yes, I am well aware of the right wing paranoia that ensures every aspiring mass murderer is better equipped to accomplish the task than our soldiers in Vietnam.
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.
Right. No one is loyal to types or models/ makes of cars.
Right. No one is loyal to types or models/ makes of cars.
Of course they are, that's the point.
-->
@Double_R
The entire point of government is to be the means by which society solves its problems. Mass shootings in America is a problem. Democrats are not politicizing this, this is a political issue.
There are countries with less guns per Capita than the United States and a higher per Capita rate of death to mass shootings. The problem is not a single fun law would reduce death by mass murder even an iota.
Easily the most disingenuous of them all. If not in the aftermath of a mass shooting, the very thing gun control laws are mostly aimed at deterring, then when the hell is the right time to talk about this? When have republicans ever came out and said “ok, let’s talk about this issue now”. Never happened.
I actually was a democrat while you have never been a republican. This is why I know you are being disingenuous here. Everyone knows we can make more rational policy decisions when they are not emotional reactions. I was a democrat during the Bush Whitehouse years and all of us were warning that letting the heat of the moment decide policy decisions was not as good as just waiting until we could think calmly about what needs to be done.
Bush was being an opportunist when it came to creating the surveillance state and it was sick. Just like politicians currently using the most recent mass shooting to get bills passed that won't actually reduce mass shootings in the future.
The problem is mental health
Correct that is a stupid thing it's them knowing it's a bullshit argument like democrats knows gun grabbing is bullshit as a defense against another mass shooting.
Arming teachers really would have prevented a lot of deaths, but you know it is a stupid talking point. Most aren't going to want to teach with a gun on their hip. No policy maker actually suggests this though. It's pretty much a strawman because people heard a distant relative mention the ideal offhand one time and we're offended
-->
@Incel-chud
There are countries with less guns per Capita than the United States and a higher per Capita rate of death to mass shootings.
citation please
-->
@3RU7AL
America has highest guns per Capita which everyone knows so here is the mass shooting list
Average (Mean) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
Norway — 1.888
Serbia — 0.381
France — 0.347
Macedonia — 0.337
Albania — 0.206
Slovakia — 0.185
Switzerland — 0.142
Finland — 0.132
Belgium — 0.128
Czech Republic — 0.123
United States — 0.089
Austria — 0.068
Netherlands — 0.051
Canada — 0.032
England — 0.027
Germany — 0.023
Russia — 0.012
Italy — 0.009
-->
@Incel-chud
your own article says your data is skewed.
A possible better alternative .......The fact-checking analysis goes on to suggest that instead of computing each country's average, or mean mass shooting deaths, a better method would be to compute the median, or typical, number of deaths. The median is considered by many statisticians to be better insulated against individual outlier events (such as the Norway massacre) that can skew results. This leads to a more accurate day-to-day impression and country-to-country comparison. Using the CPRC’s own data and more precise per-year population data from World Bank (the original study used only 2015 population data) to solve for the median, the more statistically sound analysis results in a notably different list:Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
- United States — 0.058
- Albania — 0
- Austria — 0
- Belgium — 0
- Czech Republic — 0
- Finland — 0
- France — 0
- Germany — 0
- Italy — 0
- Macedonia — 0
- Netherlands — 0
- Norway — 0
- Russia — 0
- Serbia — 0
- Slovakia — 0
- Switzerland — 0
- United Kingdom — 0
Using the median analysis, the United States is the only country examined that shows a propensity for mass shootings. The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years. Thus, in a typical year, most countries experience zero mass shooting deaths, while the US experiences at least a few.
-->
@n8nrgim
your own article says your data is skewed.
It critiques the presentation of the data not the raw numbers themselves.
Their critique has me reconsidering my premises though.
I wonder if we can look at the demographics of people who commit gun violence to see if we do have a gun problem here or is something else a better predictor of the types of people to commit gun violence.
-->
@n8nrgim
The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years. Thus, in a typical year, most countries experience zero mass shooting deaths, while the US experiences at least a few.
Nothing in the study suggests if the US was as small as Norway that it would still have mass shootings every year. It's a huge reach to say this without clear evidence.
-->
@Double_R
When democrats are accused of "politicizing" some mass shooting event, generally what is being claimed is that a disproportionate focus was understood to be useful for encouraging a gun control agenda they would like to see put into effect anyway.
You make a good case that sweeping new policy formation should not be our immediate response to some highly traumatic event with your 9/11 example. Was it Ann Coulter who wrote in her first column following the attack that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity"?
Mass shooting can only be called a "political issue" because there are many who insist on making it one. They're a "problem" of course, but claiming it's a national crisis is just wrong, unless you want to try claiming numbers count for nothing and that optics are deservedly king (but rational people know better than to be "freaking out" simply because people in power want them to). Since 2012, only about 300 people have been killed in shootings like these. That's about the same number who died one month and a day after 9/11 when a passenger plane went down in Queens. In some strange way, the fact that these killings were spaced out over time actually seems to be integral to the case the democrats are making here. It just doesn't work if it all happens at once.
If one supports a citizen's uninfringed right to bear arms, why should that change over a few hundred deaths? Is there any issue you deeply care about on you would take the opposite position if 300 people were to die in some related event? If so, that's pretty pathetic.
You may, if you wish, choose to believe that republicans are crazy for not wanting to violate the Constitution over what amounted to a plane crash. The Jew York Times will provide you with all the ammunition you need if you want to make that case. Just don't shoot it too quickly. ;)
-->
@Greyparrot
you r right about the raw frequency of mass shootings, but the info i posted was the 'median rate per million that people die', so it was looking at how frequently people die regardless of how large the country is.
-->
@Incel-chud
I actually was a democrat while you have never been a republican. This is why I know you are being disingenuous here.
What a ridiculous thing to say. The fact that you changed your mind on something has nothing to do with how we tell whether someone else is being genuine. We tell by looking at the arguments they make and evaluating them for consistency as well as whether they would know better.
The 9/11 example shows how inconsistent republicans are being, and it's not the only example I could give. Reacting to a tragedy by talking about what we can do to prevent such instances in the future isn't just common sense, it's what politicians get paid to do. Thoughts and prayers don't cut it.
The fact that these shootings keep happening is the other part of this. This isn't a new problem, by now we all have our reactions down to a routine. Claiming that "now is not the time" might pass the first time, but hundreds of shootings later and they still haven't found the time tells us all we need to know. The only way they come to the table is when the democrats and the public drag them to the table kicking and screaming. They don't want to talk about this, so "now is not the time" is as clearly BS as it gets.
it's a bullshit argument like democrats knows gun grabbing is bullshit as a defense against another mass shooting.
Please explain your logic here. I would love to understand how passing laws that make guns harder to get is a bullshit defense against the phenomenon of deranged individuals getting their hands on guns.
-->
@dylancatlow
When democrats are accused of "politicizing" some mass shooting event, generally what is being claimed is that a disproportionate focus was understood to be useful for encouraging a gun control agenda they would like to see put into effect anyway.
The gun control agenda they wanted 'passed anyway' was literally meant to prevent the type of tragedy they are reacting to. It's just plain silly to claim they are using mass shootings to pass gun control when mass shootings are the reason they want gun control.
You may, if you wish, choose to believe that republicans are crazy for not wanting to violate the Constitution over...
It's not a violation of the constitution to put in place reasonable restrictions on owning firearms any more then it's a violation of free speech to arrest someone for making a bomb threat. The problem I have with republicans is the matter of what they choose to see and what they ignore that lead to this absurd interpretation of the constitution.
-->
@dylancatlow
-->
@Double_R
The left’s loathing for guns and their owners is over more than just concern for the occasional mass shooting. There aren’t many liberals even willing to own a gun, despite viewing themselves as highly moral people; and those who do own one usually are not thrilled about sharing their “dirty secret”. Gun ownership just doesn’t work for them. That’s because the typical modern leftist has submitted to the elite’s “morality for the masses” of weakness = good, strength = bad, expressed in virtually every aspect of their thinking, which automatically makes one who feels entitled to arm themselves under this regime an “antisocial brute”.
As for the idea that an assault weapons ban would not constitute an infringement on someone’s right to own a gun since they’re able to shoot faster than guns of the past, this argument would also apply to every other modern gun including handguns. The argument would “prove too much”, and does imply an “infringement” under any reasonable interpretation of the English language (look up the definitions of the words used if you’re really not sure). And if it really is so obvious the framers can’t have meant to include the more powerful firearms of the future in this right (which is nuts - if they were alive today, do you honestly think they would be siding with liberals on any issue whatever?) and only did so here by accident, thankfully the constitution also tells us exactly how this can be addressed. If you just want to ignore it, then you’re not for the constitution at all. The whole point of it is that you have to listen to it even when you wouldn’t otherwise want to. It fully accommodates for this burden by making it possible for those whom it constrains to change what it says. Preserving a working constitution is a more noble effort than efforts at saving the lives of .0001 percent of the country.
I agree that some of the republican talking points that come up after every mass shooting are bad, but they don’t even need them. They have enough as it is.
the US does not have a mental health issue significantly worse than any other developed nation
How many Europeans do we know of who want to kill a bunch of high schoolers but can't?
Not a lot. If it boiled down to it, you could kill a bunch of high schoolers piecemeal, one-on-one at night with a knife or something. Serial killer style. You could take out as many as most of these guys in America manage to do.
Which begs the question of why Europeans aren't doing this in lieu of mass shootings. It's because fewer Europeans want to commit random murders, and I'd definitely say this at least relates to mental health.
While nothing technically wrong with this, it’s clearly the most absurd. We have already seen countless examples where security and police officers fail to properly engage mass shooters, but we expect teachers are going to get the job done?
Honestly, arming teachers would do the trick just fine.
When it comes to police, shooters expect that they have a 15-20 minute jump on the law. That's typically from when the first bullet is fired. In that time, you can do a lot of damage.
But if the people with guns are already inside of the building from the onset, that'd give you pause. In all likelihood your attempt at mass murder would be frustrated by a quick intervention. You know you won't get the emotional satisfaction that you seek from trying, so you'd just decide on something else instead.
Heck, we wouldn't even have to arm the teachers. Just make it legal for them to concealed-carry on school grounds. The likelihood of you knowing for sure that none of the personnel are armed is slim. If just one was, and if that one person intervened, that'd be it for you.
-->
@dylancatlow
As for the idea that an assault weapons ban would not constitute an infringement on someone’s right to own a gun since they’re able to shoot faster than guns of the past, this argument would also apply to every other modern gun including handguns.
This guy shoots pretty fast with a handgun.
-->
@FLRW
I’m not sure why you’re linking me these stats. I’m aware that an American is far more likely to die in a mass shooting than someone in another country. The point is that it doesn’t really matter, because other countries are barely losing anyone to mass shootings in the first place. You might as well worry about dying of some disease you’ve never heard of.
I’m not saying these shooting deaths don’t matter. But would you change your stance on abortion, or free speech, or gay marriage if not doing so would result in the execution of 1000 innocent people? If so, you could become the exact opposite of what you are now with only a few thousand deaths. Is that not a scary thought for you?
-->
@dylancatlow
Is that not a scary thought for you?
There are a lot of people that changed their stance on bodily autonomy when it came to masks and vaccines based on the lie that it would save lives.
-->
@Swagnarok
Heck, we wouldn't even have to arm the teachers. Just make it legal for them to concealed-carry on school grounds. The likelihood of you knowing for sure that none of the personnel are armed is slim. If just one was, and if that one person intervened, that'd be it for you.
That seems a valid policy. Problem is that there are entrenched groups who would oppose such a policy. In contrast, after the NYC attacks on 9/11, the main pilot union lobbied to arm airline pilots on a volunteer basis. Having teachers trained and armed in a similar fashion would be much more effective than arming pilots, IMO.
I also would be open to universal background checks and making a 21 age limit for semi auto rifle purchases, but, again, there is an entrenched group which opposes such measures.
-->
@Ultramaga
There are a lot of people that changed their stance on bodily autonomy when it came to masks and vaccines based on the lie that it would save lives.
100% THIS
Why can’t we just make a more competent police force so that they will be able to, say, protect you from robbers the first time you call 911 so that you would have no need of having a gun yourself.
Most of society has relied less on guns than the present United States. Many countries have less mass shootings than the US. Is it perhaps a residential thing where Americans are bound to want to shoot their guns or what.
-->
@Intelligence_06
America has the problem of having more private property in the custody of many individuals instead of a few. This makes it much harder for police to protect that. If nobody owned any thing, crime would not be so much of a problem as all thievery could be dealt with as an act of treason, swiftly and efficiently.
-->
@Double_R
Reacting to a tragedy by talking about what we can do to prevent such instances in the future isn't just common sense, it's what politicians get paid to do.
It's really not. Policy making with emotion instead of letting emotions settle makes for bad policy. You're actually conflating looking for and solving problems with responding emotionally immediately following a tragedy.
The only way they come to the table is when the democrats and the public drag them to the table kicking and screaming. They don't want to talk about this, so "now is not the time" is as clearly BS as it gets
Part of the problem is that a lot of these liberal politicians literally want more kids to die so they can continue to pass guns laws. It's actually really sick. We know that the laws they propose won't reduce instances of death in mass casualty events at all. Statistics prove this.
Please explain your logic here. I would love to understand how passing laws that make guns harder to get is a bullshit defense against the phenomenon of deranged individuals getting their hands on guns.
Honestly it's not effective at preventing mass casualty events. It may reduce mass casualty events by gun. There are still ways to commit mass casualty events and if people don't use a gun it can be even more effective.
For example
1. You could poison a bunch of food in places like 7-11s they put hotdogs on a roller easy to access, and you can likely hit up 200 gas stations and kill up. To 100 people before anyone realized what was happening in time to prevent further damage.
2. You could set off a fire alarm in a convention center where 1000 kids are there for a national cheerleading competition and then mow them down outside with a car. Perhaps more effective than a gun and you are already in a getaway vehicle so you may be able to do it multiple times.
3. You could lock the doors at a retirement home and burn it down.
These are all things people would do with a gun ban, so mass murders would likely get worse.
Those were off the top of my head, if I really planned out a mass casualty events I could likely have a higher death count than the scenarios above.
Without a gun they would resort to the above. Let's be honest though, a gun ban wouldn't work at even keeping guns out of People's hands. A lot of guns in California were shipped from South America and are bootleg guns. They work. You also have zip guns which you just need a few basic household items to create. We also have 3D printers that can make automatic weapons I can give links to how to create one with a 3 d printer if you want.
I get a feeling you already know this though and are a piece of shit who loves seeing kids die in mass shootings so you can push gun laws that you know for a fact will not reduce mass casualty events even a tiny bit. In fact given what the alternative methods I mentioned above are, they could actually make mass casualty events more deadly as option 1 and 3 can take out 100 people at a time and can be repeated a lot before a person is caught and stopped.
Instead of focusing on ineffective policies to lower mass casualty events we should actually focus on effective policies
-->
@n8nrgim
'median rate per million that people die', so it was looking at how frequently people die regardless of how large the country is.
That's the point. Smaller countries will have fewer mass shootings over a 10 year period, so the median is always going to be zero due solely to the size of the tiny country.
there is zero reason to think USA would have yearly shootings if it was the size of Norway.
-->
@Greyparrot
So why create these dangerous gun free zones in a city?
Because if someone is caught with guns there they can be punished more substantially.
And to prevent the likelihood of unnecessary escalations or accidents by law abiding citizens who leave their guns at home.
-->
@Danielle
Because if someone is caught with guns there they can be punished more substantially.
They won't. Stop and frisk is illegal.