Major Attack on Vegas Strip, 58 dead, 500 wounded

[Djgb13 2,339]

Maybe because it's not remotely a fact (especially if the frame of reference is guns in private hands that would be potentially be impacted by gun control laws). The Remington 700 recall alone involves millions of rifles.

lol you're talking about a bolt action rifle. That makes up a small percentage of guns. That's like saying "well the recall on the mini coops involves a lot of cars!" Yea it's a stick shift which makes up a very small percentage of cars. Use your head for more than a hat rack

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

Maybe because it's not remotely a fact. The Remington 700 recall alone involves millions of rifles.

I had to look it up, I was surprised to see that semi auto guns had the market share that they have, but it is still under 50% even when you only consider new guns sold in the last 20 years.

 

 

Like you, most my guns are for hunting and I only own a single semi auto.

 

I know it makes me a hypocrite, but I think that the commercial sales of all semi auto rifles and handguns should be banned.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ill agree with you there.

 

Its a guns vs. no guns argument. Anything else is disingenuous bullsh!t by people who know damn well you cant have a country full of guns and determine who can have them and who cant.

 

I am in Indonesia right now. The guide we hired said not only are guns extremely illegal and impossible to find, but that you have to have a permit for a machete. I think thats a bit much, as a machete has a useful purpose. But even third world Islamic sh!tholes have figured this out.

Oh. A permit. Well: that'll stop those murders.

 

There was a 'no gun zone' in the entry to Mandalay Bay as well. Even signs by the elevators.

 

Nothing will stop these incidents, and neither will bans. We can't even stop fentanyl from being illegally manufactured. How do you propose that we stop guns?

 

What's more rare: the continued ability to produce products illegally, or coming up with someone willing and capable to pull of a massacre?

 

Clearly, the latter. Illegal weapons will always be available to those who wish to acquire them, just as illegal drugs are. We cannot stop someone from using them, just as that ridiculous sign in Mandalay Bay was utterly laughably ineffective. If there is someone intent upon committing mass murder, there will always be mass murders.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

lol you're talking about a bolt action rifle. That makes up a small percentage of guns. That's like saying "well the recall on the mini coops involves a lot of cars!" Yea it's a stick shift which makes up a very small percentage of cars. Use your head for more than a hat rack

Parrot is correct, hat rack > dgjb

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I just posted the metrics from Australia. During their gun ban, their murder rate didn't drop any more than ours did, while we added millions of guns to citizen's private possession.

 

Do you simply throw out pejoratives because you're simply positive you're correct, without considering at all if you're not?

 

Murder rates. Gun banning didn't change a thing in Australia.

Bull.

 

Even if murder rates didnt change at all (and I highly doubt that) there is a big difference.

 

Yeah. I can get murdered with a knife. But is a lot harder. Im more likely to survive a knife attack than having a hollow point round punch through me.

 

Not likely at all to catch a knife meant for someone else in a gang dispute or something.

 

The baddest mofo on earth can take a knife into a concert. He aint gonna rack up anywhere near the other nights body count. And he sure as hell aint gonna do it from the 34th (or 4th) floor.

 

Im not attacking you personally here. Im just sick of the bullsh!t dishonesty about guns.

 

The truth is... you like guns. You like to play with them. They make you feel safer, even though you arent, and youre willing to pay the price in blood for something you like.

 

Just say it and be honest. I can respect that more than the defense of a position that has been proven wrong in pretty much every other country in the world.

 

Look at the other countries in the world that have widespread gun ownership. Outside of Switzerland, you wanna go to any of those places?

 

Fact. The safest countries have no guns. The dangerous ones do. Fact. Anything else is spin and lies.

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

By a large margin the majority of gun deaths are committed by handguns. If you really want to address the problem you should be going after those, but good luck with that.

Right you are.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-deaths_us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123

 

This is an agenda driven by a baseless appeal to emotion. These incidents are simply not common enough to justify removing freedoms. Freedom comes with risk, as it has always.

[DankNuggs 305]

get rid of semi auto guns. Limit gun purchases to pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Ban everything else. Ban high capacity magazines. Get rid of private sale loopholes. Have a gun registry linked to mental health and criminal databases. Increase mandatory minimum sentences on gun crimes

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Oh. A permit. Well: that'll stop those murders.

 

There was a 'no gun zone' in the entry to Mandalay Bay as well. Even signs by the elevators.

 

Nothing will stop these incidents, and neither will bans. We can't even stop fentanyl from being illegally manufactured. How do you propose that we stop guns?

 

What's more rare: the continued ability to produce products illegally, or coming up with someone willing and capable to pull of a massacre?

 

Clearly, the latter. Illegal weapons will always be available to those who wish to acquire them, just as illegal drugs are. We cannot stop someone from using them, just as that ridiculous sign in Mandalay Bay was utterly laughably ineffective. If there is someone intent upon committing mass murder, there will always be mass murders.

Then pray tell help me out.

 

If there is no way to stop this crap, why does it, by and large, only happen here?

 

Not in Canada. Or Europe. Or Asia. Or even the Middle East or Latin America.

 

What is so damn focked up about America, that everyone else can pretty much stop it, but we cant?

 

You know the answer. I know the answer. Everyone knows the answer. And it starts with the number 2.

[Djgb13 2,339]

Parrot is correct, hat rack > dgjb

Your name suggest the type of person you are: a bum. If you don't understand the difference in a bolt action rifle (that's hardly used for anything other than hunting) and the rest of the types of guns sold in stores than you are even dumber than he is.

 

Rock>MTBum

[DankNuggs 305]

The argument that 'if you can't stop everything' you shouldn't do anything sounds awfully foolish to me

[IMMensaMind 462]

Bull.

 

Even if murder rates didnt change at all (and I highly doubt that) there is a big difference.

Wait. You're arguing - calling "BULL" - while simultaneously not checking? While "highly doubting" instead?

 

Oh good. Then let's just stop here while I 'highly doubt' that you're interested in hearing the truth.

 

Go click on the link I provided that addresses Australian murder rates post gun-ban. There is ZERO point in arguing with someone who simply decided that it doesn't really matter what's real, as long as you can carry on 'highly doubting' instead. You can claim what's harder, etc, but if the murder rates in Australia didn't diverge in a statistically significant way from the rates in the US - while we added gun ownership - then exactly what are you basing your claims on?

 

I'll tell you: Bull. You refuse to check because you've insulated yourself by "highly doubt"ing.

 

That is NOT impressive debate acumen.

[IMMensaMind 462]

The argument that 'if you can't stop everything' you shouldn't do anything sounds awfully foolish to me

It would be. The argument that it stops nothing, however, is quite compelling. Australia's murder rate didn't do anything ours didn't, during the same time period.

 

And we ADDED millions of guns to civilian owners.

 

That's fact.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

Your name suggest the type of person you are: a bum. If you don't understand the difference in a bolt action rifle (that's hardly used for anything other than hunting) and the rest of the types of guns sold in stores than you are even dumber than he is.

 

Rock>MTBum

I am sorry, I stand corrected. Today I learned that a hunting rifle is not a gun. It is important to learn new things every day.

 

Can you please clarify if a hunting shotgun is a gun? Just wondering if that counts towards gun sales. Thanks in advance.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Wait. You're arguing - calling "BULL" - while simultaneously not checking? While "highly doubting" instead?

 

Oh good. Then let's just stop here while I 'highly doubt' that you're interested in hearing the truth.

 

Go click on the link I provided that addresses Australian murder rates post gun-ban. There is ZERO point in arguing with someone who simply decided that it doesn't really matter what's real, as long as you can carry on 'highly doubting' instead. You can claim what's harder, etc, but if the murder rates in Australia didn't diverge in a statistically significant way from the rates in the US - while we added gun ownership, then exactly what are you basing your claims on?

 

I'll tell you: Bull. You refuse to check because you've insulated yourself by "highly doubt"ing.

 

That is NOT impressive debate acumen.

The Australian government and people seem quite happy with their decision to ban guns. Ive met many aussies. Not a one Ive met wants them back.

 

And as I said, even if murder by other means continues, they are still safer for it.

 

Murder is usually a thing between people who have some beef with one another.

 

Havent had any more random indiscriminate massacres since have they?

 

And as for my highly doubt it, I dont trust any numbers from gun people. There are so many fake bs claims made by the NRA and its affiliated think tanks that I cant.

[parrot 789]

 

lol you're talking about a bolt action rifle. That makes up a small percentage of guns. That's like saying "well the recall on the mini coops involves a lot of cars!" Yea it's a stick shift which makes up a very small percentage of cars. Use your head for more than a hat rack

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, assclown. Yeah, I'm talking about a bolt action rifle - just one model of dozens and maybe not even the most popular - and there are millions of them in circulation. There are also millions of pump shotguns and lever actions rifles and revolvers out there as well. None of those are semi-autos. I understand that semi-autos have become increasingly popular recently, but that doesn't make the claim that "almost all" guns are semi-autos any less ridiculous.

[Djgb13 2,339]

I am sorry, I stand corrected. Today I learned that a hunting rifle is not a gun. It is important to learn new things every day.

 

Can you please clarify if a hunting shotgun is a gun? Just wondering if that counts towards gun sales. Thanks in advance.

Jesus are you THAT dumb? When was anyone claiming it wasn't a gun? There are different TYPES of guns. Bolt action rifles are very SMALL percentage of that. MOST guns That are sold ARE semi automatic. It's not rocket science. It's a fact. One you don't seem to be able to comprehend.

 

 

Actually, I take that back. You just choose to ignore it and try to side step it with throwing out an insult and making an absurd claim. Yea, real intelligence you got going on there

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, assclown. Yeah, I'm talking about a bolt action rifle - just one model of dozens and maybe not even the most popular - and there are millions of them in circulation. There are also millions of pump shotguns and lever actions rifles and revolvers out there as well. None of those are semi-autos. I understand that semi-autos have become increasingly popular recently, but that doesn't make the claim that "almost all" guns are semi-autos any less ridiculous.

Sure it does. Go inside a function store. Count how many semi automatic weapons there are and then compare that to how many aren't. You can also ask them how many semi automatic weapons are sold. Roughly 70% sales of fire arms ARE indeed semi automatic. Making Them most of the guns people are using.

 

Again, you show you know nothing on the subject yet claim you do. Keep trying. If you keep throwing darts something is bound to finally stick

[parrot 789]

I am sorry, I stand corrected. Today I learned that a hunting rifle is not a gun. It is important to learn new things every day.

 

Can you please clarify if a hunting shotgun is a gun? Just wondering if that counts towards gun sales. Thanks in advance.

Yup. Clearly this guy knows his stuff about guns. The Model 870 pump, the preferred home defense weapon for many people even on this forum. Not a gun.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Then pray tell help me out.

 

If there is no way to stop this crap, why does it, by and large, only happen here?

It doesn't. What has skewed your characterization is that you've looked at "top 20 GUN massacres", and concluded that - somehow - other types of massacres are somehow more acceptable.

 

Not in Canada. Or Europe. Or Asia. Or even the Middle East or Latin America.

Well, that's demonstrably false. Here's a list of historic massacres. It is long. It does not nearly feature the US to the degree your narrative suggests:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

 

What is so damn focked up about America, that everyone else can pretty much stop it, but we cant?

 

You know the answer. I know the answer. Everyone knows the answer. And it starts with the number 2.

Nope. False equivalency, as that list absolutely proves. You are victim of decades of conditioning by those absolutely driven to remove our rights to self-defense. The same right which caused Japan to instantly dismiss the idea of a land invasion of the US:

 

http://www.skylighters.org/quotations/quots6.html

 

YAMAMOTO (13 K)Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

 

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

 

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

 

"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." [upon learning of the success of the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor]

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

Sure it does. Go inside a function store. Count how many semi automatic weapons there are and then compare that to how many aren't. You can also ask them how many semi automatic weapons are sold. Roughly 70% sales of fire arms ARE indeed semi automatic. Making Them most of the guns people are using.

 

Again, you show you know nothing on the subject yet claim you do. Keep trying. If you keep throwing darts something is bound to finally stick

 

Lets just consult the NRA legislation department to see what they have to say...

 

 

Semi-automatics account for about 20 percent of the 300 million privately-owned firearms in the United States and the percentage is quickly rising, because semi-automatics now account for about 50 percent of all new firearms bought annually.

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, assclown. Yeah, I'm talking about a bolt action rifle - just one model of dozens and maybe not even the most popular - and there are millions of them in circulation. There are also millions of pump shotguns and lever actions rifles and revolvers out there as well. None of those are semi-autos. I understand that semi-autos have become increasingly popular recently, but that doesn't make the claim that "almost all" guns are semi-autos any less ridiculous.

Please tell me if you're really interested in civil conversation, or which person can insult the other the most.

 

I have no use for the latter. I'm too old for that sort of tiresome nonsense.

[edjr 6,603]

Vegas shooter had 200+ reports of suspicious activities, large financial transactions in casinoshttps://www.yahoo.com/gma/vegas-shooter-had-200-reports-suspicious-activities-large-004306919--abc-news-topstories.html

 

As authorities pick apart the life of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, they have come across one major thread of suspicious behavior: how he handled his money.Paddocks recent financial transactions have become a key focus for investigators looking to learn more about the Nevada man and why he launched the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.As ABC News first reported Monday, Paddock recently sent tens of thousands of dollars to someone in the Philippines, where his girlfriend was at the time of the attack, and authorities are still trying to determine who received that money, sources familiar with the matter said.In the last three years alone, more than 200 reports about Paddocks activities, particularly large transactions at casinos, have been filed with law enforcement authorities, ABC News was told.While some of the reports centered around "suspicious activity," most were "currency transaction reports," which casinos are required to file with the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network when a person withdraws or deposits more than $10,000 in cash.The number of reports prompted by Paddock's activities reflects -- at the very least -- how routine it was for him to gamble with large sums of money.In one case, Paddock recently won $40,000 on a slot machine, his brother, Eric Paddock, told The Associated Press.Las Vegas shooting: What we know about suspect Stephen Paddock"Thats the way he played," Eric Paddock said.One law enforcement official noted "currency transaction reports" are "not necessarily suspicious," especially "if youre a high roller." As for "suspicious activity reports," 13,736 were filed last year with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, according to Treasury Department statistics.According to the AP, Eric Paddock described his brother as a multimillionaire and said they had business dealings and owned property together.He said he was not aware that his brother had gambling debts.A source familiar with the matter told ABC News that Stephen Paddock was a "responsible gambler. He paid his bills, and he came back," adding that there was "no indication of any [financial] stress, any debt, any problems at all.""He was a very consistent player," the source said. "The notion of his winning or losing $40,000 seems very much within his norm."The FBI has already briefed some lawmakers about what theyve found so far as agents dig into Stephen Paddock's past."Bottom line, this man was a gambler, but I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to show that he was under stress financially from gambling at the time this incident occurred," the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told ABC News.Paddocks longtime girlfriend is originally from the Philippines, and she is believed to have been there when he launched his deadly assault in Las Vegas, killing 59 people and injuring more than 500 others attending a country music festival. She is expected to return to the United States Wednesday.Asked about the reports associated with Paddock, a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or "FinCEN" -- spokesperson said the agency "does not comment on specific reports filed by financial institutions," but added, "FinCEN provides access to its database to authorized law enforcement and regulatory users and the data has proven to be extremely useful to investigators."The FBI declined to comment for this article.

See something, say something?but no one will care

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

 

Vegas shooter had 200+ reports of suspicious activities, large financial transactions in casinoshttps://www.yahoo.com/gma/vegas-shooter-had-200-reports-suspicious-activities-large-004306919--abc-news-topstories.htmlSee something, say something?but no one will care

 

 

Ed, I have worked in Casinos for 25+ years, and read that article, and its just a bunch of nonsensical garbage, nothing he did was out of the norm for a big money gamblers

 

nothing he did would even think to make us write a title 31 on him

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

It doesn't. What has skewed your characterization is that you've looked at "top 20 GUN massacres", and concluded that - somehow - other types of massacres are somehow more acceptable.

 

 

Well, that's demonstrably false. Here's a list of historic massacres. It is long. It does not nearly feature the US to the degree your narrative suggests:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

 

 

Nope. False equivalency, as that list absolutely proves. You are victim of decades of conditioning by those absolutely driven to remove our rights to self-defense. The same right which caused Emperor Hirohito to instantly dismiss the idea of a land invasion of the US:

 

http://www.skylighters.org/quotations/quots6.html

 

YAMAMOTO (13 K)Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

 

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

 

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

 

"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." [upon learning of the success of the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor]

You have some really bad data.

 

The first half is a joke. What other kind of massacres? You mean bombs? Yeah. Those should be illegal too.

 

Knives? Hell of a lot safer than guns.

 

Cars? Necessary to a functioning society.

 

As for your quote, first off, he never said it, and its just bs made up by gun people.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

 

Secondly, whoopty focking doo. We have ZERO threat of invasion to the United States.

 

So thats the reason? Were gonna keep killing machines available for sale easily, all over, just in case an invasion fleet slips past our navy and Air Force, defeats our army, and it is necessary to have a block by block resistance?

 

How many dead people shall we accept, reasonably, to prevent that extremely remote possibility?

[Djgb13 2,339]

Lets just consult the NRA legislation department to see what they have to say...

 

 

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview

So you use an article that's 4 years old when the article states that semi automatic weapon sales were already at 50% and "were increasing"? I fail to see how this disproves what I said and makes what you said right. So by that logic, since 4 years ago it was already half and was steadily increasing in sales (which means other types of guns were decreasing increase you need reminding) it's safe to assume that my statement of "roughly 70% of guns sold are semi automatic". Can you agree with that? So by that logic, that would mean my statement most of the guns are in fact semi automatic is correct.

 

I fail to see how you're doing anything but making your argument weaker. But I'm going to stop arguing with you and parrot cause it's not going anywhere. You don't seem to want to change your mind. I'm not changing mine. I can say I've had more interaction with people who buy and own guns (some people are given them) as well as used them than either of you so I would say I have a little bit more insight on that than you two do. So have a nice day with this convo

[IMMensaMind 462]

The Australian government and people seem quite happy with their decision to ban guns. Ive met many aussies. Not a one Ive met wants them back.

You do realize that you're now basing your argument upon a fallacy, right? Personal anecdotes are immaterial, when the facts illustrate a dismissal of your assertion.

 

And as I said, even if murder by other means continues, they are still safer for it.

How? The murder rate didn't statistically diverge. The rate declined at the same rate OURS did, and we ADDED guns!

 

So - if anything - if your claim is that more guns=more murder...then the fact that Australia ELIMINATED guns and STILL couldn't beat our rate of mortality decline, you've ceded that banning guns clearly ADDS to the murder rate!

 

Murder is usually a thing between people who have some beef with one another.

 

Havent had any more random indiscriminate massacres since have they?

List of Australian massacres.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

 

The population of Australia is about 25,000,000. The population of the US is about 330,000,000 people.

 

We just suffered the worst massacre in our history, according to the news. 59 dead. 25 goes into 330 13.2 times. That last massacre listed killed 6 people. Multiply that by 13.2 to get to a statistically proportional number.

 

That massacre - if you really are interested in comparing statistics, equates to 79.2 people killed, and equates to 396 hurt. Just the last one.

 

And as for my highly doubt it, I dont trust any numbers from gun people.

Uh, what you're doing is called 'poisoning the well'. It falls under a terminal illness in debate called 'cognitive dissonance'. I didn't make these numbers up; they're sourced.. In the link.

 

There are so many fake bs claims made by the NRA and its affiliated think tanks that I cant.

It's a clever way to never be defeated in debate. Or at least convince yourself you haven't been.

[parrot 789]

 

Sure it does. Go inside a function store. Count how many semi automatic weapons there are and then compare that to how many aren't. You can also ask them how many semi automatic weapons are sold. Roughly 70% sales of fire arms ARE indeed semi automatic. Making Them most of the guns people are using.

 

Again, you show you know nothing on the subject yet claim you do. Keep trying. If you keep throwing darts something is bound to finally stick

So you want me to go to a store to try to prove your point for you, even though that still wouldn't remotely prove what you're claiming? Sure. Can I get you lunch while I'm there?

 

Just fyi, "most" and "almost all" don't really mean the same thing. You understand that much don't you? And buying and using aren't the same thing either. Many people who use guns regularly haven't bought one in years. HTH.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

 

So you use an article that's 4 years old when the article states that semi automatic weapon sales were already at 50% and "were increasing"? I fail to see how this disproves what I said and makes what you said right. So by that logic, since 4 years ago it was already half and was steadily increasing in sales (which means other types of guns were decreasing increase you need reminding) it's safe to assume that my statement of "roughly 70% of guns sold are semi automatic". Can you agree with that? So by that logic, that would mean my statement most of the guns are in fact semi automatic is correct.

 

I fail to see how you're doing anything but making your argument weaker

I 100% agree with you if you would state that the majority of guns sold recently are semi-auto, but that is not what was originally stated. The original statement was that the vast majority of guns are semi auto. This is not true.

 

 

You win. I do not care, it looks like this is all semantics. The only reason I posted is because as a hunter the majority of my guns are not semi auto, and i was even shocked that currently semi-auto's make up a large part of the new sales. They seem mostly useless for how i would use a gun.

[parrot 789]

Please tell me if you're really interested in civil conversation, or which person can insult the other the most.

 

I have no use for the latter. I'm too old for that sort of tiresome nonsense.

Someone insults me, I'm going to insult them back. You don't like it drag your vagina back to the mange bored or wherever. I really couldn't care less.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You do realize that you're now basing your argument upon a fallacy, right? Personal anecdotes are immaterial, when the facts illustrate a dismissal of your assertion.

 

 

How? The murder rate didn't statistically diverge. The rate declined at the same rate OURS did, and we ADDED guns!

 

So - if anything - if your claim is that more guns=more murder...then the fact that Australia ELIMINATED guns and STILL couldn't beat our rate of mortality decline, you've ceded that banning guns clearly ADDS to the murder rate!

 

 

List of Australian massacres.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

 

The population of Australia is about 25,000,000. The population of the US is about 330,000,000 people.

 

We just suffered the worst massacre in our history, according to the news. 59 dead. 25 goes into 330 13.2 times. That last massacre listed killed 6 people. Multiply that by 13.2 to get to a statistically proportional number.

 

That massacre - if you really are interested in comparing statistics, killed 79.2 people, and hurt 396.

 

 

Uh, what you're doing is called 'poisoning the well'. It falls under a terminal illness in debate called 'cognitive dissonance'. I didn't make these numbers up; they're sourced.. In the link.

 

 

It's a clever way to never be defeated in debate. Or at least convince yourself you haven't been.

All right, this is my last post on the topic. I know better than to get into a gun debate. Its an utter waste of time.

 

Its plain as day clear that our guns make us less safe as a country. Quite frankly, to argue otherwise is just insane. To argue higher numbers of more lethal killing machines is a positive for safety is just patently absurd. But you believe it, and nothing I say will change that.

 

But whatever. The carnage is not going to change. Largely because there are enough people who believe as you do, and they have powerful lobbies who make up propaganda. Who propose bullsh!t resolutions to problems they know damn well will never happen.

 

We will continue to have bullet riddled schools and theatres and clubs and whatnot. Over and over. Not even counting our garden variety daily body count from gun violence. The innocents shot in drive bys. The kids playing with guns their parents leave around.

 

I find it sad that we accept this as a country. I really do. We should be better than that. But I dont guess we are or ever will be.

[Djgb13 2,339]

 I 100% agree with you if you would state that the majority of guns sold recently are semi-auto, but that is not what was originally stated. The original statement was that the vast majority of guns are semi auto. This is not true.

 

 

You win. I do not care, it looks like this is all semantics. The only reason I posted is because as a hunter the majority of my guns are not semi auto, and i was even shocked that currently semi-auto's make up a large part of the new sales. They seem mostly useless for how i would use a gun.

Sorry I should have made that more clear. That's my bad in my part. I meant for guns being sold today. Semi automatic wasn't really a thing until a few decades ago. So all the guns produced earlier and some that are still being produced are not semi automatic. So of course the total number of semi automatics isn't as large as the non semi automatic.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You have some really bad data.

How? What about that data can be refuted? Each is a hotlinked source.

 

The first half is a joke.

It's not a joke; it's simply historic. Look at all massacres beyond 1960, which is what I would have expected you to do.

 

What other kind of massacres? You mean bombs? Yeah. Those should be illegal too.

How many of those massacres in that link were bombs? And bombs are already illegal.

 

Knives? Hell of a lot safer than guns.

Again: moot. If the murder rate didn't change, it is absolutely non sequitur to claim something is 'safer' if the rate of DEATH didn't drop at any statistically increased rate.

 

Cars? Necessary to a functioning society.

Oh, there are plenty of people who claim otherwise, and their argument is just as specious.

 

As for your quote, first off, he never said it, and its just bs made up by gun people.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

I saw that factcheck. The problem is that it is cited by one guy who never saw it in writing.

 

Shame about quotes. Just because they didn't manage to find themselves on paper doesn't mean that they never happened - particularly since the sentiment behind the quote is totally true.

 

Or do you deny that would be a compelling reason to avoid invasion?

 

Secondly, whoopty focking doo. We have ZERO threat of invasion to the United States.

The comment was meant to be ancillary, in support of the overall purpose. It is not central to the argument in any way.

 

So thats the reason? Were gonna keep killing machines available for sale easily, all over, just in case an invasion fleet slips past our navy and Air Force, defeats our army, and it is necessary to have a block by block resistance?

Not for me. It's so I can defend my wife and daughters from home invasion, and it's so I can defend myself in the event of an incident involving a threat to my own person.It's also so qualified gun owners can defend others from a criminal/murderer:

 

http://abc7.com/news/az-trooper-shot-in-ambush-attack;-good-samaritan-kills-gunman/1699112/

 

How many examples of this is needed to demonstrate a justified purpose? You ask how many deaths are acceptable, so I counter: how many saved lives justify?

 

How many dead people shall we accept, reasonably, to prevent that extremely remote possibility?

Since you're already of the opinion that the freedom to self-defense should be taken away for a statistically insignificant percentage of our citizenry, I'd say far far more than you're claiming.

 

 

But there really is no legitimate answer to an illegitimately loaded appeal to emotion question like that. I'll give you another unanswerable example of such a tactic with another question:

 

How many US deaths would be acceptable in the fight to win WWII?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Delete. Sigh.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Someone insults me, I'm going to insult them back. You don't like it drag your vagina back to the mange bored or wherever. I really couldn't care less.

I never insulted you, but you chose to insult me. So there's that.

[IMMensaMind 462]

All right, this is my last post on the topic. I know better than to get into a gun debate. Its an utter waste of time.

 

Its plain as day clear that our guns make us less safe as a country. Quite frankly, to argue otherwise is just insane. To argue higher numbers of more lethal killing machines is a positive for safety is just patently absurd. But you believe it, and nothing I say will change that.

I'm stopping here. You keep insisting that you "JUST KNOW" something is true, to the point that statistically documented challenges to it wash off your back like a wet duck, calling any consideration of a challenge to your beliefs 'insane'.

 

That's what the brainwashed do. US mortality rate due to murder is 94th on the international list. I asked you before, and I'll say it again: how many countries at 93 or better have complete gun bans?

 

My family on my father's side lived through these appeals to emotion; to eliminate guns in society. It happened in Germany.

 

You are absolutely parroting what was told to the public then as well. Gun bans did not protect Germany from Nazis. Gun bans made Nazis the only ones with the guns.

[parrot 789]

 

I never insulted you, but you chose to insult me. So there's that.

No you just engaged in your typical passive/agressive crap by trying to make it seem like I had just randomly insulted him when that wasn't what happened at all. Maybe give the stalky, whiny, horsesh!t a rest for a day - or a lifetime - or two.

[MDC 7,471]

Wait: the overall murder rate in Australia spiked within a year or two of the gun ban and its dropped ever since. I believe it's at it's lowest level in decades.

 

Are we arguing that the gun ban had no affect?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I'm stopping here. You keep insisting that you "JUST KNOW" something is true, to the point that statistically documented challenges to it wash off your back like a wet duck, calling any consideration of a challenge to your beliefs 'insane'.

 

That's what the brainwashed do. US mortality rate due to murder is 94th on the international list. I asked you before, and I'll say it again: how many countries at 93 or better have complete gun bans?

 

My family on my father's side lived through these appeals to emotion; to eliminate guns in society. It happened in Germany.

 

You are absolutely parroting what was told to the public then as well. Gun bans did not protect Germany from Nazis. Gun bans made Nazis the only ones with the guns.

There are 194 countries in the world (depending on how you count.)

 

You think 93rd in murder rate is ok? Considering that most of the countries on earth are overpopulated poverty stricken third world sh!tholes, that doesnt impress. Especially since we have more police per capita and more imprisioned persons per capital than most.

 

Compare us to other industrialized first world countries. Europe. The civilized parts of Asia. Hell, even many of the not so civilized parts.

 

Anyway. I regret getting sucked into this. Its a waste of time. Nobodys opinions are gonna change. Welcome back to the sewer over here at the geek club.

[Jesus Chrysler 29]

 

 

No you just engaged in your typical passive/agressive crap by trying to make it seem like I had just randomly insulted him when that wasn't what happened at all. Maybe give the stalky, whiny, horsesh!t a rest for a day - or a lifetime - or two.

  I've heard three or four different members say that he has already been suspended for physically threatening other members. The guy is obviously in the throes of a mental crisis. I have a feeling we might be all the poor guy has.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

 

Wait: the overall murder rate in Australia spiked within a year or two of the gun ban and its dropped ever since. I believe it's at it's lowest level in decades.

 

Are we arguing that the gun ban had no affect?

 

 

we are arguing that the United States murder rate has dropped even more during that same time without a gun ban