I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
The problem with the bomb analogy is that while it sounds good in practice it just doesn’t happen. Outside of Oklahoma City very few bombing attempts have even killed 10 people. Despite what movies would have you think making an effective bomb just isn’t that easy. Do you remember the underwear bomber or the NYC subway bomber?
In the end any idiot can figure out a gun.
The fact you're having to create a strawman to ignore the other half of the equation should be a sign that you're wrong.
I'm assuming you know you're wrong, but you just can't bring yourself to admit you're wrong.
Yes. And I know you're going to cite a bunch of unreliable data and claim it's actually reliable.
Not semantics at all.
Actually, banning guns would cause more abuses, as guns save more lives than are taken. (CDC article posted earlier)
So, by your logic, you are the one calling for more murders, rapes, etc. by wanting to ban guns.
But if you were honest enough to admit that, youd have to acknowledge that it's some pretty flimsy reasoning.
You’re spinning in circles.
There are certainly people on the no fly, or “watch list” as you call it who are eventually allowed to buy guns. I don’t have a problem using the no fly list as a check for gun ownership. The biggest issue with it is if you’re incorrectly added to that list, it’s almost impossible to get your named removed....which is why Ted Kennedy and John Lewis kept running into issues. If then-active politicians can’t get their name removed, imagine how you would do so if you had that same issue?
Then you mentioned “terror watch lists”.
I think if the FBI has questioned you for a potential terror threat, if you try to legally try to buy a gun it should come under increased scrutiny.
My point, again, is I find it odd that a fair number of shooters have legally purchased guns after being questioned by the FBI, and don’t seem to have had any issue in doing so. It’s happened enough that it’s curious how it repeats itself.
Maybe you don’t find that odd. Or maybe you just like arguing.
You can't. It's literally impossible to quantify what you're arguing without an absurd amount of false positives.
How would you even quantify what is a defensive gun use?
Hm... a false positive. Kind of like calling me an advocate for murder?
I think you should just post it. I already kind of let the cat out of the bag. Itd be amusing to see him attack that source under that president.
Y'all need to keep in mind y'all are arguing with a uscwatson21, a guy that wants to see the streets turned red with the blood of dead jews.
And with a gun, he could’ve just yelled at them, went back into his house, and pretended to be tough on a sports message board.
There are tens of millions of people who own hundreds of millions of guns. They aren’t randomly shooting people on a daily basis because someone blew snow into their yard.
The guy could’ve done everything from run them over to hacking them to death with a machete if he didn’t have a gun.
He made a conscious decision to take someone’s life, doesn’t matter how he did it. Innocent people are killed in the “knockout game”, are they any less or more dead? They certainly aren’t shot, so that would disqualify them from your bizarre insurance scheme.
Could you explain to us how the UK has a lower rate of rape than the US considering they don't have all the guns we have to prevent the rapes?
So you're saying Americans are just much more inclined to rape people than Brits? Why is that?
I’m not the one suggesting that making a murderer buy a Mutual of Omaha rifle insurance policy will decrease death by rifle.
If they don’t buy it and still shoot ten people, do you propose adding 20 years to his life sentence as punishment?
Maybe you’re on to something....if they hack the victims to pieces with an ax, they’ll only get life in prison under your plan. It’s genius, I’m telling you.....genius.
I'm asking you to explain to us what those differences are, but i'm guessing you can't.
You're trying way too hard to ignore that increased gun control measures won't reduce gun violence.
I'm not going back through 30 pages to fund the original link, but here's one to a Forbes article that has a link to the report.
That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses
Why did the CDC fail to publish 1990s research on numbers of defensive gun uses?
www.forbes.com
Summary. Obama wanted to document gun violence, and it backfired on him.
I'm not going back through 30 pages to fund the original link, but here's one to a Forbes article that has a link to the report.
That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses
Why did the CDC fail to publish 1990s research on numbers of defensive gun uses?
Summary. Obama wanted to document gun violence, and it backfired on him.
Did you even bother to read your own article?
The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...
Shocker, it turns out asking people if they've used a weapon in self defense to prevent a crime isn't reliable.
So what you're saying, is that you don't legitimately know if guns prevent rape.
I can't lie, watching you squirm trying a way to defend your incomplete and inaccurate arguments is enjoyable.
Let me make sure I understand your point here. How many people do you suppose would really want to have a couple of RPGs if they were legal? I would take a guess the answer is not many. How many people would want an M60, if that were totally legal? My guess is, again, not many. Of the few who did, how many of those would go walking around carrying one on the street? I mean, aside from being pretty conspicuously odd, and looking pretty ridiculous, it’s a bit heavy and bulky to pack around, don’t you think? There ARE much better choices, unless your daily routine involves dealing with armored vehicles manned by hostiles, or a typical walk takes you past emplaced machine guns...
Is this really the argument you're reduced to?
Literally, everyone I know that enjoys firearms would love to have an M60 or an RPG. But none of them do, because no one wants to go to prison. Shocker, because weapons bans actually work on the vast majority of people.
- Status
