newwil7l said:
Yes because a machine gun is never necessary ever. |
Any gun can be considered a killing machine.
newwil7l said:
Yes because a machine gun is never necessary ever. |
Any gun can be considered a killing machine.
Superman4 said:
Actually no. I could have a fully auto AK or AR in my living room tonight if I wanted to spend the money. Both of which are highly illegal in my glorious state of California, as are the high capacity mags I could have delivered with them. In order for me to get a legal rifle or handgun I would need to pass a written test to obtain a firearm permit unless I already had an up to date one, then go through the waiting period at the gun dealer before I could take the gun home. Obtaining illegal firearms is much easier and faster than going through legal channels. |
I'm not talking about the simplicity in getting a weapon.
VGPolyglot said:
Any gun can be considered a killing machine. |
Yes, and you can kill a person with a frying pan but we don't see any mass-frying pan killings now do we? This question is not about 2nd amendment, or people's right to defend themselves. It's about grown up people wanting to play with guns and using the 2nd amendment as an excuse for it. The police in my country usually doesnt even wear firearms, arming everyone and their grandmother will only decrease individual freedom and safety.
Puppyroach said:
Yes, and you can kill a person with a frying pan but we don't see any mass-frying pan killings now do we? This question is not about 2nd amendment, or people's right to defend themselves. It's about grown up people wanting to play with guns and using the 2nd amendment as an excuse for it. The police in my country usually doesnt even wear firearms, arming everyone and their grandmother will only decrease individual freedom and safety. |
People used to kill each other with sticks n stones. Then they moved onto bows n arrows and swords. Now guns. Take away the guns, and they'll just revert to using sharp metal objects again. Yes, the people who plan to shoot n run and get away with it, will now think twice, but people like the Las Vegas shooter, clearly were all in, and in that case people are going to be injured or killed regardless.
Weapons themselves don't kill people. People kill people.
Paddock apparently wired $100,000 to this Marilou chick in the Phillipines. Hmmm, the plot thickens. At the VERY least, she knew something and didn't say. You don't live with somebody who houses like 25 millitary type weapons in your home without knowing something is wrong, or that there are major red flags in which to act on.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/las-vegas-shooter-wired-100-000-philippines-last-week-n807141
There is absolutely NO way this dude acted with out motive (or "just snapped") or set this whole thing up (a ton of high-powered weapons in his room and cameras outside his room) without aid. Still want to know what the hell was the deal with this guy. The fact that we know so little about him is INCREDIBLY fishy.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden
A millionaire retiree and grandpa aged 64 is not the typical mass shooter. A younger angry man is usually behind these style of attacks.
Superman4 said:
So you dont like revolvers? |
Nah personally I don't like any guns. I like studying guns used in previous wars and knowing history and evolution of them. However, I would never own one besides perhaps a BB or pellet gun (which I currently have a BB gun for shooting beer cans). I've gone out to a buddies ranch and fired of a 40 and 45 recently. I am more comfortable for people having pistols than semi automatic rifles though considering a pistol's accuracy range is far less than a rifle.
A revolver would take a little more time reloading though than a gun with clips which would make it harder to kill a ton of people in a mass shooting. Sure one can do a lot of damage if you carry around a few pistols but these days it is pretty obvious that mass shooters prefer the killing power of a semi automatic rifle such as an AR15 over a pistol.
Anyways, I'm pretty comfortable with people using revolvers to defend themselves due to the nature of longer reloading process.
sethnintendo said:
Nah personally I don't like any guns. I like studying guns used in previous wars and knowing history and evolution of them. However, I would never own one besides perhaps a BB or pellet gun (which I currently have a BB gun for shooting beer cans). I've gone out to a buddies ranch and fired of a 40 and 45 recently. I am more comfortable for people having pistols than semi automatic rifles though considering a pistol's accuracy range is far less than a rifle. A revolver would take a little more time reloading though than a gun with clips which would make it harder to kill a ton of people in a mass shooting. Sure one can do a lot of damage if you carry around a few pistols but these days it is pretty obvious that mass shooters prefer the killing power of a semi automatic rifle such as an AR15 over a pistol. Anyways, I'm pretty comfortable with people using revolvers to defend themselves due to the nature of longer reloading process. |
Why the focus on mass-shooting events when there are tons of more preventable homocides to address? Mass shootings makes up less than 1% of all homicides.
Hiku said:
But I asked you how that particular comparison was skewed. You claimed it was. So please elaborate how, to the point where it is relevant to the statistical difference. |
I think it is skewed because it is Australia vs USA. Just like my comparison of Iowa vs Australia is skewed. Australia's policies would point positively towards many US states, but for Iowa or other sane states I don't think it would be so positive. USA encompasses so many different people and land that the policy simply wouldn't work nationwide imo. I suppose the classic word 'diverse' must be used.
It is obviously hard to explain since I chose a purposefully nuanced comparison to make a ridiculous claim. But the point was that Iowa has 3 times as many guns per person then Canada, but the murder rate isn't 3 times as much ; thus more guns don't always mean more gun murder. Anyways it recently came to my attention that the data for firearm ownership that I put for Iowa was false, I was hoping to drop it before someone fact checked me :P. The gun murder rate was true though.
With that said the data is very complicated. I have another source that says .061 per person but it is unclear if that includes all firearms. If so that is less firearms then Australia but more gun murder. I don't think I can believe that source at all just yet, but the situation is getting too complicated. Another source I have is from 2005, which is completely irrelevant by now 12 years later.
Peh said: NRA: "Guns for everyone. If they had guns they could protect themself." |
Or more to the point, if no one in the US had guns, this mass shooting and indeed all the others would probably not have happened.
An inherently violent society coupled with massive access to guns is a very bad mix as demonstrated time and again.
Not saying an inherently violent society without guns would be perfect as violence would find other ways to express itself but I'm pretty sure whatever the outcome it would be tremendously less dramatic than it is in one where guns can easily be obtained.
As things are, I'm surprised the NRA is not advocating free to purchase mini nukes for the good people of the US. And as soon as someone would say but that's dangerous, imagine these mini nukes get in the wrong hands, the NRA would reply: That's why we need EVERYBODY to have nukes so that the good guys can defend against the bad guys...