DonFerrari on 10 October 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
DonFerrari said:
In Brazil I wouldn't say it's uncommon, dunno about Germany.
Care to look the percentage of shooting and crimes made were with legal guns by the owner?
And how did you go from seeing someone threatening in distance and having a gun you can defend yourself (by either informing the person to go out of your way or by drawing your gun) to shooting anyone you think is threatening?
I'm not defending guns avocating for minorities, I was giving an example, will you spin all points made?
Ka-pi you are basically talking from phantasy land.
|
There's nothing fantasy about the land I'm in, it's just a country with very strict gun laws and practically no gun violence or lynch mobs.
Seems kind of ironic that the main things people want guns to protect themselves from are problems that don't really exist in non-gun countries. Maybe that's something to think about?
|
The phantasy is thinking that you can fully abolish gun in any and all country.
Hiku said:
DonFerrari said:
Last I know they were considered "partially true". And sorry about considering 2 people killed as mass shooting. That certainly make a statistic very good right? Next we call genocide someone that killed 5 in the same family.
And why would NRA fund research that goes against their creed and marketing? Is like cigarrete companies paying ads and research to prove cigars are bad.
|
Regardless of what the number is, a gun free zone in a specific area like a school (as was used as an example in your article) is not going to do a lot when access to guns are not restricted outside of it. But you were making it out to be an argument against gun control in general, rather than in regards to this particular half hearted form of it. Gun control can have negligable or even adverse effects if implemented poorly.
And not sure why you are sarcastically apologising about the mass shooting metric? I didn't complain about it. That was someone else. This was the metric used in both the studies you and I posted. And it's not uncommon for mass shootings to be categorized by two or more people shot. Which is why I didn't complain about it.
Some people may confuse it with massacre, as the terms tend to be interchanged in media.
And I'm not saying NRA should be expected to fund research on how best to prevent gun violence. Nor that they ever did. By defunding I don't mean NRA decreased their funding for the research. They never paid a dime for it, of course. They defunded it by lobbying congress to do it. It dropped from 5.6 Billion to just a measly 100k in the span of one year. As well as imposing the restriction on it that no matter what their research finds, they may not advocate gun control in their conclusion.
That's like bribing the goverment to force a research organisation that finds a correlation between smoking cigatrettes and lung cancer to not advocate caution when smoking.
"Should you smoke less? Sorry, we have no comment on that."
And they've done a lot more shady shit to keep the public in the dark. For example, preventing the ATF from having their database electronically searchable, when tracing the origin of firearms.
So if you want to look up records of a gunshop that has gone out of business, thanks to NRA the process looks like this:
500 million entries have to be reviewed by hand, or microfilm.
Absolutely ridiculous.
So it's not that they aren't funding anti gun violence research. They are spending money to actively prevent anyone from finding out anything negative about gun ownership.
|
I was calling you out, just pointing that it's strange to call a 2 people death as mass shooting, that inflate the statistic of mass shooting... someone even posted like there are 200+ mass shooting in USA per year (inflated by this classification).
Yes doing things to make it more difficult to do your own research of data is bad on NRA part, but that is expected of a lobby of marketing lobby, after all it's all about manipulating people perspective.
