- Joined
- Nov 30, 2013
They are by Wingnut standards, they even have :islamic:
Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings
- Thread starter CatParty
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
I think that people having guns for self defense is like mutually assured destruction. It is better for deterrent value rather than actually reducing the injury one receives and the threat of accidents (accidentally entering into a shootout or simple gun accidents) causes one to be worse off than if nobody had guns for self defense. I think for this reason government should restrict guns similarly to nuclear disarmament. I do think that persons who are at extremely high risk such as CEOs and Politicians (possibly celebrities) should be able to carry guns for self defense because there is enough of an incentive that someone might still try to obtain a gun illegally in order to go after them.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
You can't deter utter psychos but you can't deny the reality that these utter psychos, who are going for a high kill count, actually preferentially and deliberately target sites where they know their victims are unarmed. We have their social media posts, they actually discuss this shit before they do it.
I think there is a good argument that seeding society in general with actually trained, armed people who are able to respond to mass shooting situations may be more efficient a response than the "let's just tell people not to do mass shootings" idea.
I think there is a good argument that seeding society in general with actually trained, armed people who are able to respond to mass shooting situations may be more efficient a response than the "let's just tell people not to do mass shootings" idea.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
I think this is more argument in favour of cracking down on the black market for guns as well as more surveillance of social media and giving police the ability to detain someone for social media posts and investigate them
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
That's some 1984 shit right there.
Gotta stop Ungood posts. They could turn into wrongthink.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
They just have a greater risk of being attacked so they should be able to have greater deterrence
Wouldn't that be better than fearing going outside for fear of massive shootouts occurring constantly because one person either shoots or looks like they are shooting and then are shot at followed by the people near them thinking they are being shot at and shooting back until eventually half the people in the crowded location are dead which is what would happen if everyone was armed
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
Bullshit.
They live in gated compounds in gated communities full of other rich people and are constantly surrounded by bodyguards.
They also pretty much never get murdered. It's a huge news story when someone like that gets killed.
It's much more common for the "little people" like us to get killed, and much much more likely for some poor person in the ghetto to bite it.
Not only is this not really a thing that happens (I'm sure you could produce one or two examples, but the number of deaths from such extremely rare instances is low enough that it qualifies as a freak accident, something which is normally not regulated against,) but also, it isn't worth it. Freedom of speech and the like do have their prices, and sometimes that means that some people are gonna die.
Also, the cops can already investigate death threats, bomb threats, and the like online. They don't need anymore power to do that.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
There are several times when bystanders are shot though. Also during shootings it is very difficult to figure out who is actually the instigator so it is inevitable that such things will happen. It is the same with how nuclear weapons can lead to accidental mass destruction. It is an accident but it is an entirely preventable one of which the prevention will not cause anyone to be worse off
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
That doesn't matter. "Several" out of a humongous amount of cases of people using guns defensively is effectively none. You have to take the big picture into account when talking about lawmaking, and ultimately, the very, very rare scenario that you are describing kills a tiny number of people.
More people are being saved by guns than accidentally killed by people defending themselves or the cops.
Also, mass shootings in developed countries almost always have just one perpetrator. Once that person is stopped, the situation is over, and everyone can proceed slowly to prevent accidents. It's not like we're in fucking Iraq and people are getting shot on a battlefield or something.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
And in the big picture everyone having guns is mutually assured destruction, which is an argument for gun control not against. Please back up that guns defend people more than they cause accidental deaths and homicides. It seems pretty clear that you are the one not looking at the big picture and the amount of people saved by guns is a tiny near negligible amount.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns
Remember, you don't have to actually kill someone to save your life with a gun, and defensive gun usage is almost certainly extremely underreported. Even given these facts, the data still shows that you're wrong.
The entire assertion that people with guns is equivalent to MAD is just gibberish. There are no meaningful similarities between strategic nuclear warfare between nations and someone shooting somebody else. For example, if one person shoots someone else, it doesn't result in a bunch of other third parties dying (as I've stated before, this does happen, but it's exceedingly rare.) Furthermore, there are no long term environmental effects from small arms usage.
Also, MAD worked. In fact, it works to this day. So by your logic we should actually give everybody guns at the taxpayer's expense.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
The problem of MAD is nothing to do with other people getting hurt. It is the prisoners dilemma for nuclear disarmament. An American General who decides to let the USSR blow up the USA without consequences because they don't want to hurt south africa is an idiot and should be fired from his job.
Also we cannot say that MAD worked because it is still going on and there is no way that it actually can give a benefit, only a significant loss if it fails. Why should under this the government give guns to people?
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
I believe this has been talked about before on the farms but in the wake of yet another violent shooting this time on the vulnerable LGBT community is it not time to consider the implementation of stricter gun control laws in the States?
Restricting the availability of all firearms is a step in the right direction of preventing further mass shootings in the United States which more than any other developed nation is the target of organised mass killings.
Australia successfully reduced violent gun related deaths to almost nothing with a similar policy, what makes America so different?
Restricting the availability of all firearms is a step in the right direction of preventing further mass shootings in the United States which more than any other developed nation is the target of organised mass killings.
Australia successfully reduced violent gun related deaths to almost nothing with a similar policy, what makes America so different?
Shugo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
Australia's homicide by gun rate has dropped by the same amount as the USA in the same period. Australia declared millions of guns illegal and demanded them be turned in for destruction, or face prosecution. The USA did not. Gun crime in both countries dropped.
People calling for registration via "Universal Background Checks," i.e. ring up the FBI every time you buy a gun and tell them you're getting a gun need to be reminded that if Australia actually had a registry, they would have confiscated and destroyed millions of guns. This is why people in the USA are adverse to registration, including via "Universal Background Checks."
Our politicians, including the President of the United States, have praised Australia's gun control, which was as effective as our not-gun-control, and said we need to mimick it, i.e. we need to confiscate and ban guns. A registry is the one thing they need for a successful confiscation.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2016
Are you somehow assuming I am pro assault weapon from what I just wrote... Because yea a lot of great people and great memories are drowning in blood right now because our country is too fucking stupid to open their eyes. Seriously hope you didn't manage to miss my entire point.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
If everyone in that club had guns there would only be a few people dead not 53.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2013
Guns can be acquired illegally, you know. Taking defense weapons from law-abiding citizens would solve nothing.
If someone in that nightclub had had a concealed firearm (? I didn't read the full story but I'm assuming no one did), I doubt the death toll would have been so high.
I understand that it was very tragic, but semiautomatics are not the problem. A handgun would indeed have accomplished the same ghastly deed.
For argument's sake, let's say guns are made illegal to purchase in the USA.
What's there to stop people who want to kill others from obtaining them overseas, or going down to Mexico, or any number of areas here in our own country that skirt the laws? What about people who come here illegally and already happen to possess firearms?
Additionally, what if everyone started killing with knives and swords instead? Do we ban sharp things? Where does it stop?
It's an issue with no clear solution. I don't believe for a moment that guns should be taken from the people.
In my home state, there have been three recent shootings, two of which have taken place in venues that I've frequented for some time. Areas I've grown up in, and near.
It's very real to me, too, but a knee jerk reaction to disarm the populace is highly unlikely to help us.
If someone in that nightclub had had a concealed firearm (? I didn't read the full story but I'm assuming no one did), I doubt the death toll would have been so high.
I understand that it was very tragic, but semiautomatics are not the problem. A handgun would indeed have accomplished the same ghastly deed.
For argument's sake, let's say guns are made illegal to purchase in the USA.
What's there to stop people who want to kill others from obtaining them overseas, or going down to Mexico, or any number of areas here in our own country that skirt the laws? What about people who come here illegally and already happen to possess firearms?
Additionally, what if everyone started killing with knives and swords instead? Do we ban sharp things? Where does it stop?
It's an issue with no clear solution. I don't believe for a moment that guns should be taken from the people.
In my home state, there have been three recent shootings, two of which have taken place in venues that I've frequented for some time. Areas I've grown up in, and near.
It's very real to me, too, but a knee jerk reaction to disarm the populace is highly unlikely to help us.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Because banning guns doesn't actually get rid of guns.
Shugo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
Most states ban the carrying of firearms into any business that serves alcohol. Some of them only ban it for establishments that make up 51% of their revenue in alcohol sales (i.e. you can carry into Applebees or something, but not a legitimate bar that serves maybe a little food.)
I'm pretty sure Florida has a law barring people from carrying firearms into a club which likely makes most of its money from booze (ANOTHER MASS SHOOTING IN A GUN FREE ZONE)