14 Children and Teacher Killed in Texas Elementary School Shooting

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Loramin I actually don't want to be an asshole towards you and kinda bully you in this way. I do get passionate about 2nd amendment stuff, because when it is approached rationally, the answer is incredibly clear.

It is difficult to find honest studies available anywhere about real world situations like the law passed in Maine despite that situation being a very very easy one to draw data from. When you do dig into statistics (look at Maine gun crime rates since 2015) the data virtually invariably shows no statistically significant increase in gun violence.

The only rare exceptions are when there is a corresponding increase in police lead anti gang violence or other unrelated death increasing policies.

There are many examples where "permissive" gun laws are passed, and no data is drawn or discussed. In all cases it is because the data goes against "studies" like the one you linked, that are nonsense.

The federal "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004. It was the most restrictive gun prohibition in the united states ever, and never made anyone more safe. Passing such a law again would be a best case scenario for anti-gun people, but there is no data to say that 1994-2004 was a period of unprecedented public safety, because it wasn't.

Just so you know, you can still identify as a die hard liberal and disavow a nonsense anti second ammendment viewpoint. Just like people can be conservatives and disavow the orange man (who is not a conservative)

I really don't think it's very complicated: when there are laws restricting how many and where guns can be, by definition there will be be less guns available in those places for people to use to commit gun violence ... so less gun violence occurs.

You don't need a doctorate in sociology, or even to look at the mountains of evidence (that you're ignoring) to see that more gun control = less dead people.

[Gustoo]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't think it's very complicated: when there are laws restricting how many and where guns can be, by definition there will be be less guns available in those places for people to use to commit gun violence ... so less gun violence occurs.

Yeah that is what I am saying. A reduction in gun violence due to the decrease in number of existing guns (most significantly suicides) is not an indication of an increase in public safety.

An exactly analogous situation would be if hammers were banned and the government went door to door collecting hammers. We would see a significant reduction in thumb injuries and blunt trauma caused by hammers. But that does not indicate that public safety has been increased.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah that is what I am saying. A reduction in gun violence due to the decrease in number of existing guns (most significantly suicides) is not an indication of an increase in public safety.

An exactly analogous situation would be if hammers were banned and the government went door to door collecting hammers. We would see a significant reduction in thumb injuries and blunt trauma caused by hammers. But that does not indicate that public safety has been increased.

Yes, it does! Less people dying means society is safer, even suicides.

And there's a critical difference with your hammer analogy: we need hammers to build things. We don't need guns, or at least not beyond basic rifles for hunting and guns for jobs like security. Beyond those functions guns do society zero good.

[Gustoo]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, it does! Less people dying means society is safer, even suicides.

And there's a critical difference with your hammer analogy: we need hammers to build things. We don't need guns, or at least not beyond basic rifles for hunting and guns for jobs like security. Beyond those functions guns do society zero good.

Again you are making a fallacious jump with your logic. Less people dying by guns does not mean less people are dying.

We need guns to fight governments. This is so critical that it was the second amendment in the bill of rights. The critical part of the analogy is that blunt force trauma can happen via baseball bats and rocks, while murder can happen via vehicles and knives and propane tanks.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't think it's very complicated: when there are laws restricting how many and where guns can be, by definition there will be be less guns available in those places for people to use to commit gun violence ... so less gun violence occurs.

You don't need a doctorate in sociology, or even to look at the mountains of evidence (that you're ignoring) to see that more gun control = less dead people.

By this same argument I could say if we exterminated 90% of the population that there'd be less crime and violence in general too.

Like just because that fact is true does not mean it makes sense.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

By this same argument I could say if we exterminated 90% of the population that there'd be less crime and violence in general too.

Like just because that fact is true does not mean it makes sense.

Except that it makes sense in every other country around the world where they don't have gun issues like ours. It's like saving the lives of innocent school children suddenly becomes so evil thing here in 'Merica, because we need guns to protect ourselves from the government ...

... nevermind that your government could crush you with a bomb dropped from a plane thousands of feet overhead if it wanted to. Guns are useless for the one thing gun nuts claim they're "essential" for ... but they're great for killing innocent people.

[Rethalis]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that it makes sense in every other country around the world where they don't have gun issues like ours. It's like saving the lives of innocent school children suddenly becomes so evil thing here in 'Merica, because we need guns to protect ourselves from the government ...

... nevermind that your government could crush you with a bomb dropped from a plane thousands of feet overhead if it wanted to. Guns are useless for the one thing gun nuts claim they're "essential" for ... but they're great for killing innocent people.

United States has a deadbeat dad and fatherless children problem not a gun problem.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that it makes sense in every other country around the world where they don't have gun issues like ours. It's like saving the lives of innocent school children suddenly becomes so evil thing here in 'Merica, because we need guns to protect ourselves from the government ...

Every other country does not have ameican exceptionalism or individualism either.

So you cant just say guns are the 1 thing that's different there are like a million things that are different that are as big as guns.

Weather Americans want to admit it mass killings are just American culture.

As recent as 1960 it was basically organized by the state in the form of klan rallies.

There is just more to this than what you're saying.

... nevermind that your government could crush you with a bomb dropped from a plane thousands of feet overhead if it wanted to. Guns are useless for the one thing gun nuts claim they're "essential" for ... but they're great for killing innocent people.

Look at the fact that in ukraine right now citizens owning guns just saved their ass from a russian invasion because they were armed and they dont have school shootings there.

[Jibartik]

Lets all just take a moment to bow our heads and thank the forefathers that he didnt use a bumpstock.

[unsunghero]

Cops wait for a full hour outside for SWAT rather than to engage the gunman, going against police protocols for an active shooting

Police chief/captain/whoever mentioned his officers “took fire” but never once mentioned injuries, and almost always if there were any serious injuries they would be mentioned. So his lack of mentioning any probably means there weren’t any

I can picture one of the coward cops on his radio “he’s shooting at us, sir, what do you want us to do?” Oh I dunno….how about SHOOT BACK

If I was one of the parents outside having to listen to that carnage, that police barrier would not have stopped me from charging in unarmed to try to save my kid [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sounds like some coward cops might go down hard in this one. Also, we don’t need laws to arm ourselves because we can trust police will come save us right