Is banning guns to save lives even logical?

[OldLady]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

 

[Lesh]

Here's a video of a 2 3/4" slug punching through 7 fucking doors. My shotgun can accept 8 of these.
Now imagine those doors are people. Each shot into a crowd = 7 people down. 7x8 = 56. And I guaran-goddamn-tee you I can fire them all in less than 30 seconds.
Now sit the fuck down, because you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

A pressure cooker can be made into a shrapnel bomb and kill even more people.
Imagine several of those exploding at a crowded location.

What about a rental truck?

France has very strong gun laws. Yet, Islamic terrorists used automatic weapons to murder the employees of Hebdo.

Compare the number of such events there and here dimwit. We have one a week. They have one a year

 

[Lesh]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

Countries with strong gun control don’t suffer regular mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours.

Sure they do.

Here are the average death rates, in millions, per country, between 2009 and 2015. The countries are already listed in order of the highest death rates to the lowest median death rates.

• Norway 1.888
• Serbia 0.381
• France 0.347
• Macedonia 0.337
• Albania 0.206
• Slovakia 0.185
• Switzerland 0.142
• Finland 0.132
• Belgium 0.128
• The Czech Republic 0.123
• The United States of America 0.089
• Austria 0.068
• The Netherlands 0.051
• Canada 0.032
• England 0.027
• Germany 0.023
• Russia 0.012
• Italy 0.009

Post a link jerk off

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/

According to that we are smack dab in the middle of third world countries. Is that what you aspire to?

 

[Lesh]

Exactly. All were magazine fed semi-autos

So what?

I own a pump shotgun capable of accepting 3" slugs. Do you have any idea how many people that could take out if fired into a crowd?

Tell us.

Not 550. It won't kill 9 and injure 30 in 30 seconds

We're not talking about shotguns dumass.

We're talking about guns capable of mass murder

Here's a video of a 2 3/4" slug punching through 7 fucking doors. My shotgun can accept 8 of these.




Now imagine those doors are people. Each shot into a crowd = 7 people down. 7x8 = 56. And I guaran-goddamn-tee you I can fire them all in less than 30 seconds.

Now sit the fuck down, because you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Yet oddly...actual mass murderers prefer ARs.

Ever wonder why? Apparently they think it works better for mass murder

Actually, not. Pistols are the preferred weapon:

Guns used in mass shootings 1982-2019 | Statista

Mostly semi-auto magazine fed "pistols"

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a video of a 2 3/4" slug punching through 7 fucking doors. My shotgun can accept 8 of these.
Now imagine those doors are people. Each shot into a crowd = 7 people down. 7x8 = 56. And I guaran-goddamn-tee you I can fire them all in less than 30 seconds.
Now sit the fuck down, because you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

A pressure cooker can be made into a shrapnel bomb and kill even more people.
Imagine several of those exploding at a crowded location.

What about a rental truck?

France has very strong gun laws. Yet, Islamic terrorists used automatic weapons to murder the employees of Hebdo.

Compare the number of such events there and here dimwit. We have one a week. They have one a year

They have a higher rate of deaths from mass shootings, numskull. What do you believe that means?

 

[bripat9643]

So what?

I own a pump shotgun capable of accepting 3" slugs. Do you have any idea how many people that could take out if fired into a crowd?

Tell us.

Not 550. It won't kill 9 and injure 30 in 30 seconds

We're not talking about shotguns dumass.

We're talking about guns capable of mass murder

Here's a video of a 2 3/4" slug punching through 7 fucking doors. My shotgun can accept 8 of these.




Now imagine those doors are people. Each shot into a crowd = 7 people down. 7x8 = 56. And I guaran-goddamn-tee you I can fire them all in less than 30 seconds.

Now sit the fuck down, because you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Yet oddly...actual mass murderers prefer ARs.

Ever wonder why? Apparently they think it works better for mass murder

Actually, not. Pistols are the preferred weapon:

Guns used in mass shootings 1982-2019 | Statista

Mostly semi-auto magazine fed "pistols"

You said they preferred AR-15's, moron. That's only one of the many things you have been wrong about.

 

[satrebil]

So what?

I own a pump shotgun capable of accepting 3" slugs. Do you have any idea how many people that could take out if fired into a crowd?

Tell us.

Not 550. It won't kill 9 and injure 30 in 30 seconds

We're not talking about shotguns dumass.

We're talking about guns capable of mass murder

Here's a video of a 2 3/4" slug punching through 7 fucking doors. My shotgun can accept 8 of these.




Now imagine those doors are people. Each shot into a crowd = 7 people down. 7x8 = 56. And I guaran-goddamn-tee you I can fire them all in less than 30 seconds.

Now sit the fuck down, because you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Yet oddly...actual mass murderers prefer ARs.

Ever wonder why? Apparently they think it works better for mass murder

Actually, not. Pistols are the preferred weapon:

Guns used in mass shootings 1982-2019 | Statista

Mostly semi-auto magazine fed "pistols"

Let's just boil this down to what's going to happen:

1) You want the guns.
2) We won't give you the guns.
3) Your move.

 

[the other mike]

The drama queens are in full force .
Politicians push for gun control after 6 police officers shot in Philadelphia standoff

Angry politicians push for gun control after officers shot in violent standoff

 

[Leo123]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

View attachment 274558

 

[Leo123]

View attachment 274558

 

[bripat9643]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

Countries with strong gun control don’t suffer regular mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours.

Sure they do.

Here are the average death rates, in millions, per country, between 2009 and 2015. The countries are already listed in order of the highest death rates to the lowest median death rates.

• Norway 1.888
• Serbia 0.381
• France 0.347
• Macedonia 0.337
• Albania 0.206
• Slovakia 0.185
• Switzerland 0.142
• Finland 0.132
• Belgium 0.128
• The Czech Republic 0.123
• The United States of America 0.089
• Austria 0.068
• The Netherlands 0.051
• Canada 0.032
• England 0.027
• Germany 0.023
• Russia 0.012
• Italy 0.009

Post a link jerk off

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/

According to that we are smack dab in the middle of third world countries. Is that what you aspire to?

Norway, France, Belgium and Switzerland are developing countries?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What’s illogical is this thread’s premise – it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The thread premise is also a lie: no one advocate for ‘banning’ guns.

They want to ban 'assault weapons' which are competely legal typical semi-auto rifles that look 'scary.'

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans. Not one ounce is to look scary, sexy or anything else. They could have included a lip gloss applicator on a hand grenade but didn't since a lip gloss applicator had no function in killing humans. Same goes for the AR. It's designed for a scared shitless 18 year old fresh out of basic, pumped up on adrenaline, under heavy fire, very little training and being able to kill at a very high rate very quickly. Every piece of the AR is designed for this. Nothing is left over for anything else. So if it looks scary that's because it is. And it is scary for a damned good reason.

OK, here we have a gun-grabber trying to convince us that a certain gun has an attitude. Hey Daryl, a gun is an INANIMATE object. The only ones attributing 'scary' to certain guns are gun-grabbers. My 20 guage has a nice wood stock and is very pretty bu, it'll kill almost anything it is aimed at. Conversely, it'll 'kill' skeet in a shooting competition. It doesn't matter what the gun 'looks like.' Get it now?

Your 20 gauge makes a piss poor weapon to go to war with. You fire your 1,2, or 5 rounds and then have to go through the cumbersome reload process. Now, do that under fire. You won't live past the first reload. And after lugging that puppy around for 24/7 for 3 weeks you are going to be begging for an AR variant except you won't live through the first fire exchange.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What’s illogical is this thread’s premise – it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The thread premise is also a lie: no one advocate for ‘banning’ guns.

They want to ban 'assault weapons' which are competely legal typical semi-auto rifles that look 'scary.'

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans. Not one ounce is to look scary, sexy or anything else. They could have included a lip gloss applicator on a hand grenade but didn't since a lip gloss applicator had no function in killing humans. Same goes for the AR. It's designed for a scared shitless 18 year old fresh out of basic, pumped up on adrenaline, under heavy fire, very little training and being able to kill at a very high rate very quickly. Every piece of the AR is designed for this. Nothing is left over for anything else. So if it looks scary that's because it is. And it is scary for a damned good reason.

Intelligent people laugh at your theory that guns can be made safe.

There is only one way that an AR Variant can be made safe. Don't have one in open public. Simple as that. Meaning, if you see a person walking down the street packing it, consider them already unhinged to begin with and react accordingly. That reaction may be wrong 99% of the time but that 1% of the times will be correct. And an unhinged person walking down the street with an AR Variant needs to be taken down fast BEFORE they get to where they are going to use it. Actually, the figure is a lot lower than 99% but let's just use that as the base figure. Leave your AR variant home or society takes roads to prevent them from even being in the home. It's your choice.

 

[Leo123]

What’s illogical is this thread’s premise – it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The thread premise is also a lie: no one advocate for ‘banning’ guns.

They want to ban 'assault weapons' which are competely legal typical semi-auto rifles that look 'scary.'

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans. Not one ounce is to look scary, sexy or anything else. They could have included a lip gloss applicator on a hand grenade but didn't since a lip gloss applicator had no function in killing humans. Same goes for the AR. It's designed for a scared shitless 18 year old fresh out of basic, pumped up on adrenaline, under heavy fire, very little training and being able to kill at a very high rate very quickly. Every piece of the AR is designed for this. Nothing is left over for anything else. So if it looks scary that's because it is. And it is scary for a damned good reason.

Intelligent people laugh at your theory that guns can be made safe.

There is only one way that an AR Variant can be made safe. Don't have one in open public. Simple as that. Meaning, if you see a person walking down the street packing it, consider them already unhinged to begin with and react accordingly. That reaction may be wrong 99% of the time but that 1% of the times will be correct. And an unhinged person walking down the street with an AR Variant needs to be taken down fast BEFORE they get to where they are going to use it. Actually, the figure is a lot lower than 99% but let's just use that as the base figure. Leave your AR variant home or society takes roads to prevent them from even being in the home. It's your choice.

I guarantee you that if you go walking down a City street in most American cities, with a rifle or shotgun you WILL be stopped by law enforcement. That's not the problem Daryl, the problem is a pin-head perp walking down the street in a 'gun free' zone and unloading on innocent, law-abiding citizens who have been precluded from carrying or even owning a similar gun.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What’s illogical is this thread’s premise – it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The thread premise is also a lie: no one advocate for ‘banning’ guns.

They want to ban 'assault weapons' which are competely legal typical semi-auto rifles that look 'scary.'

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans. Not one ounce is to look scary, sexy or anything else. They could have included a lip gloss applicator on a hand grenade but didn't since a lip gloss applicator had no function in killing humans. Same goes for the AR. It's designed for a scared shitless 18 year old fresh out of basic, pumped up on adrenaline, under heavy fire, very little training and being able to kill at a very high rate very quickly. Every piece of the AR is designed for this. Nothing is left over for anything else. So if it looks scary that's because it is. And it is scary for a damned good reason.

Intelligent people laugh at your theory that guns can be made safe.

There is only one way that an AR Variant can be made safe. Don't have one in open public. Simple as that. Meaning, if you see a person walking down the street packing it, consider them already unhinged to begin with and react accordingly. That reaction may be wrong 99% of the time but that 1% of the times will be correct. And an unhinged person walking down the street with an AR Variant needs to be taken down fast BEFORE they get to where they are going to use it. Actually, the figure is a lot lower than 99% but let's just use that as the base figure. Leave your AR variant home or society takes roads to prevent them from even being in the home. It's your choice.

I guarantee you that if you go walking down a City street in most American cities, with a rifle or shotgun you WILL be stopped by law enforcement. That's not the problem Daryl, the problem is a pin-head perp walking down the street in a 'gun free' zone and unloading on innocent, law-abiding citizens who have been precluded from carrying or even owning a similar gun.

The reaction in the last Walmart is just a glimpse. That Walmart was not a gun free zone but take a look at how everyone reacted. Like the Police Lt that responded, "He's lucky to be alive".

 

[Leo123]

Your 20 gauge makes a piss poor weapon to go to war with. You fire your 1,2, or 5 rounds and then have to go through the cumbersome reload process. Now, do that under fire. You won't live past the first reload. And after lugging that puppy around for 24/7 for 3 weeks you are going to be begging for an AR variant except you won't live through the first fire exchange.

We were not talking about WAR Daryl, come on back and stop chasing squirrels. BTW they make military shotguns with huge magazines. Of course, they are probably illegal in most places but then, a criminal doesn't give a shit if their weapon is legal or not. In fact, they'd prefer to have an illegal, untraceable firearm. You can't protect yourself from that by making laws or hanging 'gun free zone' signs. Neo-Marxist lefties have already removed the common values and morals that would stop a would-be perp from actually obeying any law or sign.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The thread premise is also a lie: no one advocate for ‘banning’ guns.

You expect us to believe that, after you and your ilk would not even admit that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right?

Sorry. You're full of shit. We don't believe you. We have no good reason to trust a single word you say.

As far as we are concerned, you want to ban and confiscate. We will assume so until you prove otherwise. Burden's on you.

.

No one advocates for ‘banning’ guns.

No one advocates for ‘confiscating’ guns.

There will be no ‘new’ AWB.

The only thing that will happen is rightwing demagogues will continue to propagate their ridiculous lies.

 

[Leo123]

The reaction in the last Walmart is just a glimpse. That Walmart was not a gun free zone but take a look at how everyone reacted. Like the Police Lt that responded, "He's lucky to be alive".

Sorry Daryl, that El Paso Wal Mart was in a gun-free mall.

"In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Also: "Similarly, in the Dayton, Ohio, mass shooting on Sunday, which immediately followed the El Paso murders, the victims were attacked as they exited a nightspot that was a gun-free zone.

And, in the Garlic Festival shootings in Gilroy, California last week, the victims were trapped inside a fenced area after going through metal detectors to make sure that they were disarmed. The shooter avoided the metal detectors by cutting through the fence and then attacking a victim pool that the Gilroy authorities had rendered incapable of defending themselves."


Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your 20 gauge makes a piss poor weapon to go to war with. You fire your 1,2, or 5 rounds and then have to go through the cumbersome reload process. Now, do that under fire. You won't live past the first reload. And after lugging that puppy around for 24/7 for 3 weeks you are going to be begging for an AR variant except you won't live through the first fire exchange.

We were not talking about WAR Daryl, come on back and stop chasing squirrels. BTW they make military shotguns with huge magazines. Of course, they are probably illegal in most places but then, a criminal doesn't give a shit if their weapon is legal or not. In fact, they'd prefer to have an illegal, untraceable firearm. You can't protect yourself from that by making laws or hanging 'gun free zone' signs. Neo-Marxist lefties have already removed the common values and morals that would stop a would-be perp from actually obeying any law or sign.

When a person brings a weapon of war into a crowded area and goes bezerk, you just entered into a war zone. You can call it anything you want to but, essentially, it's just become a war zone. The last Walmart Shooting didn't happen in a gun free zone. The Philly shooting (has the even been resolved yet) didn't happen in a gun free zone. It doesn't seem to matter if you hang a sign up or not. The shooting is going to happen regardless. I guess mass shooters don't bother to take the time to read. If it were as easy as removing all gun free zones that would have already been done. But gun free zones have had zero affect on the Mass Shooters. But they have lessened the anger petty use of firearms in settling differences in individuals though.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The reaction in the last Walmart is just a glimpse. That Walmart was not a gun free zone but take a look at how everyone reacted. Like the Police Lt that responded, "He's lucky to be alive".

Sorry Daryl, that El Paso Wal Mart was in a gun-free mall.

"In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

No signs were posted. No laws saying that you could not be armed. And until this happened, you can bet there were open and ccw firearms in that store. It's Texas. It was about as gun free as a shooting range. I see you are trying to justify something by lying about it. Sorry, no free rides on this one. The Shooting happened in a Non Gun Free Zone in Texas. Meaning, there were a lot of firearms there. Even though people were armed, they reacted exactly like I would predict they would and fled for their lives rather than face an AR variant with a friggin hand gun. They had the weapons but lacked the stress training and did what was human. Yes, others have brought up that question but I have yet to see any of you rightwinggunnutters admit to the real reason he wasn't shot to ribbons.