Is banning guns to save lives even logical?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Strawman fallacy.

No one wants your guns.

No one is going to try to take your guns.

Conservatives continue to look stupid.

 

[Leo123]

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.

Yes and folks like you want the 'soldiers' (law abiding citizens) to be disarmed in the midst of being fired at.

The last Walmart Shooting didn't happen in a gun free zone.

Guess you didn't see my latest post where I provided a link proving that absolutely wrong. That Wal-Mart was in a gun free mall.

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.

Removing the 'gun-free zone' signs would only be a first step. The next step is encouraging law abiding citizens to carry a gun. We have to do this now because of the amoral/immoral Neo-Marxist assholes who have corrupted our traditional morals and values and turned our children into murderers. The guns didn't do that Daryl.

 

[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.”

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.

You just ignored the facts I posted Daryl and went off on another Squirrel chase.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Yes and folks like you want the 'soldiers' (law abiding citizens) to be disarmed in the midst of being fired at.

The last Walmart Shooting didn't happen in a gun free zone.

Guess you didn't see my latest post where I provided a link proving that absolutely wrong. That Wal-Mart was in a gun free mall.

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.

Removing the 'gun-free zone' signs would only be a first step. The next step is encouraging law abiding citizens to carry a gun. At least until we clean out the amoral/immoral Neo-Marxist assholes who have corrupted our traditional morals and values and turned our children into murderers. The guns didn't do that Daryl.

I saw your post. And you honestly believe that a Texan didn't carry his weapon inside that store? I spent a few years living in Texas. Here is a question just for Texans. Does any Texan assume any place is a gun free zone regardless of the sign unless it's go a metal detector and security entrance to it? You have no idea what makes a Texan along the Border tick. As I said, there were more guns in that store than at an NRA convention.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[Ray9]

My brother is a college professor. He never talks to anyone about guns except me. He has lots of guns because he lives in Florida where just about everyone has guns and for good reason. The last time I was there he proudly showed me his new pistol grip shotgun. I asked why he bought it and he said because I can take out a charging mob at fifty feet if I need to. My brother is not alone.

 

[Leo123]

I saw your post. And you honestly believe that a Texan didn't carry his weapon inside that store? I spent a few years living in Texas. Here is a question just for Texans. Does any Texan assume any place is a gun free zone regardless of the sign unless it's go a metal detector and security entrance to it? You have no idea what makes a Texan along the Border tick. As I said, there were more guns in that store than at an NRA convention.

So, you are saying that Texans are a cowardly bunch and, even though armed, cowered like little butt-hurt liberals in the face of a little pin-head perp with a rifle? Come on Daryl, insult yet another group of Americans in a desperate attempt to make some kind of silly gun-grabbing point.

 

[okfine]

You can smoke and drink and live. Excessively... you may die. Get shot and most likely you die on the spot. Excessively shot, most definitely.

 

[jc456]

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?

You forgot to mention the horrendous number of people who are injured and die in automobile accidents every year. Banning automobiles would not only eliminate them as a cause of carnage, it would be approved of by the "greenies", thereby saving the planet as well as many lives directly related to automobiles.

And another rightist follows suit with his own ridiculous false comparison fallacy.

Clearly lack of critical thinking skills is a prerequisite for being conservative.

And another white guy calling a white guy racist cause he’s protecting the black guy cause he thinks he’s too stupid

 

[satrebil]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

You write a wonderful piece of sophistry; logical, not so much.

Using alcohol and/or tobacco are a choice, getting shot is not a choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My brother is a college professor. He never talks to anyone about guns except me. He has lots of guns because he lives in Florida where just about everyone has guns and for good reason. The last time I was there he proudly showed me his new pistol grip shotgun. I asked why he bought it and he said because I can take out a charging mob at fifty feet if I need to. My brother is not alone.

Sadly, there are far too many people who aren’t alone in being delusional and paranoid.

And one person’s opinion is anecdotal, irrelevant, and proves nothing.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Lemme guess, you Law Abiding Citizen is standing in a Walmart that just got evacuated due to him being in there with his open carry. It appears that the other "Citizen" might have a point.

Then again you seem to enjoy the fact that your Constitutional rights have been abridged and more people are killed with a knife each year than with avgun....So when are you radicals going to start the BAN THE KNIFE movement?....ABNORMALS simply want all your rights abridged in one form or another!

Let's do a fact check on that.

FACT CHECK: Are Four Times More People Stabbed to Death Than Killed with Rifles?

Unproven

Origin

On 16 October 2017, Breitbart.com posted a story reporting that according to 2016 crime statistics published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more people are murdered with knives or by beaten to death than with rifles:


According to FBI: UCR Table 12, there were approximately 374 people shot and killed with rifles of any kind. There were 1,604 people killed with “knives or cutting instruments.”

Table 12 also shows that more people were killed via the use of “hands, fists, feet, etc.,” than were killed by rifles of any kind. In fact, the tally shows that the death numbers were not even close. While approximately 374 people were shot and killed with rifles, roughly 656 people were beaten to death with “hands, fists, feet, etc.”
.....
When you go to the Table 12, you see that in order to get to the figures that Briebart claims you are going to have to add in Knive and cutting devices along with hands, feet, clubs, etc.. This is another Kleck moment.

Thanks for confirming knives kill more people!!!!

I confirmed that Knives by themselves kill fewer people. But when you add in knives, clubs, fists, etc. then you get a larger figure. And that is according to Table 12. You read only the part that agreed with what you were "told to" believe in. You didn't read the whole thing.

Knives, by themselves, kill just as many people as guns do. That would be exactly ZERO. Knives, clubs, guns, etc are only tools used by people to kill other people. Why isn't this obvious? So, we don't need gun control, we need people control.

 

[satrebil]

My brother is a college professor. He never talks to anyone about guns except me. He has lots of guns because he lives in Florida where just about everyone has guns and for good reason. The last time I was there he proudly showed me his new pistol grip shotgun. I asked why he bought it and he said because I can take out a charging mob at fifty feet if I need to. My brother is not alone.

Sadly, there are far too many people who aren’t alone in being delusional and paranoid.

And one person’s opinion is anecdotal, irrelevant, and proves nothing.

I suppose in your fantasy world home invasions, rapes, carjackings, or murders don't happen?

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Guns are meant to kill or wound and so they are inherently tools of violence in my opinion. From a logical point of view an overall reduction in weapons, such as guns, would ultimately save lives in my opinion.

 

[satrebil]

Guns are meant to kill or wound and so they are inherently tools of violence in my opinion. From a logical point of view an overall reduction in weapons, such as guns, would ultimately save lives in my opinion.

Cain killed Able with a rock.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Guns are meant to kill or wound and so they are inherently tools of violence in my opinion. From a logical point of view an overall reduction in weapons, such as guns, would ultimately save lives in my opinion.

Cain killed Able with a rock.

Yes, but I was answering the question that was asked in the thread about guns. Cain was wrong to do that as well in my opinion.

 

[satrebil]

Guns are meant to kill or wound and so they are inherently tools of violence in my opinion. From a logical point of view an overall reduction in weapons, such as guns, would ultimately save lives in my opinion.

Cain killed Able with a rock.

Yes, but I was answering the question that was asked in the thread about guns. Cain was wrong to do that as well in my opinion.

You're missing the point. Humanity has always been plagued by violence. Removing guns from the equation will not reduce that. The wars of yesteryear, with swords, clubs, and maces, were still fought. People were still robbed, raped, and murdered. And even in modern times lack of access to guns does not stop violence. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. The Tsarnev brothers used pressure cookers. The 9/11 perpetrators used airplanes. If someone is dead set on killing someone else they will find a way.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Guns are meant to kill or wound and so they are inherently tools of violence in my opinion. From a logical point of view an overall reduction in weapons, such as guns, would ultimately save lives in my opinion.

Cain killed Able with a rock.

Yes, but I was answering the question that was asked in the thread about guns. Cain was wrong to do that as well in my opinion.

You're missing the point. Humanity has always been plagued by violence. Removing guns from the equation will not reduce that. The wars of yesteryear, with swords, clubs, and maces, were still fought. People were still robbed, raped, and murdered. And even in modern times lack of access to guns does not stop violence. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. The Tsarnev brothers used pressure cookers. The 9/11 perpetrators used airplanes. If someone is dead set on killing someone else they will find a way.

We will probably disagree on this but violence is a choice in my opinion, a choice that we all have the ability to make. Tools that are created for violent use, such as a gun, are built, sold, and bought mostly by people who desire to be non-violent yet they contribute to the perpetuation of violent weapons by doing those things. The more abundant violent weapons become the more likely they will be used in my opinion, and so from a logical point of view reducing the amount of weapons meant for violence should also reduce the usage of those weapons. I understand that almost anything could be used as a weapon, such as a rock, but a rock isn't made for that purpose just as an airplane isn't built as a tool for violence and so I personally don't view them in the same light.

 

[satrebil]

Guns are meant to kill or wound and so they are inherently tools of violence in my opinion. From a logical point of view an overall reduction in weapons, such as guns, would ultimately save lives in my opinion.

Cain killed Able with a rock.

Yes, but I was answering the question that was asked in the thread about guns. Cain was wrong to do that as well in my opinion.

You're missing the point. Humanity has always been plagued by violence. Removing guns from the equation will not reduce that. The wars of yesteryear, with swords, clubs, and maces, were still fought. People were still robbed, raped, and murdered. And even in modern times lack of access to guns does not stop violence. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. The Tsarnev brothers used pressure cookers. The 9/11 perpetrators used airplanes. If someone is dead set on killing someone else they will find a way.

We will probably disagree on this but violence is a choice in my opinion, a choice that we all have the ability to make. Tools that are created for violent use, such as a gun, are built, sold, and bought mostly by people who desire to be non-violent yet they contribute to the perpetuation of violent weapons by doing those things. The more abundant violent weapons become the more likely they will be used in my opinion, and so from a logical point of view reducing the amount of weapons meant for violence should also reduce the usage of those weapons. I understand that almost anything could be used as a weapon, such as a rock, but a rock isn't made for that purpose just as an airplane isn't built as a tool for violence and so I personally don't view them in the same light.

Guns have been available for hundreds of years. Even the "scary assault rifles" have been around for over a century. The AR-15, for example, is a 70 year old design. Guns have been prevalent throughout the USA's 200 year plus history, yet mass shootings have only been prominent for the last 2 decades, give or take a few years.

The reason for this is not guns, it is societal rot. We've got an entire generation of people out there who demonize the judeo-christian values this country was founded and built on, who don't respect authority, who celebrate degeneracy, who encourage suppression and violence against those who don't share their ideologies, and most of whom are on drugs - be it illicit or pharmaceutical. And you have the media and politicians cheering them on.

When a society has been polarized as much as ours has, violence is inevitable. It's not "us" anymore. It's "you vs. me".