Republicans Response to Colorado Shooting: Cant do nothing

[candycorn]

Okay, if you just want to be an emotional hand-wringer, you can continue without me.

I've shown that legal gun ownership reduces crime. The facts are indisputable. And you have countered the facts with not facts, but emotionalism.

.

And the IQ of the debate rises with your exit.

I'm sure it makes you feel better to pretend that. After all, you're driven solely by emotion.

Being armed to the teeth is apparently a wise foreign policy....just curious why you think it is a good idea sometimes but not a good idea other times.

Are you really claiming I should support an idea you got from a sitcom?

Really?
[/quote]
The underlying principle you endorse, apparently, is that by brandishing weapons, you reduce crime. That is to say that if 100% of the people you see on the street were armed and showed that they were armed, there would be less crimes because, according to you guys, a criminal would think twice before acting.

Passing out guns to everyone on a plane is that same dynamic.

I don't want you to support the idea, just tell us how it differs from yours.

Accidental shootings are a cost of doing business in Conserve-istan.

I see you choose to ignore all the crimes prevented by legal gun owners. Why is that?

Crime rates drop and rise for many reasons.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

It does bring up something I would always want to ask a gun nut. Wouldn't you want to wear the gun outside and not conceal it as a way to prevent the assault in the first place?

Why do you want to disarm innocent people?

I don't really although that would be preferable because it makes it much easier to identify the criminals among us. Maybe someone buying 6,000 bullets would be such an outlyer that it would set off alarms somewhere--gee theres a thought.

Twelve innocent people are dead in Colorado and if they were carrying a weapon, it likely would have made little difference.

 

[candycorn]

I'd be happier with you limiting the magazine and clip size to zero myself.

I knew that. It is why I asked.

Your a gun banner, but talk other obfuscatory crap like Obama. But like Obama if pressed your core values show everytime.

No. But when you have 100 bullet magazines; thats more than any sane person should need. The idea of a magazine/clip is to continue to fire without reloading; repetative firing capability. The idea is to limit the amount of repeats but since you're being an idiot on the subject, I feel no encumbrance as to being extreme myself.

 

[candycorn]

Because you'd only be impacting people who obey the law.

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?

Well, the impact would be non-existent. What impact are you talking about? The ability to only mow down 6 people without reloading instead of 7? Certainly there is no 2nd amendment infringement. No infringement on hunters, collectors, etc...

As for ciminials, they will be able to get whatever they want as long as there are people willing to sell it to them (there's your answer by the way).

So you really just want to disarm innocent people.

All that does is create more victims. Murderers, rapists, and thieves appreciate your efforts on their behalf.

You do know, don't you, that a weapon that will accept a large magazine will also accept a small one, right?

I've had this conversation on a different thread.

When we made car mfg's put seatbelts in cars, they said the same shit. You're infringing blah blah blah.... Well, we grandfathered it in. Now the number of cars with seat belts is easily 10-1 over the cars without. You limit the supply of these high volume clips and the price goes up. So some Red State stoner gets doped up and wants to buy a large clip in the unofficial black market, the price is going to be higher than it is now. So it will eventually limit the number out there.

Innocent people will still be able to purchase as many guns as they want and fire them and do everything you want to do now...but the capacity of the mag/clip will be lessened.

And you just said you wanted to make 7 or more round magazines illegal. Now you've got the cops seizing weapons.

I am on several threads. I said single digits. Six sounds logical to me. It would be based on the diameter of the rounds I guess.

It's a common sense approach while preserving the 2nd amendment rights to gun ownership.

Wrong. You just said you want the cops to seize weapons.

Clips sure.

That is, of course, what you'd prefer.

*chuckle*

Please tell us the horrible impact such a rule would have?

You're making a decision for people when you have no right or authority to.

You really don't. You should accept that.

Uh no, I'm posting on a message board instead of going to sunrise Yoga. I'm about to correct that.

 

[NoNukes]

Six people dying before a reload is an acceptable number ?

The question was to how to mitigate the catastrophe. Since 6 is less than 7; it is a mitigation; not acceptable. I'd be happier with you limiting the magazine and clip size to zero myself.

Then innocent people would have clubs, and criminals would still have guns.

Why do you want to make it easier for criminals to victimize people?

Most Americans do not have guns.

 

[daveman]

And the IQ of the debate rises with your exit.

I'm sure it makes you feel better to pretend that. After all, you're driven solely by emotion.

Are you really claiming I should support an idea you got from a sitcom?

Really?

The underlying principle you endorse, apparently, is that by brandishing weapons, you reduce crime. That is to say that if 100% of the people you see on the street were armed and showed that they were armed, there would be less crimes because, according to you guys, a criminal would think twice before acting.

Passing out guns to everyone on a plane is that same dynamic.

I don't want you to support the idea, just tell us how it differs from yours.

Except you included children, and the setting was on an airliner -- which isn't a gun-friendly environment.

I'd ask you to see how your scenario is different, but you'd just insist it's the same. Again.

I see you choose to ignore all the crimes prevented by legal gun owners. Why is that?

Crime rates drop and rise for many reasons.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

You totally ignored the study, didn't you?

Must be some of that famous leftist selective perception. "If I pretend it's not there, it doesn't actually exist!"

It does bring up something I would always want to ask a gun nut.

Then why are you asking me?

Wouldn't you want to wear the gun outside and not conceal it as a way to prevent the assault in the first place?

That would be a good idea...but the kollektive leftist pants-shitting would create an abominable mess.

Why do you want to disarm innocent people?

I don't really although that would be preferable because it makes it much easier to identify the criminals among us.

Yes, they would be the ones killing and raping.

Oh, that's right -- you think being raped and/or murdered is morally superior to defending yourself.

Maybe someone buying 6,000 bullets would be such an outlyer that it would set off alarms somewhere--gee theres a thought.

Again, no one can offer a workable solution.

Twelve innocent people are dead in Colorado and if they were carrying a weapon, it likely would have made little difference.

The study you just quoted and ignored says it would have.

 

[daveman]

I'd be happier with you limiting the magazine and clip size to zero myself.

I knew that. It is why I asked.

Your a gun banner, but talk other obfuscatory crap like Obama. But like Obama if pressed your core values show everytime.

No. But when you have 100 bullet magazines; thats more than any sane person should need. The idea of a magazine/clip is to continue to fire without reloading; repetative firing capability. The idea is to limit the amount of repeats but since you're being an idiot on the subject, I feel no encumbrance as to being extreme myself.

So you want to deny a capability to law-abiding people while placing no such restraint on criminals -- who, in case you haven't heard, don't obey the law.

You really haven't given this any thought, have you?

 

[daveman]

Well, the impact would be non-existent. What impact are you talking about? The ability to only mow down 6 people without reloading instead of 7? Certainly there is no 2nd amendment infringement. No infringement on hunters, collectors, etc...

As for ciminials, they will be able to get whatever they want as long as there are people willing to sell it to them (there's your answer by the way).

So you really just want to disarm innocent people.

All that does is create more victims. Murderers, rapists, and thieves appreciate your efforts on their behalf.

You do know, don't you, that a weapon that will accept a large magazine will also accept a small one, right?

I've had this conversation on a different thread.

When we made car mfg's put seatbelts in cars, they said the same shit. You're infringing blah blah blah.... Well, we grandfathered it in. Now the number of cars with seat belts is easily 10-1 over the cars without. You limit the supply of these high volume clips and the price goes up. So some Red State stoner gets doped up and wants to buy a large clip in the unofficial black market, the price is going to be higher than it is now. So it will eventually limit the number out there.

Innocent people will still be able to purchase as many guns as they want and fire them and do everything you want to do now...but the capacity of the mag/clip will be lessened.

As you have admitted, criminals do not obey the law. You're only impacting innocent people.

And your emotional insistence about what people need and don't need is not your choice to make.

I am on several threads. I said single digits. Six sounds logical to me. It would be based on the diameter of the rounds I guess.

Your logic isn't logic. It's emotion.

Clips sure.

No, weapons. You said:

What it does is give law enforcement more tools to use to sieze weapons with larger clips/magazines.

*chuckle*

You've admitted so.

I don't really although that would be preferable because it makes it much easier to identify the criminals among us.​

You say disarming innocent people is preferable.

All that does is make more victims. It's utterly undeniable.

Please tell us the horrible impact such a rule would have?

You're making a decision for people when you have no right or authority to.

You really don't. You should accept that.

Uh no, I'm posting on a message board instead of going to sunrise Yoga. I'm about to correct that.

No, you've decided innocent people should have magazines with a 6-round capacity. You admit that it will not deter criminals. Then you decided that completely disarming innocent people would be the best thing.

Sheer emotion. That's all you've got.

 

[daveman]

The question was to how to mitigate the catastrophe. Since 6 is less than 7; it is a mitigation; not acceptable. I'd be happier with you limiting the magazine and clip size to zero myself.

Then innocent people would have clubs, and criminals would still have guns.

Why do you want to make it easier for criminals to victimize people?

Most Americans do not have guns.

So? If more Americans did, crime would go down even more.

Liberals think that's a bad thing, apparently.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then innocent people would have clubs, and criminals would still have guns.

Why do you want to make it easier for criminals to victimize people?

Most Americans do not have guns.

So? If more Americans did, crime would go down even more.

Liberals think that's a bad thing, apparently.

Latest study said 48 percent of Americans have firearms.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is limiting the clip size a bad idea?

How is limiting the clip size going to save anyone's life?

 

[NoNukes]

Then innocent people would have clubs, and criminals would still have guns.

Why do you want to make it easier for criminals to victimize people?

Most Americans do not have guns.

So? If more Americans did, crime would go down even more.

Liberals think that's a bad thing, apparently.

Pure conjecture. I live in a country with very strict gun laws and most police officers do not carry firearms. By your way of thinking, crime should be out of control and it should be a dangerous place to live. Guess what? You are wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There have been multiple threads but one thing remains the same. When you ask a republican what could be done to stop dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands there answer is:

Nothing...Do nothing...Nothing could be done....and nothing should be done.

Once again showing the deep problem solving skills of some of the righties here.

I refuse to give one inch on this subject. If your scared of another mass shooting get rid of the gun free zones, stop stigmatizing gun owners as evil people.
The second amendment has been compromised to much to give one more inch to the anti gun crowd.

 

[Noomi]

There have been multiple threads but one thing remains the same. When you ask a republican what could be done to stop dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands there answer is:

Nothing...Do nothing...Nothing could be done....and nothing should be done.

Once again showing the deep problem solving skills of some of the righties here.

I refuse to give one inch on this subject. If your scared of another mass shooting get rid of the gun free zones, stop stigmatizing gun owners as evil people.
The second amendment has been compromised to much to give one more inch to the anti gun crowd.

The 2nd ammendment was relevant in the 1700's. Its hardly relevant now.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The 2nd ammendment was relevant in the 1700's. Its hardly relevant now.

Molon Labe

 

[candycorn]

There have been multiple threads but one thing remains the same. When you ask a republican what could be done to stop dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands there answer is:

Nothing...Do nothing...Nothing could be done....and nothing should be done.

Once again showing the deep problem solving skills of some of the righties here.

I refuse to give one inch on this subject. If your scared of another mass shooting get rid of the gun free zones, stop stigmatizing gun owners as evil people.
The second amendment has been compromised to much to give one more inch to the anti gun crowd.

The 2nd ammendment was relevant in the 1700's. Its hardly relevant now.

If you're watching this "advanced" society operate under a 200+ y/o constitution from another planet, you wouldn't think we're advanced at all...except compared to a lot of other cultures.

 

[candycorn]

Most Americans do not have guns.

So? If more Americans did, crime would go down even more.

Liberals think that's a bad thing, apparently.

Pure conjecture. I live in a country with very strict gun laws and most police officers do not carry firearms. By your way of thinking, crime should be out of control and it should be a dangerous place to live. Guess what? You are wrong.

It was explained to me that the reason that the US is so violent isn't because of the availability of guns...it's because of "diversity". Believe it or not, that was the point one of these conserveatives tried to make..."diversity" is the reason we have more gun violence than other western nations.

Gee, wonder what the conservative meant by that? Maybe we should bar the Canadians from entering...yeah; thats it.

 

[daveman]

Most Americans do not have guns.

So? If more Americans did, crime would go down even more.

Liberals think that's a bad thing, apparently.

Pure conjecture. I live in a country with very strict gun laws and most police officers do not carry firearms. By your way of thinking, crime should be out of control and it should be a dangerous place to live. Guess what? You are wrong.

What happens in your country is immaterial to the US.

In the US studies show that when CCW goes up, crime goes down. Period.

 

[daveman]

There have been multiple threads but one thing remains the same. When you ask a republican what could be done to stop dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands there answer is:

Nothing...Do nothing...Nothing could be done....and nothing should be done.

Once again showing the deep problem solving skills of some of the righties here.

I refuse to give one inch on this subject. If your scared of another mass shooting get rid of the gun free zones, stop stigmatizing gun owners as evil people.
The second amendment has been compromised to much to give one more inch to the anti gun crowd.

The 2nd ammendment was relevant in the 1700's. Its hardly relevant now.

Why do you say that?

 

[daveman]

I refuse to give one inch on this subject. If your scared of another mass shooting get rid of the gun free zones, stop stigmatizing gun owners as evil people.
The second amendment has been compromised to much to give one more inch to the anti gun crowd.

The 2nd ammendment was relevant in the 1700's. Its hardly relevant now.

If you're watching this "advanced" society operate under a 200+ y/o constitution from another planet, you wouldn't think we're advanced at all...except compared to a lot of other cultures.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And it ain't broke.

 

[NoNukes]

So? If more Americans did, crime would go down even more.

Liberals think that's a bad thing, apparently.

Pure conjecture. I live in a country with very strict gun laws and most police officers do not carry firearms. By your way of thinking, crime should be out of control and it should be a dangerous place to live. Guess what? You are wrong.

What happens in your country is immaterial to the US.

In the US studies show that when CCW goes up, crime goes down. Period.

Ignoring the facts is a lot of the problem.