Jump to content

Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, muppy said:

very interesting  https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/  Australia banned assault type guns and...….

 

"As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years."

THat last line is a complete lie which invalidates the entire article.

 

Australia had one horrific shooting resulting in double digit deaths which caused the hysteria that pushed gun control. They didn't have many before that and don't have many after. The frequency didn't change much.

 

Although, you can argue the methods did get a little more creative.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bad Things said:

Give me a break.

 

 

It's not and as I stated there is nothing protecting our other freedoms without the second amendment

 

It's why evil people want it abolished

 

Our CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS IS AS RELEVANT TODAY AS IT WAS 200 YEARS AGO

Edited by Buffalo716
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The Las Vegas shooting happened. Largest mass shooting in our country's history and we know ZERO about it or the motives of the shooter. 

 

That's not a conspiracy. That's a fact. 

 

 

 

 

The fact you don't care about finding out more about the largest mass shooting in our history -- while you do care about "counter punching" says everything we need to know about your opinions. They're not worth much at all.

 

**********************

 

 

 

...the senseless tragedies are bad enough, but politicizing them is even worse.....what's worse is how the perpetrator becomes the "victim" because society "failed them".....sure be;ieve the whole acumen and due diligence as far as mental health/stability has been woefully relaxed FOR YEARS.....people out there that should NOT be on the streets or people out there who need help.....so from that perspective, society has been lax...BUT...they can never be victims for the senseless bloodshed they perpetrate.....and focusing on "white supremacy"?...seriously?.......is the Chicago or Baltimore shooting galleries based on "white supremacy"?....how 'bout black on black which is of equal importance, as a life is a life....yet pathetics like Booker ignore black on black so they can label Trump a racist and white supremacist......does BookerBlab get YOUR vote?.....Race Baiter 101....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Because my degree in history taught me that history repeats itself and our founders agreed

 

Countries and empires rise and fall, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes rise and fall and America isn't exempt

 

A totalitarian regimes sole goal is to decimate the populations morale while controlling their every action... If you value the bill of rights, the second NEEDS to be on a pedestal

 

Because without the second, there is NOTHING protecting our rights from the 1st amendment to the 10th.. the second amendment guarantees us free speech and freedom of religion

 

The second amendment guarantees us the 3rd of no quartering of soldiers and the 4th of illegal searches and seizures

 

Without the 2nd , we would lose all of them

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then why not make it #1?

 

Because...

 

#1 can be infringed on it doesn't need protecting.

 

The classic example is with the Mormons and the Nauvoo Expositor and it's destruction (of the printing press) on June 10, 1844 for being a "public nuisance."

Edited by ExiledInIllinois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

A country with the Population of less than Texas isn't exactly a great sample size

 

 

 

The majority of the population lives in 3 or 4 large geographical areas and along the coast.   

 

The interior is sparsely populated. 

Think Canada and Alaska.  (Or Siberia even)

You cant have a mass killing when you live with 100 people in 500 miles 

 

So yeah the numbers do mean something.   

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

The majority of the population lives in 3 or 4 large geographical areas and along the coast.   

 

The interior is sparsely populated. 

Think Canada and Alaska.  (Or Siberia even)

Plus, given that all Australians are decendents from murderers and rapists born with innate disposition towards violence, I'd say it's an excellent sample. ?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

The majority of the population lives in 3 or 4 large geographical areas and along the coast.   

 

The interior is sparsely populated. 

Think Canada and Alaska.  (Or Siberia even)

You cant have a mass killing when you live with 100 people in 500 miles 

 

So yeah the numbers do mean something.   

 

It's also a different culture.

 

Whether you agree with it or not the right to keep arms is part of American culture since the begining

 

And we have lost over a million Americans since our founding who all fought and died for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stony said:

That's fine and all.  But I suppose it's the unnamed tyranny part that tends to give me pause when discussing this.  You claim you know tyranny would would be rampant if the populace could not defend themselves.  I want to know from what?     

 

History -- not to mention current events. 

 

We just lived through a period of several years where the federal government (DOJ, FBI, CIA specifically) abused its powers in an attempt to subvert a legal election simply because they disagreed with the choice the voters made. In doing so, they weaponized the oppressive powers of the state and the surveillance state to deny several people their individual liberty during a coup attempt. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unbillievable said:

THat last line is a complete lie which invalidates the entire article.

 

Australia had one horrific shooting resulting in double digit deaths which caused the hysteria that pushed gun control. They didn't have many before that and don't have many after. The frequency didn't change much.

 

Although, you can argue the methods did get a little more creative.

 

 

I disagree that the article I quoted is discredited and here is why... quoted from this link ….are you saying the banning of assault style guns had no effect? I would strongly disagree with you again.  https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/20/strict-firearm-laws-reduce-gun-deaths-heres-the-evidence

Quote

Their research also showed that while there had been 13 mass shootings (using the definition of five or more people killed) in the 18 years before the law changes, there had been none in the 22 years following (though there was one mass shooting involving seven members of one family at Margaret River in Western Australia in May 2018).

Modelling suggested that if shootings had continued at a similar rate as that prior to the NFA, then approximately 16 incidents would have been expected by February 2018.

 

 

Edited by muppy
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

It's also a different culture.

 

Whether you agree with it or not the right to keep arms is part of American culture since the begining

 

And we have lost over a million Americans since our founding who all fought and died for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

How’s that working out? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, muppy said:

I disagree that the article I quoted is discredited and here is why... quoted from this link ….are you saying the banning of assault style guns had no effect? I would strongly disagree with you again.  https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/20/strict-firearm-laws-reduce-gun-deaths-heres-the-evidence

 

 

You can't do statistical analysis on rare instances.. There just isn't enough data to come up with a statement like "16 incidents prevented". It's equivalent to the false argument that a rock in your pocket prevents bear attacks.  

 

Bottom line: Restating the LIE that "no mass shootings occurred in 22 years" invalidates his argument; proven by the fact that he immediately attaches exceptions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are more likely to get hit by lightning, or win the Powerball than be involved in a mass shooting...

....yet this irrational fear is enough for people to give up a fundamental Right; and bully others to do the same.

 

Imagine if we had a debate to close beaches during shark week.  (which is much more likely to occur)

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

You can't do statistical analysis on rare instances.. There just isn't enough data to come up with a statement like "16 incidents prevented". It's equivalent to the false argument that a rock in your pocket prevents bear attacks.  

 

Bottom line: Restating the LIE that "no mass shootings occurred in 22 years" invalidates his argument; proven by the fact that he immediately attaches exceptions.

 

 

so let me get this straight you're quibbling over months now wether or not there were no mass shootings in 22 years? .. I posted why its right there in black and white 2 articles in which stated that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives. Would you have  argued if it had said 21 years 6 months?  Geesh.  I think you're quibbling and not seeing the more important issue and that is that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives.I think its important.... if you have data to support that action made no difference  please post it.

Edited by muppy
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, muppy said:

so let me get this straight you're quibbling over months now wether or not there were no mass shootings in 22 years? .. I posted why its right there in black and white 2 articles in which stated that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives. Would you have  argued if it had said 21 years 6 months?  Geesh.  I think you're quibbling and not seeing the more important issue and that is that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives.I think its important.... if you have data to support that action made no difference  please post it.

 

There would still not be enough data to prove nothing changed. I can't prove that not having a rock in my pocket attracts Bears.

 

He can reduce the time to 2yrs and would still be wrong. Don't start an argument with FALSE statement and expect people to believe anything afterward.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

You are more likely to get hit by lightning, or win the Powerball than be involved in a mass shooting...

....yet this irrational fear is enough for people to give up a fundamental Right; and bully others to do the same.

 

Imagine if we had a debate to close beaches during shark week.  (which is much more likely to occur)

speaking only for myself Im in favor of people being allowed to own guns but I believe that assault style weapons have no business being in the hands of civilians. Period. There is seemingly always a slippery slope that gets implied that we  mean ALL guns be outlawed I doubt that is a majority belief at all absolutely NOT. 

1 minute ago, unbillievable said:

 

There would still not be enough data to prove nothing changed. I can't prove that not having a rock in my pocket attracts Bears.

 

He can reduce the time to 2yrs and would still be wrong. Don't start an argument with FALSE statement and expect people to believe anything afterward.

 

we aren't going to agree so Peace Out brother. I just honestly don't get how you cant see any proof that not having assault weapons in the hands of civilians even conceivably saved lives in Australia and in hand MIGHT save lives here. It couldn't freakin hurt Lol. Thanks for the discussion.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, muppy said:

speaking only for myself Im in favor of people being allowed to own guns but I believe that assault style weapons have no business being in the hands of civilians. Period. There is seemingly always a slippery slope that gets implied that we  mean ALL guns be outlawed I doubt that is a majority belief at all absolutely NOT. 

 

Except that activists, and more importantly,  politicians have already  stated they want to ban ALL GUNS.

 

...and it's blatantly obvious why ordinary citizens should be armed, even beyond the need for self defense. The 2nd Amendment was specifically created to combat Tyranny, and the riots in Venezuela, Turkey, Spain, France, Hong Kong, and Oregon prove that that need still exists today.

 

It's estimated that more than 75% of firearms were NOT turned into the Australian government after the ban. So the statistics are trying to prove the effectiveness of a BAN that didn't occur.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

Quote

Except that activists, and more importantly,  politicians have already  stated they want to ban ALL GUNS.

 

...and it's blatantly obvious why ordinary citizens should be armed, even beyond the need for self defense. The 2nd Amendment was specifically created to combat Tyranny, and the riots in Venezuela, Turkey, Spain, France, Hong Kong, and Oregon prove that that need still exists today.

 

It's estimated that more than 75% of firearms were NOT turned into the Australian government after the ban. So the statistics are trying to prove the effectiveness of a BAN that didn't occur.

 

 

mr/ms unbillievable LOL very respectfully on the bolded can you please post. links? I don't know you from Adam why should I believe what you post? I need to see this in print no offense me not taking your word for it. Im mostly a football chatter not guns Im just going to kindly call you on a couple of things. Youre talking to ME now, just muppy. Its obvious to YOU that we need arming I choose to arm myself with a very territorial and none to pleased with strangers pitbull Dog so please don't try to sell me there are no alternatives to guns HA ? 2nd Amendment is Great!

 

and again, please no offense if you don't care to reply your call But forme if you want to post absolutes rhetoric you really should use links so it is proven factual to skeptics. Does that seem fair to ask? Thanks. m

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

They're both constitutionally protected rights.

 

The anti-gunners have less than no right to demand the curtailing of one without an equal curtailing of the other.

 

,^ this guy ?

 

I really believe the good ole USA should go the Canada route. Rifles, handguns and shotguns are legal. All gun owners must register their gun and have them locked up when not in use. 

 

As far as the mentally ill issue and these mass shootings, health care paid for by the government like Canada would do wonders. It does go against the whole caring for your neighbor thing. Any time it has been brought up, you hear a lot of Americans against paying for their neighbors care. Americans need to get over the me-first attitude. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Because my degree in history taught me that history repeats itself and our founders agreed

 

Countries and empires rise and fall, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes rise and fall and America isn't exempt

 

A totalitarian regimes sole goal is to decimate the populations morale while controlling their every action... If you value the bill of rights, the second NEEDS to be on a pedestal

 

Because without the second, there is NOTHING protecting our rights from the 1st amendment to the 10th.. the second amendment guarantees us free speech and freedom of religion

 

The second amendment guarantees us the 3rd of no quartering of soldiers and the 4th of illegal searches and seizures

 

Without the 2nd , we would lose all of them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't recommend pulling a gun on a cop trying to search your vehicle. Nor shooting someone over a perceived infringement of your right to assemble. 

 

The second amendment doesn't guarantee anything. The Constitution does. You can argue that it might afford some ersatz protection, but your rights are guaranteed by the judicial system and not the second amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...