A bet with anti-gunners

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's pretty much the only standard worth pursuing (assuming it's worth it at all) given how rare mass public shootings are as it is.

What a silly, stunted way of looking at things... plane accidents are rare, too...

No, the better way is to use information we have available to us, which shows that laws and stricter controls do have effect. For instance, these shooters are not using fully automatic weapons or grenades.

Until Ferguson, the laws and lack of restrictions we had reduced gun violence and violence in general for a couple of decades.

Actually there is no evidence to support one caused the other. There were many other factors involved.

Like what? Crime and violent crime were on the decrease since the mid 90's. That didn't change until after Ferguson and the riots which caused police officers to be less pro-active on crime. You don't think that made a major difference?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is silly.

That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.

Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that

That's what we're saying. To save 3 lives a year, you want to risk THOUSANDS.

Does the phrase "penny wise, dollar dumbfuck" mean anything?

Risk what thousands?

The thousands that do use firearms for self-defense.

Do they all use AK-47’s?

Nope. Is there a point to your question?

 

[Coyote]

I would support bringing back an assault weapon ban.

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would support bringing back an assault weapon ban.

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results:

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But the more shots you can get off, the more kills you are capable of

Double-edge sword. You take it away from would-be mass shooters and save 3 lives a year, but also take it away from home defenders and risk THOUSANDS of lives.

That is the entire point.

And, it also proves the general point--that your goal is not safety, but fucking commie shit.

We do not trust you and never will.

Nobody is talking about taking away, just having Universal background checks so the insane and Criminal can't buy them duh.

So who decides who is sane? How would we go about that?

And that is a legitimate question.

Thank you very much. That's especially true now that bits and pieces are coming out how the Obama administration used our federal agencies to try and stop a political opponent. And remember DumBama banned senior citizens from firearm access if they were having trouble paying their bills.

 

[bgrouse]

Ban high capacity magazines......nobody needs them

What high capacity mags?

Reloads are risky in home defense situations. We need stansard mags, minimum. 30 rounds are standard.

Everything else you list is fine if you can enforce it.

Yo going to have 30 people invading your home?

Anybody who is not a total retard knows that real CQB situations rarely result in one shot, one kill ratios.

But the more shots you can get off, the more kills you are capable of

1 kill is certainly more than 0 kills and if that 30th round kills the home invader, I would be very happy I had a 30 round clip.

 

[Coyote]

That is silly.

That is like making murder against the law but if one murder happens there can be no further laws against murder for 50 years.

Nothing is a hundred percent, you just try to decrease the chances it will happen again but the pro gun faction does not recognize that

That's what we're saying. To save 3 lives a year, you want to risk THOUSANDS.

Does the phrase "penny wise, dollar dumbfuck" mean anything?

Risk what thousands?

The thousands that do use firearms for self-defense.

Do they all use AK-47’s?

Nope. Is there a point to your question?

Yup. It is an example of reasonable legislation that doesn’t tramp,e on the rights of thousands who use guns for self defense.

Here is a counter offer for you...let’s say we give the pro gunners a total relaxation of gun laws....and if there is one mass murder....etc

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do they all use AK-47’s?

More than you might think. I did when I was a poor student. I bought one for under $200. That steel-cased ammo was dirt cheap too.

Now I use....wait for it....an evil black rifle...oh no!!!

Actually, I built a pistol version. That's my home defense, and the AK is athe backup (which my 15-year-old daughter handles like a pro).

Why limit me to save MAYBE 3 lives a year in mass shootings?

Unless the goal is to prevent resistance ro the communist revolution (it is).

 

[Coyote]

But the more shots you can get off, the more kills you are capable of

Double-edge sword. You take it away from would-be mass shooters and save 3 lives a year, but also take it away from home defenders and risk THOUSANDS of lives.

That is the entire point.

And, it also proves the general point--that your goal is not safety, but fucking commie shit.

We do not trust you and never will.

Nobody is talking about taking away, just having Universal background checks so the insane and Criminal can't buy them duh.

So who decides who is sane? How would we go about that?

And that is a legitimate question.

Thank you very much. That's especially true now that bits and pieces are coming out how the Obama administration used our federal agencies to try and stop a political opponent. And remember DumBama banned senior citizens from firearm access if they were having trouble paying their bills.

Conspiracy theories.

And remember...you guys want to give nuts guns (as accurate as your claim about sr citizens).

 

[Coyote]

I would support bringing back an assault weapon ban.

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results:

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

War of sources. Stalemate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's what we're saying. To save 3 lives a year, you want to risk THOUSANDS.

Does the phrase "penny wise, dollar dumbfuck" mean anything?

Risk what thousands?

The thousands that do use firearms for self-defense.

Do they all use AK-47’s?

Nope. Is there a point to your question?

Yup. It is an example of reasonable legislation that doesn’t tramp,e on the rights of thousands who use guns for self defense.

Here is a counter offer for you...let’s say we give the pro gunners a total relaxation of gun laws....and if there is one mass murder....etc

We never made the claim that we could stop mass murders. We accept that in a country of 315 million people, there are bound to be crazies who can get their hands on firearms, pipe bombs, rental trucks and so on.

Our suggestion is that to help reduce or stop these crimes, we need more guns; more teachers trained and armed, more armed security. Those measures do have positive effects.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would support bringing back an assault weapon ban.

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results:

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

War of sources. Stalemate.

You didn't provide a source, I did.

 

[bgrouse]

That's what we're saying. To save 3 lives a year, you want to risk THOUSANDS.

Does the phrase "penny wise, dollar dumbfuck" mean anything?

Risk what thousands?

The thousands that do use firearms for self-defense.

Do they all use AK-47’s?

Nope. Is there a point to your question?

Yup. It is an example of reasonable legislation that doesn’t tramp,e on the rights of thousands who use guns for self defense.

Here is a counter offer for you...let’s say we give the pro gunners a total relaxation of gun laws....and if there is one mass murder....etc

Big negro-infested cities have enjoyed next to total gun bans, so what are you doing now that they are still crime-infested?

 

[Coyote]

I would support bringing back an assault weapon ban.

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results:

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

War of sources. Stalemate.

You didn't provide a source, I did.

Umm yes...I did.

 

[Coyote]

Risk what thousands?

The thousands that do use firearms for self-defense.

Do they all use AK-47’s?

Nope. Is there a point to your question?

Yup. It is an example of reasonable legislation that doesn’t tramp,e on the rights of thousands who use guns for self defense.

Here is a counter offer for you...let’s say we give the pro gunners a total relaxation of gun laws....and if there is one mass murder....etc

Big negro-infested cities have enjoyed next to total gun bans, so what are you doing now that they are still crime-infested?

I am going to do nothing since it is racist infested propaganda. Go take it elsewhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Double-edge sword. You take it away from would-be mass shooters and save 3 lives a year, but also take it away from home defenders and risk THOUSANDS of lives.

That is the entire point.

And, it also proves the general point--that your goal is not safety, but fucking commie shit.

We do not trust you and never will.

Nobody is talking about taking away, just having Universal background checks so the insane and Criminal can't buy them duh.

So who decides who is sane? How would we go about that?

And that is a legitimate question.

Thank you very much. That's especially true now that bits and pieces are coming out how the Obama administration used our federal agencies to try and stop a political opponent. And remember DumBama banned senior citizens from firearm access if they were having trouble paying their bills.

Conspiracy theories.

And remember...you guys want to give nuts guns (as accurate as your claim about sr citizens).

Under the rule, Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI's background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.

Why Obama's gun policy for mentally ill is flawed

 

[Coyote]

Nobody is talking about taking away, just having Universal background checks so the insane and Criminal can't buy them duh.

So who decides who is sane? How would we go about that?

And that is a legitimate question.

Thank you very much. That's especially true now that bits and pieces are coming out how the Obama administration used our federal agencies to try and stop a political opponent. And remember DumBama banned senior citizens from firearm access if they were having trouble paying their bills.

Conspiracy theories.

And remember...you guys want to give nuts guns (as accurate as your claim about sr citizens).

Under the rule, Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI's background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.

Why Obama's gun policy for mentally ill is flawed

Did you miss the part about psychiatric disabilities?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is a counter offer for you...let’s say we give the pro gunners a total relax

What do you call the shit that's been happening for the last 80 years?

You're already trying to do it.

 

[Coyote]

Here is a counter offer for you...let’s say we give the pro gunners a total relax

What do you call the shit that's been happening for the last 80 years?

You're already trying to do it.

What shit? Relaxation of gun laws? Yup...it’s been happening. So has an increase in school shootings.

 

[KGB]

Too bad you refuse to read the truth or you might learn something this time:

Nothing you post is anywhere near the truth.

Using Mother Jones as a source is laughable....

And was thus torn about in the LA Times...

The assault weapons ban didn't work. A new version won't, either