Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[Brain357]

You mean like paying people to stay poor? It won't help. No matter how much you pay people not to work, they will still feel entitled to more. As long as some people are willing to work harder and longer than others there will be income inequality.

No I mean incentives for companies to create jobs here and give good wages and benefits.

You want to cut taxes?

That would be the incentive obviously.

 

[Brain357]

and they had those rates without strict gun laws. guns are not the problem

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those countries have on average, one third of the gun ownership of the US and one quarter of our murder rate

Russia has 10% of the guns we do, and 300% of our murder rate, what was your point again?

Their rate is dropping like a rock. Expect them to be lower than us soon.

 

[Nosmo King]

And so we realize that there is nothing to do about gun violence. Gun lovers deny that mass shootings are a problem. Back ground checks are not 100% effective so we can forget even trying that. Modern semi-automatic weapons fitted with large capacity magazines are just too sexy to ban, so we cannot contemplate removing them from the streets. It would shatter the gun lust the gun lovers enjoy so much. In fact we cannot refer to such weapons as 'assault weapons' as that kinks up the argument against them by providing a scary image.

Piles of victims bodies shows that there is no problem with guns because a rationalization widely used by the gun lovers shows that peanuts, swimming pools, automobiles and hatchets can produce 10, 20, 30 victims at a time just as guns can.

We therefore must temper our outrage and accept victims of gun violence as nothing more than the price we must pay to satisfy gun lust and the lopsided logic that tells us guns aren't as much a problem as people simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We must adjust our morality and forget gun violence as a tragedy but simply the consequence of flooding our streets with weapons best suited for well regulated militias.

 

[Brain357]

I know what I see with my own eyes.

Do you see a national movement to restrict alcohol?

Anyone pushing that?

No.

The amount you can drink before driving is limited. Just like we should limit magazine capacity.

Why should we limit magazine capacity? I want a rational argument, if you are capable of one.

Statistics show only 3 shots needed for defense. Mass shooters however shoot a lot more. Also there are many examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload like Tucson. Will save lives.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So that would really only effect the numbers if a conviction is never secured. Are you saying they have far fewer homicides and let all the murderers go? Seems very unlikely.

Does Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Japan all do the same thing?

In Conservatard Land, you have to believe that the rest of the Industrialized World, far more liberal than we are, is lying about statistics to preserve their world view.

SO if they are healthier, live longer, and have less crime, it isn't because they have socialized medicine, no guns and a welfare state.

It's because they are "lying" about their statistics, and every citizen of their country goes along with it.

Except Pauli, who apparently left the UK because it was too socialist.

WHAT FUCKING INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Just asking because you seem to think you know what the term means, even though no educated person on the planet uses it. The modern term is production capacity, which includes non industrial capacity that includes basic research, and no one has a definition of it either.

Do you consider Russia an industrial nation? Are you aware that they have a higher murder rate? What about North Korea? They even have nuclear power, which makes them pretty modern, yet they have a higher homicide rate. So does Mexico, South Africa, and Puerto Rico. Please, tell me that Puerto Rico doesn't meet your definition of industrialized, then tell me it doesn't have a modern democracy.

Be VEWWWY QUIET, Comrade JoeB is hunting civil rights..

He's gunna kill em all!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was shot in the lower extremities. If you shoot for the lower extremities in defense it's your own fault if he's not stopped. Try again.

Gunners use fake studies?

You seem to be saying there were 2 officers which agrees with me.

People have died after being shot in the foot, others take rounds to the head and shake it off.

Still waiting on documentation of the 15 shot tall tale.

Still waiting for your list of fake studies that prove you only need 3 rounds to defend yourself.

This guy was shot 5 times, and still managed to get into his car and drive away.

Georgia mom shoots home intruder in the face five times with a .38-caliber revolver - NY Daily News

Look up the story of Officer Steve Chaney sometime. He shot a guy 11 times before he went down, twice to the head.

Or Officer Stacy Linn, who got shot in the heart with a .357 and chased down the guy that shot her.

Or you could look at the infamous Miami shootout, where one suspect took a fatal wound to the chest, climbed out of his car window, and managed to keep shooting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

Unless you can convince cops they only need 3 rounds, don't try to convince me I only need 3.

 

[Spoonman]

If we didn't have minority gangs all of whom have a raging sense of entitlement, we would have the murder rate of Brussels.

No we wouldn't

Whites still account for over 50% of our murder rate. 30% of our murders are domestic violence, not gangs

Gang homicides account for 12% of our murders
Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems

•The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged more than 1,900 annually from 2007 to 2011. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (FBI ? Table 1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.

ok, now you're just talking shit again. these numbers looked off so i had to verify

Blacks alone, who make up 13% of the population account for 54% of the gun homicides

why do you guys always have to play games with the numbers? do you feel your argument is not strong enough to present the facts?

 

[Brain357]

People have died after being shot in the foot, others take rounds to the head and shake it off.

Still waiting on documentation of the 15 shot tall tale.

Still waiting for your list of fake studies that prove you only need 3 rounds to defend yourself.

This guy was shot 5 times, and still managed to get into his car and drive away.

Georgia mom shoots home intruder in the face five times with a .38-caliber revolver - NY Daily News

Actually I provided it sometime ago.

Having read that I think 1 shot would have sent him running.

 

[Spoonman]

The amount you can drink before driving is limited. Just like we should limit magazine capacity.

Why should we limit magazine capacity? I want a rational argument, if you are capable of one.

Statistics show only 3 shots needed for defense. Mass shooters however shoot a lot more. Also there are many examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload like Tucson. Will save lives.

ok, so why did no one stop this guy with a 0 capacity magazine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not the whole uk. And the other countries?

An article from the UK that talks about the UK is not the UK, good to know.

It talks about Scotland. Is that the whole uk?

Is it part of the UK? If I was talking about violent crime in the US, could I use Denver as an example?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those countries have on average, one third of the gun ownership of the US and one quarter of our murder rate

Russia has 10% of the guns we do, and 300% of our murder rate, what was your point again?

Their rate is dropping like a rock. Expect them to be lower than us soon.

That was funny.

Get back to me in 90 years when it gets down to where we are now, and lets find out what ours is then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The amount you can drink before driving is limited. Just like we should limit magazine capacity.

Why should we limit magazine capacity? I want a rational argument, if you are capable of one.

Statistics show only 3 shots needed for defense. Mass shooters however shoot a lot more. Also there are many examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload like Tucson. Will save lives.

I don't see any statistics, are they all in your ass?

 

[Missourian]

The amount you can drink before driving is limited. Just like we should limit magazine capacity.

Why should we limit magazine capacity? I want a rational argument, if you are capable of one.

Statistics show only 3 shots needed for defense. Mass shooters however shoot a lot more. Also there are many examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload like Tucson. Will save lives.

Average of 3 shots.

One may need 20 rounds and 20 may need 1.

That's an average of 2 shots...but one defender still needed 20 rounds.

This shooter had a 5 round magazine.

He killed more than the Joker did in Aurora did with a 100 round magazine.

That in itself blows your theory out of the water.

 

[Missourian]

I'm not nearly as interested in a victory as I am an understanding.

The facts are on the side of the Second Amendment defenders.

But we WANT to reduce homicides as much as the gun grabbers.

I would compromise with gun grabbers if I thought they were sincere.

But the fact is that gun grabbers will never feel safe until all guns are gone.

Look at this latest mass shooting.

The guy used a shotgun no different than millions of legally owned firearms that hunters use.

A five round tubular magazine is standard.

I've asked this 1000 times.

WHAT GUN CONTROL WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS SHOOTING?

Tell me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should we limit magazine capacity? I want a rational argument, if you are capable of one.

Statistics show only 3 shots needed for defense. Mass shooters however shoot a lot more. Also there are many examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload like Tucson. Will save lives.

Average of 3 shots.

One may need 20 rounds and 20 may need 1.

That's an average of 2 shots...but one defender still needed 20 rounds.

This shooter had a 5 round magazine.

He killed more than the Joker did in Aurora did with a 100 round magazine.

That in itself blows your theory out of the water.

Not to mention all the times that people just pull their weapons and never fire a shot, thus skewing all the statistics.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm not nearly as interested in a victory as I am an understanding.

The facts are on the side of the Second Amendment defenders.

But we WANT to reduce homicides as much as the gun grabbers.

I would compromise with gun grabbers if I thought they were sincere.

But the fact is that gun grabbers will never feel safe until all guns are gone.

Look at this latest mass shooting.

The guy used a shotgun no different than millions of legally owned firearms that hunters use.

A five round tubular magazine is standard.

I've asked this 1000 times.

WHAT GUN CONTROL WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS SHOOTING?

Tell me.

So gun control doesn't work. Back ground checks aren't a panacea and not 100% effective so why bother. Gun lovers would tell us that each and every weapon in the American military arsenal should be on American streets in the hands of whoever has the means to obtain them. The rights of the mentally frazzled must not be infringed if they too want to own a weapon. In fact, gun lovers tell us that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, mass shootings produce as many victims as peanut allergies and choking incidents. As the second amendment must be followed (with that pesky exception of well regulated militias) to the letter, our current situation cannot be changed at all.

Where are the suggestions from gun lovers to cut the rate of violence? All I hear is a bunch of lop-sided rationalizations from folks blinded by the glamor and lust for guns.

 

[Nosmo King]

And so we realize that there is nothing to do about gun violence. Gun lovers deny that mass shootings are a problem. Back ground checks are not 100% effective so we can forget even trying that. Modern semi-automatic weapons fitted with large capacity magazines are just too sexy to ban, so we cannot contemplate removing them from the streets. It would shatter the gun lust the gun lovers enjoy so much. In fact we cannot refer to such weapons as 'assault weapons' as that kinks up the argument against them by providing a scary image.

Piles of victims bodies shows that there is no problem with guns because a rationalization widely used by the gun lovers shows that peanuts, swimming pools, automobiles and hatchets can produce 10, 20, 30 victims at a time just as guns can.

We therefore must temper our outrage and accept victims of gun violence as nothing more than the price we must pay to satisfy gun lust and the lopsided logic that tells us guns aren't as much a problem as people simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We must adjust our morality and forget gun violence as a tragedy but simply the consequence of flooding our streets with weapons best suited for well regulated militias.

Mass shootings in the 16 years after the UK Passed the 1997 firearms act are happening at almost 10 times the rate they did between 1909 and 1997.
10 mass shootings in 88 years with people allowed to defend themselves.
14 mass shootings in the 16 years after law abiding citizens were disarmed.
Why do you want 10 times more mass shootings?

I'm adopting the gun lover's attitude. I don't care about mass shootings and the victims of them. Guns are just too cool, numerous, powerful and sexy to ban. Everyone's rights trump public safety. Guns aren't the problem, even after gunfire results in scores of victims at once. People die, so what. So long as there are plenty of guns and ammo to go around. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm not nearly as interested in a victory as I am an understanding.

The facts are on the side of the Second Amendment defenders.

But we WANT to reduce homicides as much as the gun grabbers.

I would compromise with gun grabbers if I thought they were sincere.

But the fact is that gun grabbers will never feel safe until all guns are gone.

Look at this latest mass shooting.

The guy used a shotgun no different than millions of legally owned firearms that hunters use.

A five round tubular magazine is standard.

I've asked this 1000 times.

WHAT GUN CONTROL WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS SHOOTING?

Tell me.

So gun control doesn't work. Back ground checks aren't a panacea and not 100% effective so why bother. Gun lovers would tell us that each and every weapon in the American military arsenal should be on American streets in the hands of whoever has the means to obtain them. The rights of the mentally frazzled must not be infringed if they too want to own a weapon. In fact, gun lovers tell us that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, mass shootings produce as many victims as peanut allergies and choking incidents. As the second amendment must be followed (with that pesky exception of well regulated militias) to the letter, our current situation cannot be changed at all.

Where are the suggestions from gun lovers to cut the rate of violence? All I hear is a bunch of lop-sided rationalizations from folks blinded by the glamor and lust for guns.

All you hear, or choose to hear is what is convienient.
No one anywhere has argued against any reasonable proposal.
Not background checks , nothing.
Stop lying.
Ban guns, mass shooting rates and murder rates will explode.

That must explain how sensible gun legislation passed so quickly not only at the federal level, but among the various states. It must then further explain why and how the recall election in Colorado removed legislators after they instituted gun legislation. You're absolutely right. The Republican Party coupled with their benefactors, the National Rifle Association have come up with reams of sensible legislation enacted after the horrors in aurora and Newtown.

Oh. Wait. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED DUE TO THE STIFLING OBSTRUCTIONIST POLICY OF THE MODERN CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT!

Where are the suggestions? Other than the rationalizations that dismiss gun violence as nothing more than a pesky little problem?

 

[Nosmo King]

Mass shootings in the 16 years after the UK Passed the 1997 firearms act are happening at almost 10 times the rate they did between 1909 and 1997.
10 mass shootings in 88 years with people allowed to defend themselves.
14 mass shootings in the 16 years after law abiding citizens were disarmed.
Why do you want 10 times more mass shootings?

I'm adopting the gun lover's attitude. I don't care about mass shootings and the victims of them. Guns are just too cool, numerous, powerful and sexy to ban. Everyone's rights trump public safety. Guns aren't the problem, even after gunfire results in scores of victims at once. People die, so what. So long as there are plenty of guns and ammo to go around. What could possibly go wrong?

Your prejudice against gun owners shows in your language .
Nothing you say on the subject has relevance.
Your sole intent here is to pile hate on law abiding gun owners.

For you to participate in this discussion is akin to Hitler discussing how best to end anti semitism.

Tell me then from a gun lover's perspective; what can be done? I've NEVER heard one gun lover offer anything but rationalizations. Never a solution.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I'm not nearly as interested in a victory as I am an understanding.

The facts are on the side of the Second Amendment defenders.

But we WANT to reduce homicides as much as the gun grabbers.

I would compromise with gun grabbers if I thought they were sincere.

But the fact is that gun grabbers will never feel safe until all guns are gone.

Look at this latest mass shooting.

The guy used a shotgun no different than millions of legally owned firearms that hunters use.

A five round tubular magazine is standard.

I've asked this 1000 times.

WHAT GUN CONTROL WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS SHOOTING?

Tell me.

So gun control doesn't work. Back ground checks aren't a panacea and not 100% effective so why bother. Gun lovers would tell us that each and every weapon in the American military arsenal should be on American streets in the hands of whoever has the means to obtain them. The rights of the mentally frazzled must not be infringed if they too want to own a weapon. In fact, gun lovers tell us that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, mass shootings produce as many victims as peanut allergies and choking incidents. As the second amendment must be followed (with that pesky exception of well regulated militias) to the letter, our current situation cannot be changed at all.

Where are the suggestions from gun lovers to cut the rate of violence? All I hear is a bunch of lop-sided rationalizations from folks blinded by the glamor and lust for guns.

The only answer to your question is total gun control. That might have prevented this.

Nevertheless, It wouldn't have prevented someone like me who knows chemistry from binding together some legally purchased acetone peroxide and blowing the place to pieces.