Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

[ChrisL]

Agreed. I don't argue they need to change, although I would argue they have given up part of their culture and made their citizens less safe. Recall the rioting by "youths" in Britain and Norway about 1 or 2 years ago. People had to get baseball bats to defend themselves. Bunch of citizens with shotguns patrolling the streets would have ended that real quick.
But in the US we have the 2A, so it is a right.

So the odd riot should mean everybody should be armed to the teeth? How many people died in those riots? Your solution to the problem is way over the top.

And how many die in mass shootings, percentage wise? The answer is less than 1%.

Telling people they can't defend themselves in the face of threat is simply not acceptable for any decent society. I had friends who went through the Crown Heights riots. They were terrified and scarred probably to this day. Some of them were old Europeans who remembered Nazi pogroms and relived that period. It is simply offensive for someone to suggest, well not many people died so it's OK. It's not OK. It's never OK.

More people die from drowning than from mass shootings, so why don't these people want to ban swimming pools? Many, many more children die in swimming pools than in mass shootings every year.

That is horrible to hear. Maybe we should do something about swimming pools to make them safer. We could fence them in, make rules for how they are built. keep non-swimmers out of the deep end, have life guards
Wait, we already do that

But when we try to make rules concerning guns....we get whiny threads like this one

A pool in someone's back yard has a lifeguard? Who pays for that?
Why don't we pass a law that restricts all pools to no more than 2 feet in depth. And they have to be emptied out at the end of every day.

Even with lifeguards and other precautions, people still drown at an alarming rate!!! Swimming should be banned!

 

[rightwinger]

Agreed. I don't argue they need to change, although I would argue they have given up part of their culture and made their citizens less safe. Recall the rioting by "youths" in Britain and Norway about 1 or 2 years ago. People had to get baseball bats to defend themselves. Bunch of citizens with shotguns patrolling the streets would have ended that real quick.
But in the US we have the 2A, so it is a right.

So the odd riot should mean everybody should be armed to the teeth? How many people died in those riots? Your solution to the problem is way over the top.

And how many die in mass shootings, percentage wise? The answer is less than 1%.

Telling people they can't defend themselves in the face of threat is simply not acceptable for any decent society. I had friends who went through the Crown Heights riots. They were terrified and scarred probably to this day. Some of them were old Europeans who remembered Nazi pogroms and relived that period. It is simply offensive for someone to suggest, well not many people died so it's OK. It's not OK. It's never OK.

More people die from drowning than from mass shootings, so why don't these people want to ban swimming pools? Many, many more children die in swimming pools than in mass shootings every year.

That is horrible to hear. Maybe we should do something about swimming pools to make them safer. We could fence them in, make rules for how they are built. keep non-swimmers out of the deep end, have life guards
Wait, we already do that

But when we try to make rules concerning guns....we get whiny threads like this one

A pool in someone's back yard has a lifeguard? Who pays for that?
Why don't we pass a law that restricts all pools to no more than 2 feet in depth. And they have to be emptied out at the end of every day.

Even with lifeguards and other precautions, people still drown at an alarming rate!!! Swimming should be banned!

Nobody is looking to ban guns, only increase regulations
Just like we do with swiming pools

Just because you can't stop ALL deaths.....doesn't mean you should not try to stop ANY

 

[The Rabbi]

Agreed. I don't argue they need to change, although I would argue they have given up part of their culture and made their citizens less safe. Recall the rioting by "youths" in Britain and Norway about 1 or 2 years ago. People had to get baseball bats to defend themselves. Bunch of citizens with shotguns patrolling the streets would have ended that real quick.
But in the US we have the 2A, so it is a right.

So the odd riot should mean everybody should be armed to the teeth? How many people died in those riots? Your solution to the problem is way over the top.

And how many die in mass shootings, percentage wise? The answer is less than 1%.

Telling people they can't defend themselves in the face of threat is simply not acceptable for any decent society. I had friends who went through the Crown Heights riots. They were terrified and scarred probably to this day. Some of them were old Europeans who remembered Nazi pogroms and relived that period. It is simply offensive for someone to suggest, well not many people died so it's OK. It's not OK. It's never OK.

More people die from drowning than from mass shootings, so why don't these people want to ban swimming pools? Many, many more children die in swimming pools than in mass shootings every year.

That is horrible to hear. Maybe we should do something about swimming pools to make them safer. We could fence them in, make rules for how they are built. keep non-swimmers out of the deep end, have life guards
Wait, we already do that

But when we try to make rules concerning guns....we get whiny threads like this one

A pool in someone's back yard has a lifeguard? Who pays for that?
Why don't we pass a law that restricts all pools to no more than 2 feet in depth. And they have to be emptied out at the end of every day.

Even with lifeguards and other precautions, people still drown at an alarming rate!!! Swimming should be banned!

Nobody is looking to ban guns, only increase regulations
Just like we do with swiming pools

Just because you can't stop ALL deaths.....doesn't mean you should not try to stop ANY

What regulations are there are on swimming pools in people's backyards? Yeah, none.
Gun regulations have not stopped a single death. Fact.

 

[ChrisL]

Nobody is looking to ban guns, only increase regulations
Just like we do with swiming pools

Just because you can't stop ALL deaths.....doesn't mean you should not try to stop ANY

These are incremental steps towards an ultimate goal, disarming the populace and doing away with our 2nd Amendment right. Wonder which right will be attacked next?

 

[Mathbud1]

You sure try hard Rabbi, but you really don't get there
Every city has different wealth, demographics and crime rates

But guess what?

So do cities in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea. Yet, when taken as a nation they all have significantly lower murder rates than the US. The prime reason is they don't have the gun culture that the US has embraced

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh my GOD that was funny.

You can't compare two cities based only on gun laws because that ignores other factors, but you can compare two countries based only on gun laws because.... the other factors suddenly don't matter anymore?

 

[Mathbud1]

And 250 million cars won't be involved in car accidents - but hey, let's get rid of seatbelts, front guards, air bags, chassis' etc, and all other safety features in a car.

Let's see a logical comparison between the safety features in a car and the restrictions you want on guns.

All of those safety features are designed to protect the USER of the car.

Try that again and you can probably come up with some better things to compare.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There is no background check to show someone is not insane. Of the high profile shootings in the last several years most of the people involved either passed a background check or would have had they bothered.

Didn't the Navy Yard shooter still have a valid SECURITY CLEARANCE?

 

[The Rabbi]

You sure try hard Rabbi, but you really don't get there
Every city has different wealth, demographics and crime rates

But guess what?

So do cities in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea. Yet, when taken as a nation they all have significantly lower murder rates than the US. The prime reason is they don't have the gun culture that the US has embraced

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh my GOD that was funny.

You can't compare two cities based only on gun laws because that ignores other factors, but you can compare two countries based only on gun laws because.... the other factors suddenly don't matter anymore?

Logical consistency isn't Nutjobber's stock in trade. He's more of a go with the flow narrative kind of guy. Facts dont really intrude into it.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no background check to show someone is not insane. Of the high profile shootings in the last several years most of the people involved either passed a background check or would have had they bothered.

Didn't the Navy Yard shooter still have a valid SECURITY CLEARANCE?

Yes. So did Maj Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter. You would figure people living literally under the government's nose would be subject to regular scrutiny. Obviously that didnt work. How much more so for people at large.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yeah...forgot about Hassan, though I did not realize he had a security clearance!

How the hell could so many people not see so many BIG, GLARING CLUES?!

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah...forgot about Hassan, though I did not realize he had a security clearance!

How the hell could so many people not see so many BIG, GLARING CLUES?!

People dont want to see it. People arent trained to see it. And I would bet plenty of people might exhibit exactly the same behavior and be perfectly OK.

 

[Dr Grump]

More people die from drowning than from mass shootings, so why don't these people want to ban swimming pools? Many, many more children die in swimming pools than in mass shootings every year.

How many people have tried to kill other people with a swimming pool?

What? What does that mean? Isn't your concern about people dying? Or is it the manner in which they die that has you all hot and bothered?

Of course the manner in which they die is important. If I die due to my own stupidity, that is one thing. To die because of somebody else's is a an entirely different scenario.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who is talking assault weapons? Not I. I know part of this thread people are bringing it up, I'm talking firearms in general.

Really.
99.9961% opf the guns in the US will NOT be used to murder someone this year.
Guess how that compares to the rest of the civilized world.

Really.
Show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense,

And 250 million cars won't be involved in car accidents - but hey, let's get rid of seatbelts, front guards, air bags, chassis' etc, and all other safety features in a car.

Congrats on the red herring and non-sequitur all wrapped up in one statement.

We both know the truth of my statement absolutely negates your argument; difference is that -I- will admit it.

BS it's a red herring. It is just as relevent as your 99.990E=MC2 percent of guns don't kill people scenario.

 

[Dr Grump]

So? Are you concerned with mass killings or not? How many mass killings would be acceptable to you?

None are acceptable. However, if you say there is a no difference between one country having one mass killing and another country having 60+ then you're an idiot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who is talking assault weapons? Not I. I know part of this thread people are bringing it up, I'm talking firearms in general.

Really.
99.9961% opf the guns in the US will NOT be used to murder someone this year.
Guess how that compares to the rest of the civilized world.

Really.
Show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense,

And 250 million cars won't be involved in car accidents - but hey, let's get rid of seatbelts, front guards, air bags, chassis' etc, and all other safety features in a car.

Congrats on the red herring and non-sequitur all wrapped up in one statement.

We both know the truth of my statement absolutely negates your argument; difference is that -I- will admit it.

BS it's a red herring.

Lesse....
-You avoided the issue put to you
-You tried to change the subject by interjecting something irrelevant to it,
Red herring.

99.9961% of guns will not murder someone this year; any argument you may have against the widespread ownership of guns is therefore unsound. We both know this, though you won't admit it.

And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that the need for firearms in a so-called civilised society is irrational -- please show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Lesse....
-You avoided the issue put to you
-You tried to change the subject by interjecting something irrelevant to it,
Red herring.

99.9961% of guns will not murder someone this year; any argument you may have against the widespread ownership of guns is therefore unsound. We both know this, though you won't admit it.

And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that the need for firearms in a so-called civilised society is irrational -- please show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense.

Me comparing your scenario to a similar one is not a red herring, it is giving an example of how weak your argument is.

People NEVER having a need and RARELY having a need are a lot closer linked than you say. So you have to weigh up the situation - does a society need the same number of people as guns (as is almost the case int he US) or is it better for society as a whole to have a limited number of firearms available to the populace. Now, you would argue things like "self-defence", "freedom for tyranny" and all the other BS that goes with it.

What the underlying argument here is, that for a lot of you gun lovers you don't trust your government. The irony of this is that these same people will tell you that America is the greatest country in the world and the most free. Really? I trust both governmental systems I have lived under. Australia's slightly less so than NZ, but still believe enough in the system that unless both countries are invaded by some unstoppable force, the ballot box is where I'll be doing my changing and not at the barrel of a gun.

 

[The Rabbi]

So? Are you concerned with mass killings or not? How many mass killings would be acceptable to you?

None are acceptable. However, if you say there is a no difference between one country having one mass killing and another country having 60+ then you're an idiot.

Not there's no difference. Just that banning guns or severely restricting them to a virtual ban is no guarantee against having mass shootings.
In the case of the US of course banning guns, even if legally possible, would have no effect on crime, except to make it worse.

 

[The Rabbi]

[

Lesse....
-You avoided the issue put to you
-You tried to change the subject by interjecting something irrelevant to it,
Red herring.

99.9961% of guns will not murder someone this year; any argument you may have against the widespread ownership of guns is therefore unsound. We both know this, though you won't admit it.

And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that the need for firearms in a so-called civilised society is irrational -- please show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense.

Me comparing your scenario to a similar one is not a red herring, it is giving an example of how weak your argument is.

People NEVER having a need and RARELY having a need are a lot closer linked than you say. So you have to weigh up the situation - does a society need the same number of people as guns (as is almost the case int he US) or is it better for society as a whole to have a limited number of firearms available to the populace. Now, you would argue things like "self-defence", "freedom for tyranny" and all the other BS that goes with it.

What the underlying argument here is, that for a lot of you gun lovers you don't trust your government. The irony of this is that these same people will tell you that America is the greatest country in the world and the most free. Really? I trust both governmental systems I have lived under. Australia's slightly less so than NZ, but still believe enough in the system that unless both countries are invaded by some unstoppable force, the ballot box is where I'll be doing my changing and not at the barrel of a gun.

I dont have to demonstrate need to sit in the front of the bus. I dont have to demonstrate need to vote. I dont have to demonstrate need to practice a religion. I dont have to demonstrate need to do anything else protected by the Constitution. Why should we single out guns,just because some criminals misuse them?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So? Are you concerned with mass killings or not? How many mass killings would be acceptable to you?

None are acceptable. However, if you say there is a no difference between one country having one mass killing and another country having 60+ then you're an idiot.

Not there's no difference. Just that banning guns or severely restricting them to a virtual ban is no guarantee against having mass shootings.
In the case of the US of course banning guns, even if legally possible, would have no effect on crime, make it worse.

I still contend banning blacks would have a far more positive impact on crime then banning guns would.

I don't support doing so, but it would lower crime.

 

[The Rabbi]

So? Are you concerned with mass killings or not? How many mass killings would be acceptable to you?

None are acceptable. However, if you say there is a no difference between one country having one mass killing and another country having 60+ then you're an idiot.

Not there's no difference. Just that banning guns or severely restricting them to a virtual ban is no guarantee against having mass shootings.
In the case of the US of course banning guns, even if legally possible, would have no effect on crime, make it worse.

I still contend banning blacks would have a far more positive impact on crime then banning guns would.

I don't support doing so, but it would lower crime.

Wouldnt even have to do that. Send all black men between 16 and 30 to a camp somewhere on an island and our crime rate would look like France. Better, actually.