Question For The Gun Haters

[2aguy]

The most recent Synagogue shooting proves that smaller mag sizes will save lives. Anything that makes the shooter stop shooting (his assault rifle jammed) allowed someone to charge and disable the shooter. It likely allowed a great many more to run away.

Moron...the guy jammed his gun because he didn't know how to use it, then was scared off by a guy yelling at him....

Magazine Capacity had nothing to do with saving lives here or in any other mass public shooting...they are not a factor.....

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

Nonsense.

Meanwhile back in reality….the more a gunman has to reload, the more likely there will be a dropped magazine, clip, etc… the more he isn’t shooting, the better it is for those being shot at.

Those are the facts…

Now please continue with the spin nobody will ever read.

Actual shootings with actual magazines shows you are wrong.

Here....the conclusion of the actual research......

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[mudwhistle]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case?
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

Well.....he killed one with an AR-15, a muslim terrorist in France, with a rental truck, killed 86 people and injured 435 with 5 minutes of driving...so obviously, we need to ban rental trucks since they are deadlier than AR-15 rifles...even the Vegas shooter, firing from a fortified, concealed position, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, and he only killed 58....vs the 86 by the rental Truck...

Ban rental trucks...and cars...they kill more people every single year than guns do...

so fukin stupid:
cars/trucks are not even on the list

Now how many of these deaths are in Democrat controlled cities?
That will give us the real cause of gun violence.

 

[harmonica]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case?
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

Well.....he killed one with an AR-15, a muslim terrorist in France, with a rental truck, killed 86 people and injured 435 with 5 minutes of driving...so obviously, we need to ban rental trucks since they are deadlier than AR-15 rifles...even the Vegas shooter, firing from a fortified, concealed position, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, and he only killed 58....vs the 86 by the rental Truck...

Ban rental trucks...and cars...they kill more people every single year than guns do...

so fukin stupid:
cars/trucks are not even on the list

Yes.....exactly....cars accidentally killed 38,000 people in 2017.....guns used illegally to commit murder? 10,982....

Showing exactly why cars are deadlier than guns.....you have to willfully use a gun to commit the crime of murder to get to 10,982......cars kill by misuse and accident 38,000 people...

So according to mopes like you, with your logic, that would mean of the two, cars really need to be banned because they actually kill more people every single year than guns do...

cars are USED so much more than guns you can't even calculate it
you take hours used divided by deaths for deadliness = cars MUCH safer

AND you must not understand MURDER vs accident ....

.....the pro-gun argument = cars worse than guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!----a very ridiculous argument....this IS the best you people come up with = you have no argument

 

[2aguy]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case?
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

Well.....he killed one with an AR-15, a muslim terrorist in France, with a rental truck, killed 86 people and injured 435 with 5 minutes of driving...so obviously, we need to ban rental trucks since they are deadlier than AR-15 rifles...even the Vegas shooter, firing from a fortified, concealed position, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, and he only killed 58....vs the 86 by the rental Truck...

Ban rental trucks...and cars...they kill more people every single year than guns do...

so fukin stupid:
cars/trucks are not even on the list

Yes.....exactly....cars accidentally killed 38,000 people in 2017.....guns used illegally to commit murder? 10,982....

Showing exactly why cars are deadlier than guns.....you have to willfully use a gun to commit the crime of murder to get to 10,982......cars kill by misuse and accident 38,000 people...

So according to mopes like you, with your logic, that would mean of the two, cars really need to be banned because they actually kill more people every single year than guns do...

cars are USED so much more than guns you can't even calculate it
you take hours used divided by deaths for deadliness = cars MUCH safer

AND you must not understand MURDER vs accident ....

.....the pro-gun argument = cars worse than guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!----a very ridiculous argument....this IS the best you people come up with = you have no argument

Actual deaths by intentional, illegal use of guns...... 10,982 in 2017.

Accidental gun deaths..... 486 in 2017.

Actual deaths by accident with cars....38,659.

Actual deaths...cars are deadlier than guns.....

No...this argument is constantly brought up by morons on the anti-gun side claiming that guns kill more people than cars do.......that is until someone actual pointed out that the majority of gun deaths are by suicide, not murder...because the dishonest morons on the anti-gun side have to lie about murder and suicide to get the death number up.......

Then, you throw in the lives saved.....with Americans using their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders? Guns save more lives than they take....

 

[2aguy]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case?
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

Well.....he killed one with an AR-15, a muslim terrorist in France, with a rental truck, killed 86 people and injured 435 with 5 minutes of driving...so obviously, we need to ban rental trucks since they are deadlier than AR-15 rifles...even the Vegas shooter, firing from a fortified, concealed position, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, and he only killed 58....vs the 86 by the rental Truck...

Ban rental trucks...and cars...they kill more people every single year than guns do...

so fukin stupid:
cars/trucks are not even on the list

Now how many of these deaths are in Democrat controlled cities?
That will give us the real cause of gun violence.

You are correct...

Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

 

[Blues Man]

How many people would have died if bad drivers hadn't been given the keys to a car?

What's your point?

We can live without guns.

Cars... not so much.

humans could not live without cars---no food for some
how would you get all the food needed to them?
get to the doctor if you are dying? hurt? sick?

So I guess humans didn't exist until after cars were invented

you people are so full of shit
those humans GREW UP without cars---feeding off the land
without cars/trucks:
no ac/heating
no phones
no MODERN sewage systems
no modern water supply
etc etc etc
humans today need all of that--without it:
disease/death/hardship/etc
and getting to the doctor will not be easy
please tell me how the food will get to the people?

Hey you're the idiot that said human can't live without cars and history proves you wrong since humans have lived without cars longer that they have with cars

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it

 

[mudwhistle]

How many people would have died if bad drivers hadn't been given the keys to a car?

What's your point?

We can live without guns.

Cars... not so much.

humans could not live without cars---no food for some
how would you get all the food needed to them?
get to the doctor if you are dying? hurt? sick?

So I guess humans didn't exist until after cars were invented

you people are so full of shit
those humans GREW UP without cars---feeding off the land
without cars/trucks:
no ac/heating
no phones
no MODERN sewage systems
no modern water supply
etc etc etc
humans today need all of that--without it:
disease/death/hardship/etc
and getting to the doctor will not be easy
please tell me how the food will get to the people?

Hey you're the idiot that said human can't live without cars and history proves you wrong since humans have lived without cars longer that they have with cars

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it

I think maybe you should think about what you post before you post it.
Imagine how much more difficult life would be if you didn't have access to a car.
We don't have a decent mass-transit system, so getting around would be very difficult.
You'd have to walk everywhere.
Ever wonder why people are living longer than back 300 years ago?
No, probably not.
The life expectancy was only about 40 years back then.
Now it's in the 70s.
I wonder what makes that all possible?

 

[Blues Man]

We can live without guns.

Cars... not so much.

humans could not live without cars---no food for some
how would you get all the food needed to them?
get to the doctor if you are dying? hurt? sick?

So I guess humans didn't exist until after cars were invented

you people are so full of shit
those humans GREW UP without cars---feeding off the land
without cars/trucks:
no ac/heating
no phones
no MODERN sewage systems
no modern water supply
etc etc etc
humans today need all of that--without it:
disease/death/hardship/etc
and getting to the doctor will not be easy
please tell me how the food will get to the people?

Hey you're the idiot that said human can't live without cars and history proves you wrong since humans have lived without cars longer that they have with cars

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it

I think maybe you should think about what you post before you post it.
Imagine how much more difficult life would be if you didn't have access to a car.
We don't have a decent mass-transit system, so getting around would be very difficult.
You'd have to walk everywhere.
Ever wonder why people are living longer than back 300 years ago?
No, probably not.
The life expectancy was only about 40 years back then.
Now it's in the 70s.
I wonder what makes that all possible?

He said people cannot exist without cars

The fact of the matter is they can and have for longer than cars have been around

And cars do not extend life expectancy you can thank medicine for that and antibiotics especially

 

[mudwhistle]

humans could not live without cars---no food for some
how would you get all the food needed to them?
get to the doctor if you are dying? hurt? sick?

So I guess humans didn't exist until after cars were invented

you people are so full of shit
those humans GREW UP without cars---feeding off the land
without cars/trucks:
no ac/heating
no phones
no MODERN sewage systems
no modern water supply
etc etc etc
humans today need all of that--without it:
disease/death/hardship/etc
and getting to the doctor will not be easy
please tell me how the food will get to the people?

Hey you're the idiot that said human can't live without cars and history proves you wrong since humans have lived without cars longer that they have with cars

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it

I think maybe you should think about what you post before you post it.
Imagine how much more difficult life would be if you didn't have access to a car.
We don't have a decent mass-transit system, so getting around would be very difficult.
You'd have to walk everywhere.
Ever wonder why people are living longer than back 300 years ago?
No, probably not.
The life expectancy was only about 40 years back then.
Now it's in the 70s.
I wonder what makes that all possible?

He said people cannot exist without cars

The fact of the matter is they can and have for longer than cars have been around

And cars do not extend life expectancy you can thank medicine for that and antibiotics especially

How do you expect a drug that is created on the West Coast to end up on the East Coast without transportation? Most goods are shipped over our highways. We can't fly enough of it to fill the need. So getting rid of trucks and cars will send this country back to the days of the old West. Today you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a matter of days. Now you want to make it take a year.

 

[Blues Man]

So I guess humans didn't exist until after cars were invented

you people are so full of shit
those humans GREW UP without cars---feeding off the land
without cars/trucks:
no ac/heating
no phones
no MODERN sewage systems
no modern water supply
etc etc etc
humans today need all of that--without it:
disease/death/hardship/etc
and getting to the doctor will not be easy
please tell me how the food will get to the people?

Hey you're the idiot that said human can't live without cars and history proves you wrong since humans have lived without cars longer that they have with cars

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it

I think maybe you should think about what you post before you post it.
Imagine how much more difficult life would be if you didn't have access to a car.
We don't have a decent mass-transit system, so getting around would be very difficult.
You'd have to walk everywhere.
Ever wonder why people are living longer than back 300 years ago?
No, probably not.
The life expectancy was only about 40 years back then.
Now it's in the 70s.
I wonder what makes that all possible?

He said people cannot exist without cars

The fact of the matter is they can and have for longer than cars have been around

And cars do not extend life expectancy you can thank medicine for that and antibiotics especially

How do you expect a drug that is created on the West Coast to end up on the East Coast without transportation? Most goods are shipped over our highways. We can't fly enough of it to fill the need. So getting rid of trucks and cars will send this country back to the days of the old West. Today you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a matter of days. Now you want to make it take a year.

People can survive without cars as history has shown us.

 

[mudwhistle]

you people are so full of shit
those humans GREW UP without cars---feeding off the land
without cars/trucks:
no ac/heating
no phones
no MODERN sewage systems
no modern water supply
etc etc etc
humans today need all of that--without it:
disease/death/hardship/etc
and getting to the doctor will not be easy
please tell me how the food will get to the people?

Hey you're the idiot that said human can't live without cars and history proves you wrong since humans have lived without cars longer that they have with cars

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it

I think maybe you should think about what you post before you post it.
Imagine how much more difficult life would be if you didn't have access to a car.
We don't have a decent mass-transit system, so getting around would be very difficult.
You'd have to walk everywhere.
Ever wonder why people are living longer than back 300 years ago?
No, probably not.
The life expectancy was only about 40 years back then.
Now it's in the 70s.
I wonder what makes that all possible?

He said people cannot exist without cars

The fact of the matter is they can and have for longer than cars have been around

And cars do not extend life expectancy you can thank medicine for that and antibiotics especially

How do you expect a drug that is created on the West Coast to end up on the East Coast without transportation? Most goods are shipped over our highways. We can't fly enough of it to fill the need. So getting rid of trucks and cars will send this country back to the days of the old West. Today you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a matter of days. Now you want to make it take a year.

People can survive without cars as history has shown us.

You are a serious dumbass.
You want people just to survive....not thrive.
Your ideology belongs in the 16th century.
Move to another to Europe and screw another country up.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case?
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

Bullshit

not a gun hater here
.....the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world [ if not--the highest ] --and one of the highest murder rates
...France, Germany, England, Japan- very strict gun control--and murder rates much-MUCH--lower than the US

And each of those countries never had a Constitutional right to own fire arms, have been invaded many times, and have had dictators and Emperors controlling the government. .

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

So instead he rolls up with a Timothy McCaigh special in the back of a UHaul and blows the whole place to Kingdom Come.

That would be just so much better.

Wow, tell you what, you go rent a van from Uhaul, go to the feed store and buy all those components, go to your favorite Coop and fill all those.......What do you mean you can't and you are now in a very small room with lots of cops asking uncomfortable questions for the next 24 hours of sleep deprivation.

You can steal all of that shit.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case?
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

Because he totally couldn't have used a different gun, right?

If another gun outside a semi-automatic rifle would work as well, why do you need the assault type rifles?

Semiautomatics are not assault rifles.

Wow. Another fucking gun expert. If you bothered to take your head our of your ignorant stupid ass you would see I said " Assault-like". I know they aren't assault rigfes so you really need to get another argument other than running screaming through the streets screaming "OMG OMG OMG it is not an assault rifle".

I have mews. We had an assault rifle ban, What was it it? guns like the AR-15.

That ban didn't do shit.

 

[Blues Man]

Hey you're the idiot that said human can't live without cars and history proves you wrong since humans have lived without cars longer that they have with cars

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it

I think maybe you should think about what you post before you post it.
Imagine how much more difficult life would be if you didn't have access to a car.
We don't have a decent mass-transit system, so getting around would be very difficult.
You'd have to walk everywhere.
Ever wonder why people are living longer than back 300 years ago?
No, probably not.
The life expectancy was only about 40 years back then.
Now it's in the 70s.
I wonder what makes that all possible?

He said people cannot exist without cars

The fact of the matter is they can and have for longer than cars have been around

And cars do not extend life expectancy you can thank medicine for that and antibiotics especially

How do you expect a drug that is created on the West Coast to end up on the East Coast without transportation? Most goods are shipped over our highways. We can't fly enough of it to fill the need. So getting rid of trucks and cars will send this country back to the days of the old West. Today you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a matter of days. Now you want to make it take a year.

People can survive without cars as history has shown us.

You are a serious dumbass.
You want people just to survive....not thrive.
Your ideology belongs in the 16th century.
Move to another to Europe and screw another country up.

If you can't see how ridiculous the statement is that people cannot survive without cars actually is that's your problem.

And FYI I never mentioned getting rid of cars once.

 

[OldLady]

An easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case?
The mental case's AR jammed.

Sounds like two different reasons to me. An off duty cop fired at him but missed. That has nothing to do with his gun jamming. It was his gun jamming that stopped the carnage. And it must have been a pretty piss poor gun to jam that fast. He only managed to hit four people before it jammed? Was he using a bumpstock?

 

[OldLady]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case? ca
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

How many people would have died if bad drivers hadn't been given the keys to a car?

What's your point?

the car comparison is ridiculous
cars are used so much more than guns--you cannot even calculate it
cars much safer than guns
cars continuously redesigned for survival--guns to kill
for cars, you need:
written exam
driving test
eye test
insurance
license plate/license/renewal every so many years
16 years old
etc
very idiotic comparison --humans need cars for many things--we do not need guns

If ONLY we were as careful about handing out guns as we are about giving people the right to drive.

 

[progressive hunter]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case? ca
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

How many people would have died if bad drivers hadn't been given the keys to a car?

What's your point?

the car comparison is ridiculous
cars are used so much more than guns--you cannot even calculate it
cars much safer than guns
cars continuously redesigned for survival--guns to kill
for cars, you need:
written exam
driving test
eye test
insurance
license plate/license/renewal every so many years
16 years old
etc
very idiotic comparison --humans need cars for many things--we do not need guns

If ONLY we were as careful about handing out guns as we are about giving people the right to drive.

well there are far more deaths by cars than by guns and all of them were tested and licensed,,,

so that didnt work out well now did it,,,

and driving isnt a right,,,

 

[dannyboys]

n easy question: How many more innocent worshipers would the mental case have shot iof an off dity BSA agent didn't have a gun to shoot back at the mental case?
The mental case's AR jammed.

How many people would have been shot if a mental case didn't have a gun and they didn't have AR's available to civilians.

Well.....he killed one with an AR-15, a muslim terrorist in France, with a rental truck, killed 86 people and injured 435 with 5 minutes of driving...so obviously, we need to ban rental trucks since they are deadlier than AR-15 rifles...even the Vegas shooter, firing from a fortified, concealed position, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, and he only killed 58....vs the 86 by the rental Truck...

Ban rental trucks...and cars...they kill more people every single year than guns do...

so fukin stupid:
cars/trucks are not even on the list

Yes.....exactly....cars accidentally killed 38,000 people in 2017.....guns used illegally to commit murder? 10,982....

Showing exactly why cars are deadlier than guns.....you have to willfully use a gun to commit the crime of murder to get to 10,982......cars kill by misuse and accident 38,000 people...

So according to mopes like you, with your logic, that would mean of the two, cars really need to be banned because they actually kill more people every single year than guns do...

What percent of the 11K murders were committed by people using an illegal gun??????????????
What percent of those illegal guns were in the possession of inner city residents???????????
Sorry for 'axing' 'sensitive' questions no one wants to address.
Remove every illegal gun in the country and THEN see what the stats prove.

 

[dannyboys]

How many people would have died if bad drivers hadn't been given the keys to a car?

What's your point?

We can live without guns.

Cars... not so much.

humans could not live without cars---no food for some
how would you get all the food needed to them?
get to the doctor if you are dying? hurt? sick?

So I guess humans didn't exist until after cars were invented

you people are so full of shit
those humans GREW UP without cars---feeding off the land
without cars/trucks:
no ac/heating
no phones
no MODERN sewage systems
no modern water supply
etc etc etc
humans today need all of that--without it:
disease/death/hardship/etc
and getting to the doctor will not be easy
please tell me how the food will get to the people?

Hey you're the idiot that said human can't live without cars and history proves you wrong since humans have lived without cars longer that they have with cars

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it

YOU FUCKING MORON! How humans survived thousands of years ago has ZERO to do with what the world is today.
Take all the cars/trucks away from the millions who depend on driving to work/delivering goods everyday and watch the entire economy fail within days.
No cars/trucks-------no food. Those who keep the water supply flowing need cars/trucks. No cars/trucks--------no water supply for everyone.
FUCKING WISE UP!