121–130 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at Germany’s gun laws. Way saber than the USA.
Not German, can you explain what Germany's laws are and how it makes them safer than the USA?
Folks, the number of shooting crimes (including school shootings) in the United States is going down. I know times like this are the worst times to mention this fact, but it's true [0]. The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case. This does not mean we should do nothing about them...any shooting is an event that should not happen. But it's important to real…
The link is not only factually wrong but also from a biased source. Mass shootings in the US: there have been 1,624 in 1,870 days https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/... See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
Wikipedia (sourced from CNN): "90 mass shootings between 1966 and 2012"
They both use the same definition of mass shooting (four or more victims) so how is there an order of magnitude difference between their numbers? Ah, I see. CNN excluded gang violence in their numbers, and the Guardian included it. Seems like they may have a few biases of their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Folks, the number of shooting crimes (including school shootings) in the United States is going down. This is not supported by other analyses that look at the issue. FiveThirtyEight looked at several measures of school shootings / mass shootings and came to the opposite conclusion. [0] [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-matter-how-you-measu...
You're comparing two different numbers. The parent is referring to net firearm crimes while the data you cited is "mass shooting deaths". If you check CDC data through 2016 ( https://wonder.cdc.gov ), the non-suicide firearm-related death rate is effectively flat for the date range they have data for, varying at most by about 0.1%.
We need the rate to go down proportional to population growth just to keep the number of shooting deaths constant.
It's unrealistic to expect the quantity to stay constant or go down with such growth, it's already a pretty low rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there some minimal number of school shootings that's acceptable? My position is that we clearly have shown that this country cannot be trusted with personal possession of firearms, so let's all calmly proceed towards no longer having them around.
Is there some minimal number of fatal auto accidents that's acceptable? My position is that we clearly have shown that this country cannot be trusted with personal possession of motor vehicles, so let's all calmly proceed towards no longer having them around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm British, so I'm not really concerned by it. The US is collectively losing its mind, on many levels.
To be fair, the European's and British, losing their mind on many levels as well. (I'm german)
What a damning indictment of our culture that this is a feature.
The media takes the advice to always mention suicide help lines when reporting on suicide. But they never take the advice to cover shooting news locally, without detail on the shooters identity and without hysterics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Finally, some of this is about being able to resist a potential unjust government Anyone who truly believes private citizen gun owners in the US could ever band together and overthrow the US government is deluded, at best. The US military would shut them down in record time.
It is indeed, a wrong idea. Nevertheless, it is an idea that needs to be addressed, not swept-aside. The same goes with all the other arguments I mentioned. If we just ignore these and say "There is no possible reason for owning guns" we are essentially arguing in bad faith. Generally, convincing people isn't helped by immediately dismissing their entire position as trivially wrong and deluded.
Who's doing that, though? Seems like a very small minority of people say "there is no possible reason for owning guns" and then refuses to elaborate when presented with possible reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we need to figure out which numbers are correct. That shouldn't be rocket science. But either way, hysteria still isn't the way forward...it never is. I won't attempt to debate any of the points made in your article, as I'm not authority on the subject myself, but thanks for linking it. However, you might find this article written by a former member of the FiveThirtyEight team interesting: https://www.washington…
Is there some minimal number of school shootings that's acceptable? My position is that we clearly have shown that this country cannot be trusted with personal possession of firearms, so let's all calmly proceed towards no longer having them around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. The problem is, as s…
> First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfectly capable of understanding GP's point. > Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. I don't th…
The 1994 assault weapons ban implemented by gun control advocates defines it as a gun with a bayonet mount on it (among other cosmetic definitions that it used).
So going by that definition, I would be curious as to why the OP wants to ban bayonet mounts.
Perhaps that is unfair but that is the literal definition that gun control advocates used!
Lets say the OP is instead talking about semi automatic weapons as at least rate of fire is a quality that a reasonable person could identify as being dangerous.
If they are talking about that, we'll then I'd like to point out that basically all weapons are semi automatic.
So that means that the OP either wants to ban bayonet mounts or wants to ban almost all guns.
Both of these positions I'd regard as ridiculous.