Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I need as many guns as I see necessary.

No to your second and third questions.

Yes, I may have a need for stopping power, range, accuracy, and the ability to penetrate body armor. Such a weapon is also an effective answer to mobs as Korean shop owners demonstrated during the riots by black thugs in the wake of the Rodney King incident. They were abandoned by the LAPD and had to defend themselves.

As for guns saving lives. You may find these helpful.

http://gunssavelives.net/

You can find plenty of self defense stories all linked to a news article.

www.nap.edu

Read

Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...
www.nap.edu www.nap.edu

This study was done on behalf of the Obama administration and admits that defensive gun uses are at least as common as crimes committed by criminals using guns.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Come on. We need to face the fact that gun restriction can save lives much more effectively than more rights.
Click to expand...
That is actually demonstrably false. Other countries with gun restrictions have higher rates of gun crime. But most importantly in the US cities with the most gun restrictions have the most gun crime. Gun grime is very low in rural parts of the country where people have lots of guns. So it just isn’t a gun problem.
 
I grew up in a community with at least as many guns as people. If the blank slate liberals were to be believed, our community should have looked like a warzone. Instead, we did not have a single murder in the 20 odd years I lived there and only 2 armed robberies that I can recall.
 
Well, we already have civil asset forfeiture.

And it gets abused all the time.
 
exnihilo said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Come on. We need to face the fact that gun restriction can save lives much more effectively than more rights.
Click to expand...
That is actually demonstrably false. Other countries with gun restrictions have higher rates of gun crime.
Click to expand...
On average? Or are you cherry-picking countries with other reasons they are violent? Because on average your statement is demonstrably false.
But most importantly in the US cities with the most gun restrictions have the most gun crime.
Click to expand...
I would say “less importantly”. That’s because the cause and effect goes the other way from what you are implying. Namely, cites that are already violent tend to adopt stricter measures to control gun violence. Areas without much violence to start with feel no need to establish what they perceive as needless restrictions. Gun violence correlates the strongest with population density
Gun grime is very low in rural parts of the country where people have lots of guns. So it just isn’t a gun problem.
Click to expand...
You just admitted that the places where guns are less a problem are in rural areas which of course have low population density. If you want to prove gun it is not a gun problem you would have to do so a little more scientifically. You would have to remove from the experiment all other factors that affect gun violence and vary only the number of guns available in the community. If you do that you will surely find that those areas with fewer guns will have less gun violence - all other things being equal.
 
Last edited:
I’m curious how to tell a good gun from a bad gun? Myself, family member, and friends all have guns that have not caused harm to anyone. I guess we all have good guns?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
On average? Or are you cherry-picking countries with other reasons they are violent? Because on average your statement is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...
So guns aren’t the problem people are. I agree.
LeafByNiggle said:
I would say “less importantly”. That’s because the cause and effect goes the other way from what you are implying. Namely, cites that are already violent tend to adopt stricter measures to control guns. Gun violence correlates the strongest with population density
Click to expand...
So again, guns aren’t the problem people are. I agree.

I don’t agree that gun violence correlates with population density. That may be or may not be so.
LeafByNiggle said:
You just admitted that the places where guns are less a problem are in rural areas which of course have low population density. If you want to prove gun it is not a gun problem you would have to do so a little more scientifically. You would have to remove from the experiment all other factors that affect gun violence and vary only the number of guns available in the community. If you do that you will surely find that those areas with fewer guns will have less gun violence - all other things being equal.
Click to expand...
No, we’ve already both agreed guns aren’t the problem and that people are. Thus the solution has nothing to do with guns but with people.
 
MidwestGuy said:
I’m curious how to tell a good gun from a bad gun? Myself, family member, and friends all have guns that have not caused harm to anyone. I guess we all have good guns?
Click to expand...
Only a small fraction of cars will be involved in fatal accidents, yet we insist on safety features on all cars just in case. We can’t know in advance which cars will turn out to be bad cars in this sense. Similarly, only a small fraction of guns will be used to cause preventable death. But we don’t know in advance which ones are bad and which ones are good. Therefore we might reasonably decide to restrict all guns to some extent.
 
rcwitness said:
Whoever is crying about not being able to have a plerhora of gun rights, most likely has not had a son, or daughter, or spouse gunned down.
Click to expand...
Nikki Goeser’s husband was murdered by a man who used a gun and she is a rather staunch pro-gun rights supporter
 
exnihilo said:
I don’t agree that gun violence correlates with population density. That may be or may not be so.
Click to expand...
I think even a casual review of gun violence and population in the US would show it is true.
No, we’ve already both agreed guns aren’t the problem and that people are. Thus the solution has nothing to do with guns but with people.
Click to expand...
I agreed to no such thing. I said that gun violence correlates strongly with population density. But gun violence also correlates with the presence of guns. So they are both factors. Given that it is impossible to reduce the population density of Chicago to be the same as Wyoming, it makes sense to change what we can change to improve the situation.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Similarly, only a small fraction of guns will be used to cause preventable death. But we don’t know in advance which ones are bad and which ones are good
Click to expand...
it is not the gun who is bad, it is the dirt bag who has zero value of human life who is bad.
 
starshiptrooper said:
I grew up in a community with at least as many guns as people. If the blank slate liberals were to be believed, our community should have looked like a warzone. Instead, we did not have a single murder in the 20 odd years I lived there and only 2 armed robberies that I can recall.
Click to expand...
A rural area with low population density, right?
 
Places that have lots and lots of guns have relatively little crime.

Florida. For example.

Places that have lots and lots of gun control have relatively major crime.

Chicago. For example.

So, maybe it’s not the guns, but rather … it’s the people.
 
Last edited:
Your analogy makes no sense. guns and cars are objects and can not be good or bad by themselves.

Maybe it’s the person that makes the gun or car good or bad.
 
Xystus said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Whoever is crying about not being able to have a plerhora of gun rights, most likely has not had a son, or daughter, or spouse gunned down.
Click to expand...
Nikki Goeser’s husband was murdered by a man who used a gun and she is a rather staunch pro-gun rights supporter
Click to expand...
I don’t support stricter gun laws simply based on murders committed with guns, but rather the epidemic situation our society is dealing with, that people are increasingly organizing and executing their plan to shoot massive amounts of people as efficiently as possible.

I wish we didn’t have to face this awful reality. But we do. Our society is producing more and more mass killings. And most of them have tons of weapons which are excessive to any application they could possibly need them for.
 
So, in theory, a bill to restrict firearms at the same level we restrict abortion, everyone would be on board. Right? Since abortion is always the go to topic here, as the most important thing, we could all happily turn in our guns know we are saving lives and have accomplished the greatest political good.

Right? 😏
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Only a small fraction of cars will be involved in fatal accidents, yet we insist on safety features on all cars just in case. We can’t know in advance which cars will turn out to be bad cars in this sense. Similarly, only a small fraction of guns will be used to cause preventable death. But we don’t know in advance which ones are bad and which ones are good. Therefore we might reasonably decide to restrict all guns to some extent.
Click to expand...
We don’t insist on anything. The government does. I don’t.

Car safety features are designed to make cars safer for the driver and occupants. So the analogy would be something like requiring gun owners to wear eyes and ear protection. Some states already do that I believe, at least for minors.
LeafByNiggle said:
I agreed to no such thing. I said that gun violence correlates strongly with population density. But gun violence also correlates with the presence of guns. So they are both factors. Given that it is impossible to reduce the population density of Chicago to be the same as Wyoming, it makes sense to change what we can change to improve the situation.
Click to expand...
Of course gun violence is associated with guns. Just like car accidents are associated with cars. But as for correlation I don’t think it does. People in rural areas tend to have lots of guns. You can easily have more guns than people. In the cities like Chicago, Detroit and NYC you have very few guns. And yet in those places you have much higher gun violence. So no, guns don’t correlate with gun violence.
 
millions of abortions have resulted in millions of dead children in the US.

millions of guns have not resulted in millions of dead people in the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top