Your Weekly Mass Shooting

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tTy wrote:

I'll just go with that murder one then. That seems like enough evidence to me that these fuckers don't give a flying fuck that = "laws".........

Well that's nice, but you can't exactly stop the murder from happening if all you're going to do is try to enforce the "you aren't allowed to murder" law after someone breaks it.

Looking for what law they broke that we possibly could have done a better job of enforcing that could have stopped it in advance. Goose implied it exists on the books already.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Well that's nice, but you can't exactly stop the murder from happening if all you're going to do is try to enforce the "you aren't allowed to murder" law after someone breaks it.

Looking for what law they broke that we possibly could have done a better job of enforcing that could have stopped it in advance. Goose implied it exists on the books already.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point is that they were willing to break many existing laws. Based on that why would you believe they would obey new laws?

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Well that's nice, but you can't exactly stop the murder from happening if all you're going to do is try to enforce the "you aren't allowed to murder" law after someone breaks it.

Looking for what law they broke that we possibly could have done a better job of enforcing that could have stopped it in advance. Goose implied it exists on the books already.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point is that they were willing to break many existing laws. Based on that why would you believe they would obey new laws?

tTy wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Well that's nice, but you can't exactly stop the murder from happening if all you're going to do is try to enforce the "you aren't allowed to murder" law after someone breaks it.

Looking for what law they broke that we possibly could have done a better job of enforcing that could have stopped it in advance. Goose implied it exists on the books already.

This is so dumb. I'm out.

LooseGoose wrote:

Like this or worse?

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:
1.  You didn't answer the questions I posed to you a few pages back.
B.  I believe they used some type of assault rifle(s).  Would preventing people from owning assault rifles be a great infringement on anyone's rights?  Or would this be an an infringement of rights so great that the founding fathers would cringe?

You obviously don't read any answers so why bother.

Let me try one more time in CAPS.

What most people consider "ASSAULT WEAPONS" ARE LESS LETHAL THAN STANDARD ISSUE HUNTING GUNS.  HAD THESE PEOPLE USED A 30-.06 MORE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED.

I would MUCH rather be shot with an "assault rifle" than a 30-30, my chances of surviving would be significantly higher.  

So would you PLEASE drop the big mean lethal assault rifle crap?


PS I used 30-.06 and 30-30 there because those are the 2 most popular/traditional hunting calibers.

NigelUno wrote: Are you opposed to people buying those weapons at all?  

NigelUno wrote:Are they not for shooting multiple rounds?  

NigelUno wrote: Are you saying an automatic weapon or semi-automatic weapon like they are using to shoot hogs is less lethal for killing or wounding in a limited amount of time?

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote: Are you opposed to people buying those weapons at all?  

Nope.   Why would I be opposed to a law abiding citizen owning a weapon?

NigelUno wrote:Are they not for shooting multiple rounds?  

 Yes, it seems they were.

NigelUno wrote: Are you saying an automatic weapon or semi-automatic weapon like they are using to shoot hogs is less lethal for killing or wounding in a limited amount of time?

Automatic or semi automatic is a huge difference.  As has been explained here numerous times there are very few automatic weapons in private hands in the United States.  Now listen closely here and maybe we can end one part of this discussion now. Since 1934 (when the initial law severely restricting owning automatic weapons was passed) there have been *2* murders involving AUTOMATIC weapons.  Both occurred in Ohio, one involved a cop using his automatic to commit a crime.  So again, please STOP talking about weapons that have been involved in 2 murders in 81 YEARS.

Full Auto Weapons

Semi automatic rifles as common as lice.  They are NOT unusual or "assault weapons".  They are one of the most popular, if not the most popular hunting weapons.   But again why are you focusing on them?  I know the answer, because politicians and the press have made them out to be evil.   Take a look at the following charts.  Rifles of ALL types including so called "assault rifles" are involved in fewer than 400 killings per year.   More people are beaten to death.  Many more people are knifed to death.  Yet we hear over and over and over about "assault rifles".

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You know the two pictures you posted are hilarious being posted right next to each other, right? One trying to say that most murders are done with knives, an obvious lie and neglecting to mention handguns (but it has scary looking font) and the other clearly saying that handguns do most of the murdering.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote: Are you opposed to people buying those weapons at all?  

Nope.   Why would I be opposed to a law abiding citizen owning a weapon?

NigelUno wrote:Are they not for shooting multiple rounds?  

 Yes, it seems they were.

NigelUno wrote: Are you saying an automatic weapon or semi-automatic weapon like they are using to shoot hogs is less lethal for killing or wounding in a limited amount of time?

Automatic or semi automatic is a huge difference.  As has been explained here numerous times there are very few automatic weapons in private hands in the United States.  Now listen closely here and maybe we can end one part of this discussion now. Since 1934 (when the initial law severely restricting owning automatic weapons was passed) there have been *2* murders involving AUTOMATIC weapons.  Both occurred in Ohio, one involved a cop using his automatic to commit a crime.  So again, please STOP talking about weapons that have been involved in 2 murders in 81 YEARS.

Full Auto Weapons

Semi automatic rifles as common as lice.  They are NOT unusual or "assault weapons".  They are one of the most popular, if not the most popular hunting weapons.   But again why are you focusing on them?  I know the answer, because politicians and the press have made them out to be evil.   Take a look at the following charts.  Rifles of ALL types including so called "assault rifles" are involved in fewer than 400 killings per year.   More people are beaten to death.  Many more people are knifed to death.  Yet we hear over and over and over about "assault rifles".

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You know the two pictures you posted are hilarious being posted right next to each other, right? One trying to say that most murders are done with knives, an obvious lie and neglecting to mention handguns (but it has scary looking font) and the other clearly saying that handguns do most of the murdering.

You misinterpret and perhaps I should have dug longer for a better graphic.....the point being made was how many other things are used in more murders than rifles. ANYONE that knows anything about the gun debate knows that handguns are the real culprit. The question is with that being true what do the politicians and press focus on rifles?

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You know the two pictures you posted are hilarious being posted right next to each other, right? One trying to say that most murders are done with knives, an obvious lie and neglecting to mention handguns (but it has scary looking font) and the other clearly saying that handguns do most of the murdering.

You misinterpret and perhaps I should have dug longer for a better graphic.....the point being made was how many other things are used in more murders than rifles.   ANYONE that knows anything about the gun debate knows that handguns are the real culprit.   The question is with that being true what do the politicians and press focus on rifles?

NigelUno wrote:Hypothetical for you Goose:

What weapons would you NOT want someone to have if they wanted to kill a lot of people in a limited amount of time?

xsanguine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Hypothetical for you Goose:

What weapons would you NOT want someone to have if they wanted to kill a lot of people in a limited amount of time?

Atom bomb.

NigelUno wrote:Is there any weapon that you would be opposed to?

NigelUno wrote:Nuclear? Got any stats on how many Americans have been murdered with nuclear weapons? Or missiles? Surface to air stuff? Or just like a run of the mill regular missile? Those OK?

NigelUno wrote:Land mines? Tanks? You good with all that too? .

NigelUno wrote:Why did the shooters in Cali not use standard hunting guns? I think you skipped that one.

NigelUno wrote:Goose? You never answered my question on the Syrian refugees. Are you OK with them coming to the US?

NigelUno wrote:Hypothetical for you Goose:

What weapons (guns) would you NOT want someone to have if they wanted to kill a lot of people in a limited amount of time?

P.S.  Don't deflect.  Don't show me some charts.  Just answer the question.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

You misinterpret and perhaps I should have dug longer for a better graphic.....the point being made was how many other things are used in more murders than rifles.   ANYONE that knows anything about the gun debate knows that handguns are the real culprit.   The question is with that being true what do the politicians and press focus on rifles?

No, I understand that. But do we care to guess how many times that first one has been posted on various forums to prove to idiots that guns in general aren't an issue? Probably a lot. Probably followed with a lot of "we should ban knives!" Stuff immediately after.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Goose? You never answered my question on the Syrian refugees. Are you OK with them coming to the US?

In general no. Let the other middle east countries absorb them. There is no way in the world we can "vet" the numbers they want to let in. There's a hell of a lot more danger there than in automatic weapons or "assault weapons".

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

No, I understand that. But do we care to guess how many times that first one has been posted on various forums to prove to idiots that guns in general aren't an issue? Probably a lot. Probably followed with a lot of "we should ban knives!" Stuff immediately after.

Want to take a crack at my question there?  People are demanding I answer.   Why the press/politicians focus on rifles?

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Hypothetical for you Goose:

What weapons (guns) would you NOT want someone to have if they wanted to kill a lot of people in a limited amount of time?

P.S.  Don't deflect.  Don't show me some charts.  Just answer the question.

Not deflecting but if you want a specific answer give me a specific scenario. Office building? Outside with distances involved? Stadium? Where is this happening?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Want to take a crack at my question there?  People are demanding I answer.   Why the press/politicians focus on rifles?

I dunno. I've never really done that myself. I recognize that the difference between an AR 15 and a handgun is that one looks scarier. They are both quite capable of killing you.

But, that first picture you posted is ridiculous misdirection. You know it is.

Gomer wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I dunno. I've never really done that myself. I recognize that the difference between an AR 15 and a handgun is that one looks scarier. They are both quite capable of killing you.

But, that first picture you posted is ridiculous misdirection. You know it is.

This is true. Any weapon capable of even a moderately low sustained rate of fire is an assault weapon. Rifle or otherwise.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:But, that first picture you posted is ridiculous misdirection. You know it is.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Not deflecting but if you want a specific answer give me a specific scenario. Office building? Outside with distances involved? Stadium? Where is this happening?

A scenario where you would want to get off multiple shots as quickly as possible in a large group of people...wounding and killing as many as you could. Say...like a fear of mass killing by terrorists for example...

tTy wrote:There should be a law prohibiting Aaron Rodgers from possessing that gun of his.

NigelUno wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Atom bomb.

Oh. I hope there's a law against that...unless it infringes on someone's rights.  

tTy wrote:There should be a law prohibiting Charlie Sheen from possessing that gun of his.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:But, that first picture you posted is ridiculous misdirection. You know it is.

Jeezus Christ, I said it was the best I could find in a hurry.   Here's what I wanted and couldn't find so I just uploaded it myself.



Feel better? Are rifles still WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list?

xsanguine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Oh. I hope there's a law against that...unless it infringes on someone's rights.  

Technical expertise and cost to create and maintain are what keep most people from being able to have one.

Heroin is far more illegal than firearms, here and worldwide... you can still find that in any town, big or small, in America.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

A scenario where you would want to get off multiple shots as quickly as possible in a large group of people...wounding and killing as many as you could.  Say...like a fear of mass killing by terrorists for example...

Asking again - where is the large group of people?  Inside, outside, both?

Gomer wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Technical expertise and cost to create and maintain are what keep most people from being able to have one.

Heroin is far more illegal than firearms, here and worldwide... you can still find that in any town, big or small, in America.

So now you are playing the "laws are broken therefore we should not have laws" card. Correct?

xsanguine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Oh. I hope there's a law against that...unless it infringes on someone's rights.  

Technical expertise and cost to create and maintain are what keep most (all) people from being able to have one. F16's and Navy destroyers aren't on 99% of the population's realistic wishlist for the same reason.

Heroin is far more illegal than firearms, here and worldwide... you can still find that in any town, big or small, in America.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I wasn't arguing that. Try to refrain from posting memes meant to incite the gun owning masses that imply that there are more knife murders than there are gun ones. We know that's not true.

xsanguine wrote:

Gomer wrote:

So now you are playing the "laws are broken therefore we should not have laws" card. Correct?

Nah, just that they don't work and in many cases make the problem worse while making criminals out of people that aren't committing crimes, just breaking the law.

xsanguine wrote:

Gomer wrote:

So now you are playing the "laws are broken therefore we should not have laws" card. Correct?

Nah, just that they don't work and in many cases make the problem worse while making criminals out of people that aren't committing crimes, just breaking the law.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I wasn't arguing that. Try to refrain from posting memes meant to incite the gun owning masses that imply that there are more knife murders than there are gun ones. We know that's not true.

Again you miss the point.   We've had Nigel/etc on here for hours and hours wanting to ban those vicious "assault rifles" because they've swallowed the narrative of how dangerous they are in the public's hands.   They would call me a liar if I told them that in 2013 rifles were used in less than 300 murders in the entire country for the whole year.  Of course the FBI table might help convince them that I'm not lying.

The point of that chart is to show them that ALL rifles are involved in 1/5 the murders of knives, 1/2 the murders of blunt objects, and 1/2 to 1/3 the murders done by fists or feet.  Their political leaders and the press are showing them a shiny object over here to distract them or whip them into a frenzy over rifles.  Why?

And PS - There ARE more knife murders than there are rifle murders.