Why did you post this thread here today?

I mean, when someone sets a grotesque record like Mr. Mateen did, it's really important for some people to inflict a little more pain on them. It's a public service, really.

Hundreds of families were directly effected just because a family member was there. Many were lucky, but they still grieve knowing today just how close it was.

Many people are posting that America is worst than ever when it comes to violence and that it is spiraling out of control. When factually it just isn't true.

The Second Amendment wasn't written to support the mass slaughter of innocents.

be a defense of assault weapon ownership.

Yeah murders are down. But mass shootings are at an all time high. Sick deflection dude.

RKBA nuts need to have something to compensate for their tiny little ... Minds.

I don't see why DU tolerates them.

You are upsetting their agenda. Gun control does work. But it is a fine line between stopping people who shouldn't have guns and throwing out the 4th and 5th Amendments.

For 500 lives a year, I am not willing to do that. Others might think differently.

My sister and brother-in-law were killed by a drunk driver. I did not start demanding alcohol be banned.

Assault weapons. Semi auto rifles.

will require repealing the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. I feel that the situation is not dire enough to require it. Just like even though I lost 2 family members, I didn't think alcohol should be banned.

How are fully auto guns banned now? What about rocket launchers?

You guys just make shit up.

And no it's not like banning alcohol. It's like banning drunk driving. Which we do -- even if you don't kill anyone it's a crime.

Pure fear mongering.

It just takes lots of paperwork and tons of money to buy one. Some states allow them, some don't.

The launchers of rockets are legal to own as they are just glorified tubes. The rockets are bombs; thus illegal as bombs serve no purpose in the hands of civilians.

Your welcome.
Now what will you do with your new knowledge?

Yes?

Very few here are arguing for a complete ban. Most would like to see tighter controls on guns. I don't blame them on it. They would like to be able to feel reasonably safe as they go about their business.

This Mateen guy abused a system similar to a driver's license. He abused the concealed carry licensing system, therefore it is logical adjustments should be made to it.

is pretty much as strict as can be without banning alcohol. Over-serving people can make you liable for their actions.

And how did Mateen abuse the system? From what I heard he passed all the background checks. He was a former armed security guard. There is simply no law that could have been passed (besides a ban) that would have prevented this. I take that back, banning Muslims from owning firearms would have worked.

Not exactly a devout Muslim so even that might not work.

You get preferential treatment under the CC system and more so the further up it you go.

you can get a weapon when the NICS check clears. If you don't, there is a waiting period. That is the preferential treatment you get.

Not at all. The current level is generally .08% And we are not considered a society that is tough on drunk driving

We could lower that to something like .02%.

Why don't we do that?

Just curious.

Alcohol was not created for the express purpose to kill human beings. A gun was created to kill. Yes, it was.
I believe the outright ban on most guns and the strong regulation of guns used for hunting or sport target shooting is not extreme or out of scope.

There is no reason to carry a weapon in public. Billions have lived, do live and will live, their entire lives and never own a gun and never need a gun. Why is it your "right" to have a gun superior to my right to not worry if, when you walk into the same Taco Bell as me, with a gun on your hip or rifle over your shoulder, if you are there to kill me or the nachos.

Wow. Does that 500 lives include your friends and family?

jesus christ...

Hell, most major metro areas blow that number away in a year alone, much less nationally.

Not sure if that is the number is what he means.

Negligence? Sure, and that should be a crime that is prosecuted.

The large number of dead make these atrocities loom large in the public awareness, in no small part because we're absolutely inundated with stories about them, social media references, etc. This makes it seem like we're killing each other off at an unprecedented rate...when that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority of people being murdered die with little fanfare, and the factors behind their deaths, usually very different from those that produce spree killers, remain unaddressed.

It's a bit insane...but that's our society in a nutshell.

Are we at an acceptable level of deaths for you?

To a guy who is willing to sacrifice 500 lives a year to keep his precious.

Wtf is wrong with people?

the number of people die from drunk drivers each year than from rifles (including the AR15). As a victim of a drunk driver(lost 2 family members) I think we should ban alcohol before banning the AR15.

We're not talking about addiction here. We're talking about guns.

is not necessarily an addict. When you answer me about the 10,000 "free deaths" caused by drunk drivers, which I have been a victim of, than I will answer yours.

I am sorry, but I think saving 500 lives a year is not worth it to lose the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. You apparently think it is. And before you say that losing those rights wouldn't be necessary, yes it would. In order to prevent gun deaths, you have to confiscate guns. It is that simple.

I'm a 2a supporter, it's in our Constitution and a "semi auto rifle" is my .22 long rifle or an "assault rifle" is if I stuck a forward grip on it. Ludicrous.

However, deflecting to drunk driving ignores the conversation being had. They are not equivocal and I honestly think you can, and are, making a real argument, like you are with the 2,4 and 5th.

Deflecting to drunk driving may end the conversation with a weak opponent, but I think sticking to the real reasons is a better argument.


If the government wanted to tomorrow, it could enact prohibition again. It couldn't however ban guns without a constitutional amendment. That's a STRONG argument for gun rights.

I'm a "blame the person, not the tool" kind of guy. If you ban something, people usually get around it.

Even people who want to ban guns will tell you that.

Of course, if we ban all guns, some magic fairy is going to make them all go away, and there will be peace on earth. At least thats what I've been told.

Off to ignore with ya. Oh, and what you posted isn't true, but I will not argue with gun nuts.




(notice gun deaths are increasing)

most people including children use motor vehicles hundreds of times a year...
so there are 35,000 motor vehicle deaths for 500,000,000,000 individual usage events (car trips)
while it is possible to suffer vehicle death while never using a vehicle (e.g. pedestrian deaths)
those events are rare
for the vast vast majority, the deaths are for people who have accepted the risk of using a motor vehicle

compare that with firearm deaths...
33,000 firearm deaths with for 1,000,000,000 individual usage events (days of shooting)
AND many people who are killed are not and have never used a firearm

There is no comparison.
Gunz owners are responsible for FAR FAR more deaths...especially deaths of people who have never accepted the risk of guns

arguing on their terms is sometimes necessary since their point isn't really good anyway and automotive deaths have dropped far more than gun deaths (which are actually increasing again) due to government regulation of safety standards

All of the right-wing talking points have been dumped here in the past couple of days.

Exactly are you concerned about? I find that every time someone can't refute a valid argument they say it is a "right wing" (or "left wing&quot talking point.

On edit, what the fuck is a "right wing talking point" anyway? Is it just some opinion you don't like?

The fact that it's worldwide usually suggests something atmospheric or climate related.

Yep, maybe that's why I'm an asshole.

I've got relatives who were so good with guns they were ordered to stay home here in the U.S.A. training shooters. My dad's cousin married a guy who volunteered for service in Korea but the Army, in all of it's wisdom, threw him into the Olympics as a trainer.

I'm competent enough with guns myself. I don't have to like that.

My dad's dad wanted to be the romantic pilot in World War II, women swooning, all that. But he was too old, and had too many mad engineering skills. The Army Air Force put him to work supervising people deemed essential to the war effort, people more eccentric then himself. He was an explainer and protector of the people whose work he was explaining. He acquired mad skills with titanium at some point, he wouldn't talk about that, and was later an engineer for the Apollo project.

My dad's a nearsighted MASH Radar O'Reily sort, and an artist. He did his military service in California, and they repaid him with a university arts degree. My wife's dad escaped the Korean conflict too, but was used as a guinea pig in nuclear weapons testing in Nevada, witnessing a nuclear explosion from a hole in the ground, marching across ground zero, and scrubbing off the radioactive dust in field showers.

mass shooting incidents comprise many more of the total number of murders there are, now, than they did in the 1970's. This is clearly a problem. And the US murder rate is still around five times higher than it is for any comparable developed country.

is lower here than the EU based on population.

You can't open a paper without reading about yet another mass shooting. They're constantly happening.

the media like to sensationalize them. As I said, the frequency of mass shootings is higher in the EU based on population than it is in America from 2009-2015.

should not be reported.

That's an incredibly ignorant statement. Those bullshit numbers are arrived at by looking at mass shooting deaths per capita for the whole of the USA and then comparing them to mass shooting deaths per capita for say Norway (population: 5 million) or for the UK (population: 60 million) rather than considering them as per capita for the whole of the EU (500 million) or for all of Europe (740 million).

considering that Europe has far fewer mass shooting incidents and a much lower overall murder rate and firearms murder rate.

Do you even care?

"...twice as high as it is today." Is that number okay with you? It's not okay with me. It's still too high. Any murder is too many.

to remove protections of the Bill of Rights in order to decrease the murder rate?

go as well as those will be preventing confiscation.

If we could torture criminals that really might cut down on the crime rate, and if we could cut off hands for theft the recidivism rate might go down. Should we eliminate that amendment as well?

so we shouldn't concern ourselves with heart attacks.

in firearm deaths: the natural explanation is that medical improvements are currently outstripping increases in injuries

Years
Firearm Injury Rate
Firearm Death Rate
Injuries per Death

2001-2002
21.28
10.45
2.04

2003-2004
22.34
10.24
2.18

2005-2006
23.78
10.37
2.29

2007-2008
24.53
10.38
2.36

2009-2010
22.79
10.24
2.23

2011-2012
24.81
10.53
2.36

2013-2014
26.62
10.58
2.52

Consolation is going to have to wait.

But I will say I'd feel a lot better about statistics if the CDC wasn't legally banned from compiling them.

Don't see the connection.

It's just a statistic gun-nuts were wont to bring up over the years.

So, I like to note that auto-deaths, which WERE a major public concern years ago, have dropped precipitously due to government regulations. See how that works?











(also I showed that the O/P was exaggerating a lot when they stated that gun deaths were 2x as high in 1970's.)

I realize that our enumerated rights are absolute .... even when they infringe on the safety , well being, and rights of others ...... oh wait, that's not even remotely true.

Based on the rhetoric of those who want to ban guns you would think the US was a war zone.