This is what happens when you keep electing liberals... (Boston: vs, move)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by G1..

True but the people that use them do. I take a half filled glass of water and ten people and ask them is it half full or half empty and it's a split down the middle.I can say 50% of ALL PEOPLE POLLED for one thing or another,the numbers aren't wrong just the people using them.

Poor comparison, as half full=half empty (mathematically speaking). That's what I mean in that numbers DON'T lie, which is why I posted the charts to allow for an unbiased analysis by whoever. Yes, you do need a basic understanding of stats and numbers to interpret.


One makes a claim that extreme gun control measures reduce homicides. Data shows, however, that the country (USA) that didn't take those measures has had the same (Australia) or greater than (UK) reduction in homicides. Any credible study (one would think), would have to explore the reason for this. Has the USA done something else that has had been MORE effective than the other two countries' gun control measures? Are there independent demographic and cultural factors that explain the disparity? Or is it, that just maybe these extreme gun control laws didn't accomplish what they were intended to?


Don't they teach any kind of critical thinking in school anymore?

[massnative71]

Now back on point. In 2017, Massachusetts recorded 1,977 fatal opioid related overdoses. In 2015 (most recent year available), state had 81 gun related homicides. Statistically speaking, less than 40% (but in reality probably far less) of those guns were legally purchased. That's 32 vs. 1977. Then you wonder, how many of those 32 are by the now banned firearms? Who should we really be going after folks?

[GeePee]

I'm trying to follow here. You jump from opioid deaths, to gun control. Can you summarize what the heck you're talking about again?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeePee

I'm trying to follow here. You jump from opioid deaths, to gun control. Can you summarize what the heck you're talking about again?

Read post #1. Trying to highlight the contrast in priorities. Scapegoating (previously) law abiding gun owners while slapping these real murderers on the wrist because it's just a "money crime". You have a child today, are they more likely to be killed by a heroin/fentanyl overdose or by an AR-15? Unfortunately for these left-wing politicians, they let emotion rather than reason rule the day. I'm sure the right is guilty of such in some cases as well (in a state like Texas or Utah where they happen to dominate), but here we are talking about Massachusetts (need I say more).

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Now back on point. In 2017, Massachusetts recorded 1,977 fatal opioid related overdoses. In 2015 (most recent year available), state had 81 gun related homicides. Statistically speaking, less than 40% (but in reality probably far less) of those guns were legally purchased. That's 32 vs. 1977. Then you wonder, how many of those 32 are by the now banned firearms? Who should we really be going after folks?

I'm all for going after dealers of opioids, but this is not a good argument. It reminds me of when people downplay stuff like 9/11 and school shootings by comparing them to the much larger number of drunk driving deaths. There are much better ways to get your point across.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by massnative71

You have a child today, are they more likely to be killed by a heroin/fentanyl overdose or by an AR-15?

Again, not a good argument.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by redplum33

I'm all for going after dealers of opioids, but this is not a good argument. It reminds me of when people downplay stuff like 9/11 and school shootings by comparing them to the much larger number of drunk driving deaths. There are much better ways to get your point across.

As to putting light on the scale AND seriousness of the issue, I think it is. Point isn't to downplay 9/11 and school shootings, at all.

[GeePee]

Do you honestly think people should own AR-15's? Maybe register them to a gun club and go shoot them there for sport? It just seems weird to me that anyone needs to have that type of weapon in the name of "freedom"
I come from a long line of hunters, and most agree that those are ridiculous weapons for people to have in their homes.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeePee

Do you honestly think people should own AR-15's? Maybe register them to a gun club and go shoot them there for sport? It just seems weird to me that anyone needs to have that type of weapon in the name of "freedom"
I come from a long line of hunters, and most agree that those are ridiculous weapons for people to have in their homes.

I would say no, as they are just...honestly a pretty mediocre gun that no matter what your purpose for owing one is you can surely find something better. People purchase them because they are a cheap/super mass produced semi-auto rifle, or they want to dress up and pretend they are Rambo Man. But consumers make many poor choices, and if that's what they want to do with their money and they are using it legally and responsibly...am I to stop them?

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I would say no, as they are just...honestly a pretty mediocre gun that no matter what your purpose for owing one is you can surely find something better. People purchase them because they are a cheap/super mass produced semi-auto rifle, or they want to dress up and pretend they are Rambo Man. But consumers make many poor choices, and if that's what they want to do with their money and they are using it legally and responsibly...am I to stop them?

Yes but surely you'll admit they both look and sound quite scary.