Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, since wimpy little Adam Lanza could not have walked through that school killing 20+ kids with a baseball bat without an adult quickly stopping him, and the Aurora shooter could not have killed all those people with a bat in the threater, and the Vegas shooter could not have waded into that crowd and killed 50 + rednecks before getting his azz beat in, the real question is "what don't YOU get?".
What we don't get, is when comparing statistics to form a decision, using logic and not emotion, the statistics don't add up that firearms are a significant threat to life in America unless you are a criminal looking to do harm or steal from someone who is a law abiding gun owner.
Furthermore... you base your support to ban based on visual appearances and catchy phrase words parrotted by anti gun stanced politicians and celebrities who enjoy the protections of armed guards...
But don't let your hate stop you. 50+ rednecks... mentally deranged because they own a gun...
Afraid of what, besides nutters with an obsession with military inspired weaponry?
And unless something has come up that I haven't read, admittedly I don't follow every little detail on these things, this guy WAS a legal gun owner. Right up until the time he snapped.
Read the stats I had posted. That should calm your nerves.
There are other weapons far more powerful than the AR15... and had he seeked those out, the deaths would have been higher.
BTW they don't look like a "military weapon" you're focusing on visual appearance which makes your argument weak and mimic the parroting of anti gun legislators and celebrities.
Calm your emotional tirade and look at the statistics you are more likely to die on your commute to work in your car than by an AR 15...
Well, since wimpy little Adam Lanza could not have walked through that school killing 20+ kids with a baseball bat without an adult quickly stopping him, and the Aurora shooter could not have killed all those people with a bat in the threater, and the Vegas shooter could not have waded into that crowd and killed 50 + rednecks before getting his azz beat in, the real question is "what don't YOU get?".
Baseball bat, probably not, but you can't say for sure. China and Japan saw 33 and 19 people killed by stabbing. Number of deaths can certainly be due to weapon, but we shouldn't ignore the other issues. In my post about deadliest shootings, I tried to point out things they had in common in addition to the guns.
Let's be honest, guns aren't going anywhere, and NONE of us wants to see people killed. So let's take a look at 1) where these killings take place, 2) length of time the killer has before being confronted. Those are areas where we might actually be able to make a difference.
Anywhere you have tens of thousands of people in a relatively small area, you're going to have a potential for large loss of life. There's a reason these psychos choose concerts, schools and crowded train stations. Can we make these areas safer?
The hotel room wasn't entered by police for 75 minutes. Now, maybe they didn't feel an urgent need, since the shooting had stopped, but why take chances? They couldn't have known the guy was dead, since they weren't in the room, right? Part of the reason Virginia Tech was so bad was because police stayed outside waiting for back-up. I'm not even remotely holding police accountable for the actions of these scum, so don't take it that way. I'm suggesting reality-based ideas on how to maybe minimize the deaths from these events.
What we don't get, is when comparing statistics to form a decision, using logic and not emotion, the statistics don't add up that firearms are a significant threat to life in America unless you are a criminal looking to do harm or steal from someone who is a law abiding gun owner.
Furthermore... you base your support to ban based on visual appearances and catchy phrase words parrotted by anti gun stanced politicians and celebrities who enjoy the protections of armed guards...
But don't let your hate stop you. 50+ rednecks... mentally deranged because they own a gun...
Your post is hilariously stupid. First, I have no supported any ban, and have stated so multiple times in this very thread. It does, of course, require adequate reading comprehension skills to know this.
As to hate, equally laughable. I AM a redneck, from Texas, and a proud one. Beat up old pickup, shotgun standing in the corner of my bedroom, hunt, fish, camp, don't own a suit, in Levis 100% of the time, love the old country music from Johnny, Merle, Waylon and Willie. Not too big on the Kenny Chesney clones version of it though . My comment on rednecks, far from being hateful , was praise about the fact that the shooter trying to take those folks out in person with a bat would have gotten his azz roundly kicked by the guys in the crowd, who wouldn't run or put up with such nonsense.
Try some more nonsense now. But at least try to be honest about it and not make stuff up dishonestly. No where have I ever suggested the ownership of guns makes one mentally deranged. If you lack the reading skills to comprehend what I DID say, then leave the discussion to those who ARE capable of grasping it and return to your crayon coloring.
Its been public knowledge since at least the second world war that the volume of fire is critical to battlefield success. Its the reason why our soldiers don't go to war with bolt action rifles anymore. Somebody with minimal marksmanship skills can overcompansate for it by putting out a large volume of fire.
And when the average person who doesn't have proper marksman training is required to defend themselves against multiple hostile targets, and they are limited to single shot, bolt action only? Does this volume of fire thing not help them defend themselves?
Are there infinite police and national guard who can be instantly everywhere and all at once? How does the average American defend against the multiple armed threat scenario, in this world of "bolt action only?"
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
The UK made restrictions on buying knives and still has a bunch of stabbings. You must be 18 to buy a knife there, because of the street gangs.
The UK has a very low murder rate, 102 murders in London a city of nearly 8.8 million, with 571 homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in the year ending March 2016 in England and Wales which has a population of nearly 57 million and a further 57 homicides in Scotland with a population of around 5.5 million. So that's 628 murders relating to Great Britain with a population of over 60 Million people.
Contrast that with Chicago (population 2.7 million) where 762 people were killed in 2015, with 3,550 shootings and 4,331 shooting victims or Baltimore (population 621,849) with over 400 killings and the same sad story can be found in other US cities.
As for knives in the UK, you can carry knives in public providing you are an adult and have a good reason, such as being related to your work and in rural areas farmers, gamekeepers, fishermen, hunters and numerous others are allowed to carry knives (and indeed guns). The Law mainly applies to urban areas and only when there is no reason for carrying a large knife and even then the law allows a folded blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less.
Last edited by Brave New World; 10-06-2017 at 08:32 AM..
Baseball bat, probably not, but you can't say for sure. China and Japan saw 33 and 19 people killed by stabbing. Number of deaths can certainly be due to weapon, but we shouldn't ignore the other issues. In my post about deadliest shootings, I tried to point out things they had in common in addition to the guns.
Let's be honest, guns aren't going anywhere, and NONE of us wants to see people killed. So let's take a look at 1) where these killings take place, 2) length of time the killer has before being confronted. Those are areas where we might actually be able to make a difference.
Anywhere you have tens of thousands of people in a relatively small area, you're going to have a potential for large loss of life. There's a reason these psychos choose concerts, schools and crowded train stations. Can we make these areas safer?
The hotel room wasn't entered by police for 75 minutes. Now, maybe they didn't feel an urgent need, since the shooting had stopped, but why take chances? They couldn't have known the guy was dead, since they weren't in the room, right? Part of the reason Virginia Tech was so bad was because police stayed outside waiting for back-up. I'm not even remotely holding police accountable for the actions of these scum, so don't take it that way. I'm suggesting reality-based ideas on how to maybe minimize the deaths from these events.
What’s unique about some of our worst mass murderers to me is how many are home grown, like Lanza, McVeigh, and Paddock. Then we try to tie them to ISIS or another terrorist organization because Americans mass killing other Americans just for the hell of it, in a free society looks bad in the eyes of the world, and on ourselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
