The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Might be a wee bit more difficult to do a mass shooting with one of these.
Although it's not impossible, depending on level of cowboy skillz the shooter has....
Although it's not impossible, depending on level of cowboy skillz the shooter has....
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
You could do mass killing with a rocks and pointy sticks... In fact, it's one of the oldest methods for mass killing.
Lexicus
Deity
Lexicus
Deity
Let's forget about the study for a moment, and be very clear what you're claiming here: that the presence of a gun in a home is not a causal factor in increasing the risk of persons living in that home being shot. Is that actually what you're arguing here?
I don't know what you meant by that and I don't really care either.
Conversely, there is no evidence to suggest getting rid of them will have any positive effect, so why bother with the effort to get rid of them?
Keep in mind magazines are even more unregulated than guns themselves so trying to stop the sale, distribution, and proliferation of them would be next to impossible. For example most of the magazines I have for my rifle came from the military, courtesy of John Q. Taxpayer. Sure, technically I was supposed to turn them in when I was discharged, but the military truly doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not you turn in your magazines because they literally have millions upon millions of them and they are easily replaced. So every soldier who was so inclined, would just take their magazines with them when they get out and bam, more magazines added to the market that the government doesn't know about.
Also, the 9th Circuit Court recently struck down California's magazine ban as unconstitutional. It was a shocking, but very welcome, victory for the 2nd Amendment. Especially since it was worth it to see that smug look get briefly wiped of Newsom's face and see him actually loose his cool for once. So another reason why we can't ban them is because such a ban would be unlawful and a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
As an aside, the 2nd Amendment has been having quite a few victories in court lately, which is a reversal from the beating it's been taking since the victory in Heller. Trump keeps packing the courts with pro-2nd judges, and he might actually get my vote in 2020. I can only hope we someday get that Holy Grail of getting the NFA repealed and struck down as unconstitutional.
Point of order. I believe it was 42 Gimli to 41 Legolas... and how Legolas lost when he had arrows, I'm sure I don't know.
Oh they know about them...but like you said, they just don't care. It would be more hassle to collect them than its worth when they have unlimited funds to go buy new ones.
Lexicus
Deity
Point of order. I believe it was 42 Gimli to 41 Legolas... and how Legolas lost when he had arrows, I'm sure I don't know.
Because he takes forever to shoot and can't even bring one unarmored suicide bomber down in one hit. Hate to say it, but elfboy is kinda weaksauce.
I commits me sum bunny-rabbit genocide with rocks in The Long Dark
I stand corrected
While we are on the subject: it always bothered me how overinflated Saruman's sense of his own military power was. Like, he declared in his epic Hitler speech to the Uruk-Hai that a new power was rising and he secretly had plans to betray Sauron. Meanwhile I'm thinking to myself "has this dusty old fool never heard of Mordor?" Saruman had 10,000 Uruks under his command (based on that being the number sent to Helm's Deep and the line about "all Isengard is emptied"). Even if they won at Helm's Deep that battle would have cost him at least a few thousand. Sure those could be replaced in his little pits, but that's still going to take a while.
Sauron's forces on the other hand likely numbered in the millions. Remember that it was very clearly stated in the books (and I believe the extended version of the movie) that the 200,000 sent against Minas Tirith only comprised a small fraction of the forces available to Sauron. If 200,000 was a small fraction of his forces, then Saruman and his small warband of Uruk-Hai would have been ROFLstomped by Mordor.
Sauron's forces on the other hand likely numbered in the millions. Remember that it was very clearly stated in the books (and I believe the extended version of the movie) that the 200,000 sent against Minas Tirith only comprised a small fraction of the forces available to Sauron. If 200,000 was a small fraction of his forces, then Saruman and his small warband of Uruk-Hai would have been ROFLstomped by Mordor.
Berzerker
Deity
if I was unbeatable and had a sword and I was surrounded by a million orcs I could do better than 42 kills
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
That's not what I'm claiming, no. My correlation/causality rejection was specifically in the context of that study and his claims based on it. I consider the proposition of "odds of getting shot by a gun are higher if a gun exists vs if it doesn't" in a vacuum to be reasonable.
There is some chance that single-person households in high crime areas might be able to reduce the odds of the gun owner being shot rather than a potential home invader. I don't know if that's true or not, but what was presented is not sufficient to reject it.
Based on previous quote I think we were considering/arguing different scenarios.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I'd have sworn I read something about that recently, but I can't find it now. I think there's a correlation between tighter gun laws and fewer gun deaths, but of course that's correlation and not causation rearing its head again. It could be that states where guns are more popular are also places where the people are innately more violent and/or more suicidal (which, I have to admit, would kind of make sense, even though I hate the idea). It could also be that those states with fewer gun deaths... I dunno... have stricter lead laws (because lead poisoning makes people more violent - laws restricting lead in housepaint and gasoline have correlated with drops in crime rates).
I think the criticisms about the effectiveness of currently-popular measures are valid. Bump-stocks. Magazine sizes. I mean, who really gives a [bleep]. Same with "assault rifles." Rifles of all kinds account for less than 5% of all homicides and "non-accidental manslaughters." I imagine the lion's share of suicides-by-gun are committed with handguns, too. If you forcibly seized every single magazine over 10 rounds, every single bumpstock, every single suppressor, every single rifle with a 'pistol grip' or a folding stock or a laser pointer, you'd save, what, 500 lives a year? I mean, of course we should try to save those lives, but when you're looking at a hole 39,000 bodies deep, I'm not gonna be 'high-fiving' anyone for it being only 38,500 bodies deep.
EDIT: According to that table I linked, there were 2 "sniper attacks" in 2017, and one of those was with a handgun.
Last edited:
I believe there are several people here who said gun owners are just paranoid and that Democrats don't want to take our guns.
Well as far as I saw, just about everyone except Biden tonight explicitly said they want to take our guns. Is it still paranoia?
Well as far as I saw, just about everyone except Biden tonight explicitly said they want to take our guns. Is it still paranoia?
Please call them by their proper names, "death sticks", thank you.
Lexicus
Deity
A kind of metal wand that Muggles use to kill each other
Similar threads
