Hwilli1647545487 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 just trying to prove what a stupid quote the former (in the video) is with an equally stupid quote. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" makes for a dandy T-shirt but the more it gets repeated when a mass shooting happens, the less reasonable debate about how to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people occurs. Not so stupid if you dispute that just by placing a gun in your hands, you don't automatically become a crazed killer. I'm also amazed that when this type of event occurs we immediately make it about guns. I even asked a person here on CR what was more important, that they were killed or if they were killed with guns. He said that they were killed, so I asked him whats the best way to stop the violence, and he said "restrict guns". *Mind Blown* What is the problem we are trying to solve? Are we trying to stop violence, or specifically gun violence? If gun violence, then we do we immediately go after a specific subset of rifles? Especially when rifles as a whole accounts for so few deaths per year... let alone that gun related murders are also extremely low when compared to other causes of death? If our goal is to safe lives, then I would argue we could safe a lot more lives by focusing our resources elsewhere. Concerning your desire to keep the guns out of the hands of bad people. I've got some bad news for you. You can't. If someone wants something, and they want it bad enough, they will get it. If for some odd reason they cannot get a firearm, and they want to still kill, they will do it. End of story. Now for some good news. Violent crime has been on a steady decline for decades now. Your odds of being a victim are extremely low. Your odds of being killed by an "assault rifle" are astronomically low. As it has been stated already in this thread. The media strikes up the fear because it generates interest/clicks which equals money for them, or if you wish the left is pushing their agenda to help them push gun control for more sinister reasons. Either way it's bullshit. How many people would have died at Pulse if the guy only had access to shotguns that hold 5 rounds? 10? 15? From reading/listening to the after action reports of the victims, many just went and hid in bathroom stalls, and made no attempt to fight back. With a 2 hour police response time, he had all the time in the world with whatever tool he had on hand. Which comes to my next point. If you ever find find yourself in this situation, and you can't get out. Do NOT put yourself at the mercy of someone like this. They cannot be reasoned with, and have no empathy for your situation. The was 100 + people vs one guy. The casualties could have been much less if ONE person would have broken the "victim trance" and attacked. Hell I read that people crouched in the hallway of the back exit until one of the bouncers jumped over them and got them moving out the door.... You are responsible for yourself. No one is going to do it for you. But again as I said before, the odds of this happening are low...very very low. -H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Same. Yet shot guns are involved in murdering more people each year than all rifles combined. I am sure they are. But how many people are killed at a time in those instances? It's not 50. The reality is, for whatever reason, it SEEMS that instance of mass violence are increasing in #. The chances of changing human behavior seem slim to none to me, so taking that into account, what's the next best thing you can do? Limit the amount of damage that a person could inflict in said violent incident. If i'm at a bar that's about to get shot up, i'd rather the guy have 2 shotguns with 5 rounds each than a single AR/AK with multiple magazines that hold 30 rounds each. I sure as heck don't think me carrying my glock .40 is going to save me in said AK/AR situation. Too many rounds going too fast down range. At least with a shotgun there is going to be a break in the assault pretty quick. He probably would have blown the place up or set it on fire / both. Loons like this guy aren't going to be limited by our laws. Sure, the guy probably would have found other options to inflict damage. How does that justify allowing him to have 10 options instead of 7? By the logic in that statement, why doesn't general citizenry have access to rpg's, TOW missles, grenades, grenade launchers, etc? I mean, if they are going to kill 50 people, they are going to do it, right, so who cares what tool they choose to use as a weapon? People want to say, "the 2nd ammendment blah blah blah." Well, the 2nd ammendment was put in place for people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Well, the general populous hasn't done a very good job at fighting our government, (look at everything they control; then can access your phone camera, speaker, tracking, etc at a whim without a warrant). That ship has sailed. The citizens stood by and watched their rights be stripped years ago. Your AR-15 in 2016 is going to do nothing to change that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 From reading/listening to the after action reports of the victims, many just went and hid in bathroom stalls, and made no attempt to fight back. With a 2 hour police response time, he had all the time in the world with whatever tool he had on hand. Which comes to my next point. If you ever find find yourself in this situation, and you can't get out. Do NOT put yourself at the mercy of someone like this. They cannot be reasoned with, and have no empathy for your situation. The was 100 + people vs one guy. The casualties could have been much less if ONE person would have broken the "victim trance" and attacked. Hell I read that people crouched in the hallway of the back exit until one of the bouncers jumped over them and got them moving out the door.... You are responsible for yourself. No one is going to do it for you. But again as I said before, the odds of this happening are low...very very low. -H If that's the case, natural selection. You want to crouch forever when you have an opportunity to escape, I dunno what else to say there. Based on that, he probably could have killed the same amount of people with a hammer and a pencil. But do you honestly think that if you were to put 100 people in a room 100 times, more often than not the same amount of people would be injured/killed with 2 shotguns that hold 5 rounds each and as much ammo as he could carry on his person, as there would be if you were to run the same scenarios but with one AR-15 and as many 30 round mags as he could carry on his person? Not trying to be combative or troll, but that honestly just seems silly to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I am sure they are. But how many people are killed at a time in those instances? It's not 50. So is the fear of the gun or potential for it to kill or how many it's actually killed. Sounds to me like you fear it's potential. Fact stands that the shooters in orlando or Cali could have just as easily used 30 rounds in a pistol and done just as much carnage. That said why go after "assault rifles?" The answer is pretty simple, politics and the fact that the public is ignorant on them but feel they look scarey. The reality is, for whatever reason, it SEEMS that instance of mass violence are increasing in #. The chances of changing human behavior seem slim to none to me, so taking that into account, what's the next best thing you can do? Limit the amount of damage that a person could inflict in said violent incident. Then you better be prepared to ban all semi auto weapons as I've already noted just long guns isn't going to cut it. If i'm at a bar that's about to get shot up, i'd rather the guy have 2 shotguns with 5 rounds each than a single AR/AK with multiple magazines that hold 30 rounds each. I'd show up with 30 round pistols. Easier to carry, reload, more difficult to disarm, overall more efficient and just as effective. I sure as heck don't think me carrying my glock .40 is going to save me in said AK/AR situation. Too many rounds going too fast down range. At least with a shotgun there is going to be a break in the assault pretty quick. See above. Sure, the guy probably would have found other options to inflict damage. How does that justify allowing him to have 10 options instead of 7? My justification is that the number of bad guy shooters in these types of situtions over the past 10yrs is what maybe 20-25? Should we in the US of A cave to such small numbers and hurt millions over the actoins of a few. Especially considering there are estimates of over 12M Semi Auto Long Rifles in circulation and that over 100M people own guns? I don't think so. That just plain is un-American. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwilli1647545487 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 If that's the case, natural selection. You want to crouch forever when you have an opportunity to escape, I dunno what else to say there. Based on that, he probably could have killed the same amount of people with a hammer and a pencil. But do you honestly think that if you were to put 100 people in a room 100 times, more often than not the same amount of people would be injured/killed with 2 shotguns that hold 5 rounds each and as much ammo as he could carry on his person, as there would be if you were to run the same scenarios but with one AR-15 and as many 30 round mags as he could carry on his person? Not trying to be combative or troll, but that honestly just seems silly to me... I'm at work so I don't have time for a lengthy reply, but did you listen to the victim accounts? They all crushed together into a bathroom stall. They didn't bar the door. When the gunman came in he shot through the door. They begin pleading for their lives. He laughed and stick the Glock over the top and started firing down inside. No one attempted to stop him. In this case, he could have used a single shot muzzle loader and killed 50 people in 2 hours because they did NOTHING to try and stop him. Posted from my phone so I'm not going back and editing all then grammar/spelling I already see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 But do you honestly think that if you were to put 100 people in a room 100 times, more often than not the same amount of people would be injured/killed with 2 shotguns that hold 5 rounds each and as much ammo as he could carry on his person, as there would be if you were to run the same scenarios but with one AR-15 and as many 30 round mags as he could carry on his person? Not trying to be combative or troll, but that honestly just seems silly to me... What's silly is us thinking that banning a series of long guns is going to do anything to a terrorist, domestic or otherwise, when it comes to them reaping terror on the masses. I'm personally surprised we've not seen more/any suicide bombers like what we see over seas. Just a matter of time. Once that happens are we going to ban vests ? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwilli1647545487 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 What's silly is us thinking that banning a series of long guns is going to do anything to a terrorist, domestic or otherwise, when it comes to them reaping terror on the masses. I'm personally surprised we've not seen more/any suicide bombers like what we see over seas. Just a matter of time. Once that happens are we going to ban vests ? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Id rather be involved in a mass shooting rather than what happened at the Boston marathon. At least then I could have a fighting chance. As I said though neither are very statistically likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm not arguing with you guys on stats in regards to how many people nationwide are killed via "assault rifles" as opposed to shotguns or what have you. Banning "assault" rifles will likely do next to nothing in regards to the percentages of gun deaths in the US. I was simply stating I find it hard to believe that anyone can cause the same amount of damage with a shotgun designed almost exclusively for hunting animals, as with a rifle designed for slaughtering people. Perhaps the term "slaughter" will be nitpicked here so i'll change it to "killing." I honestly can;t think of a single use for an AR/AK for me personally outside of target shooting. It's not like I am going to war with myu government for stripping my freedoms and spying on me. I already allowed that to happen years ago and did nothing about it like everyone else. As for more occurrences on US soil...I will be extremely surprised if those don't continue to increase in frequency and using whatever means available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm not arguing with you guys on stats in regards to how many people nationwide are killed via "assault rifles" as opposed to shotguns or what have you. Banning "assault" rifles will likely do next to nothing in regards to the percentages of gun deaths in the US. I was simply stating I find it hard to believe that anyone can cause the same amount of damage with a shotgun designed almost exclusively for hunting animals, as with a rifle designed for slaughtering people. Perhaps the term "slaughter" will be nitpicked here so i'll change it to "killing." I honestly can;t think of a single use for an AR/AK for me personally outside of target shooting. It's not like I am going to war with myu government for stripping my freedoms and spying on me. I already allowed that to happen years ago and did nothing about it like everyone else. As for more occurrences on US soil...I will be extremely surprised if those don't continue to increase in frequency and using whatever means available. So because you can't think of a reason that it personally benefits you, you're ok with banning them? Got it. I no longer race, so I can't find a reason for having a car that goes over 65mph. We should ban them and make it illegal to mod them to go faster than that. Trust me, it'll save lives. You're OK with that, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 A better response may have been to elaborate on the need for the average citizen to have access to said weapon. I think I should be able to buy rpg's at vances because 2nd ammendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I think I should be able to buy rpg's at vances because 2nd ammendment. So do I. And I'm pretty sure you can, if you could find one. Destructive Device, NFA and all that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 A better response may have been to elaborate on the need for the average citizen to have access to said weapon. What's the difference if they own a semi auto rifle that can hold more than 10 rounds or a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds. What's the difference if I carry 3 guns on my person each with more than 10 rounds? Again the Sig Sauer MCX he used wasn't the only gun he could have used to accomplish the same thing. A 30 round magazine in a pistol could have done the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiek2000 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Well, the senate shut down the liberals anti-gun agenda. Time to plan another false flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwilli1647545487 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 A better response may have been to elaborate on the need for the average citizen to have access to said weapon. I think I should be able to buy rpg's at vances because 2nd ammendment. Your viewpoint seems to structured around the idea that the United States will continue to exist as it does today, for all time. Why does the average citizen need access to these types of weapons? Because it is the best tool available to them for use in self defense. Let's say something like the Ferguson riots break out, or the LA riots, or whatever. An angry mob wants to come in and rape your daughter, or hell even you. Would you rather have a rifle with a 30 round mag, or a shotgun with 5 rounds. Tim already touched on this, but you are so concerned with the potential of a tool being misused that you fail to see that that some tool has the potential to save lives. While there are not really an accurate count on how many times a gun is used to stop violent crime in the United States, I have seen figures as low as 65,000 up to 2 million (which I don't personally believe). For arguments sake lets go even more on the conservative side, let's say 20k uses, or hell 10k uses. That is even more conservative than the lowest estimates I have seen anywhere, and that would still be more than the number of murders via gun. I'll phrase this another way. I was bitten by a dog once. So now all dogs scare me because all dogs have teeth and have the potential to hurt me. Dogs don't server any particular purpose in my life, so we should kill all dogs. Pretty stupid right? Funny side note. My girlfriend was debating with one of her high school friends on FB about this topic and he said "I don't really care about your facts, they aren't going to change how I feel about this". For those on the pro gun side, that is a fairly prevalent viewpoint from what I have seen. It's pretty useless to debate this it seems (and yet here I am LOL) when people can't put emotional content aside and use logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 I'm not emotional. I honestly don't care if AR's are legal or not. I like debate all sides of issues on various topics. AR's can remain as legal as they are now, and I won't lose a bit of sleep about it. As for the US remaining as it does now, that certainly will not happen. As for dogs, I certainly believe there are some breeds that the average person should not be allowed to own without some kind of education and licensing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwilli1647545487 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 I'm not emotional. I honestly don't care if AR's are legal or not. I like debate all sides of issues on various topics. AR's can remain as legal as they are now, and I won't lose a bit of sleep about it. As for the US remaining as it does now, that certainly will not happen. As for dogs, I certainly believe there are some breeds that the average person should not be allowed to own without some kind of education and licensing. The emotional statement wasn't necessarily directed at you. Just an a general observation I made. Also an interesting figure (which I admit I didn't fact check) i searched on a whim. "Each year, more than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms, and approximately 850,000 victims receive medical attention. Data that the CDC collected in the USA between 2001 and 2003 indicated there were 4.5 million dog bite victims per year, but that figure appears to be rising." Kind of crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Hwilli how does this article make you feel? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xlr8tn Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Your viewpoint seems to structured around the idea that the United States will continue to exist as it does today, for all time. Why does the average citizen need access to these types of weapons? Because it is the best tool available to them for use in self defense. Let's say something like the Ferguson riots break out, or the LA riots, or whatever. An angry mob wants to come in and rape your daughter, or hell even you. Would you rather have a rifle with a 30 round mag, or a shotgun with 5 rounds. Tim already touched on this, but you are so concerned with the potential of a tool being misused that you fail to see that that some tool has the potential to save lives. While there are not really an accurate count on how many times a gun is used to stop violent crime in the United States, I have seen figures as low as 65,000 up to 2 million (which I don't personally believe). For arguments sake lets go even more on the conservative side, let's say 20k uses, or hell 10k uses. That is even more conservative than the lowest estimates I have seen anywhere, and that would still be more than the number of murders via gun. I'll phrase this another way. I was bitten by a dog once. So now all dogs scare me because all dogs have teeth and have the potential to hurt me. Dogs don't server any particular purpose in my life, so we should kill all dogs. Pretty stupid right? Funny side note. My girlfriend was debating with one of her high school friends on FB about this topic and he said "I don't really care about your facts, they aren't going to change how I feel about this". For those on the pro gun side, that is a fairly prevalent viewpoint from what I have seen. It's pretty useless to debate this it seems (and yet here I am LOL) when people can't put emotional content aside and use logic. the dog and car things are just deflections....like saying heart disease kills millions so lets ban food. The same arguments being used here for the assault type rifles can also be used against them. If this guy could kill just as many with a muzzle loader, shotgun, or a pistol as he did with a rifle then couldn't you defend your home equally as well with either? I'm all for gun rights and all for people owning guns. I don't think the regular joe schmo should be able to own ANY gun. There are people I wouldn't let own a kitchen knife if it was possible because they're far too stupid to make the common sense decisions needed to operate a knife. That type of person has no business owning any weapon they choose. We have to figure out a way to weed those people out. Banning guns isn't the answer but just letting idiots walk into a store and buy any weapon they want isn't necessarily the answer either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwilli1647545487 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 the dog and car things are just deflections....like saying heart disease kills millions so lets ban food. The same arguments being used here for the assault type rifles can also be used against them. If this guy could kill just as many with a muzzle loader, shotgun, or a pistol as he did with a rifle then couldn't you defend your home equally as well with either? I'm all for gun rights and all for people owning guns. I don't think the regular joe schmo should be able to own ANY gun. There are people I wouldn't let own a kitchen knife if it was possible because they're far too stupid to make the common sense decisions needed to operate a knife. That type of person has no business owning any weapon they choose. We have to figure out a way to weed those people out. Banning guns isn't the answer but just letting idiots walk into a store and buy any weapon they want isn't necessarily the answer either. You are completely missing my point. I'll try and be more clear. 1. Banning guns won't stop violence. 2. Guns are a tool that while can be used for evil, also can be and are used for "good". Just like cars and dogs can be dangerous, they also have very positive uses. 3. My point about the orlando killer being able to use a muzzle loader had nothing to do wth the gun and everything to do with the actions and mentality of his victims. The point I was trying to make was that you can fight back even if they have a gun. You have to be responsible for yourself. So with that, no I can't defend my home as well with a muzzleloader. If I am in a fight for my life I want the best chances for survival. I want the best tools available. I'll use what I have, but given the choice I want the best option available. I agree with you that not everyone should be able to buy a gun, or a car, or have children... But I don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live their life. That is one of the dangers of living in a free society. There are risks. I personally prefer those know risks to the lie of someone telling me they can make me safe (they can't) if I just give up all my rights. Again typed from my phone in a hurry apologize for spelling/grammar #fuckautocorrect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 BRB, going to buy some tow missiles and land mines because they will help me better defend against the crazies. :/ Seriously, instead of creating limitations on weapons available to the general public, they need to free up limitations and allow anybody to purchase whatever they feel is the best tool(s) to adequately defend themselves, regardless of what they may be. Because murica, and freedom, and apparently regardless of weapon(s) used, the same amount of damage will be inflicted, so who cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 BRB, going to buy some tow missiles and land mines because they will help me better defend against the crazies. :/ Seriously, instead of creating limitations on weapons available to the general public, they need to free up limitations and allow anybody to purchase whatever they feel is the best tool(s) to adequately defend themselves, regardless of what they may be. Because murica, and freedom, and apparently regardless of weapon(s) used, the same amount of damage will be inflicted, so who cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Yup. That's what I am talking about. I mean...I should have the right to own any of that if I feel that is what I need to adequately protect myself. Whether I kill 50 people with 73 rounds fired from an AK or a pistol, or I just use one missile, the same amount of people are going to die, so it really shouldn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Whether I kill 50 people with 73 rounds fired from an AK or a pistol, or I just use one missile, the same amount of people are going to die, so it really shouldn't matter. the only reason it matters is so the politicians can pander to the masses that don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwilli1647545487 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Because murica, and freedom, and apparently regardless of weapon(s) used, the same amount of damage will be inflicted, so who cares. You're trolling now right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 You're trolling now right? What would lead you to that conclusion? I am using the logic you and a few others have provided above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.