Pennsylvania District Equips Classrooms with Buckets of Rocks to Stone Mass Shooters

PolishHeadlock said:
Isn't that related to compulsive military service and highly regulated?
Click to expand...

Sure, but how about somewhere like Italy or Russia, where instead of a background check, you need a sporting license. Their are many countries where you can legally own guns, that aren't experiencing the frequency of school shootings that we are.

If the idea is that the problem is how many guns we have, I think I would like to see some evidence for that.
 
Also, everyone remember going postal?

Member the post office shootings?

The media creates the copy cat shootings.
 
BoxingFan653 said:
Because we did this shit before and it didnt work. It's been proven. You want to make a few edits and retry it when we've already seen that from 1993-2011 the populations gun ownership increased 2x but crime went down 39%.

What part of civilians having less guns do you not get? Sweden has strict gun laws where people have to really earn their gun and they are the rape capital of the world.

Let me ask you, what if anything changed during the 1994-2004 gun ban?
Click to expand...

You're not answering my question. From what I've read the effects of the ban from 1994-2004 were a small positive but it was small enough that researchers don't feel comfortable attributing it to the ban.

During that time period Violent Crime in the US went down in general.

So ignore Sweden and just focus on the US and assault rifles and for arguments sake lets just say an assault rifle is any semi automatic rifle.

Why would banning assault rifles be incredibly dangerous?
 
PolishHeadlock said:
You're not answering my question. From what I've read the effects of the ban from 1994-2004 were a small positive but it was small enough that researchers don't feel comfortable attributing it to the ban.

During that time period Violent Crime in the US went down in general.

So ignore Sweden and just focus on the US and assault rifles and for arguments sake lets just say an assault rifle is any semi automatic rifle.

Why would banning assault rifles be incredibly dangerous?
Click to expand...

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Sure, but how about somewhere like Italy or Russia, where instead of a background check, you need a sporting license. Their are many countries where you can legally own guns, that aren't experiencing the frequency of school shootings that we are.

If the idea is that the problem is how many guns we have, I think I would like to see some evidence for that.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is deeper than just the amount of guns. Don't know enough about Russian or Italian gun ownership or laws to comment on them.

Do Russians and Italians own as many gun per capita? How hard is to get a Sporting license? Is there a restriction on the type of guns?
 
abiG said:
If you need to protect your family from a home invasion of psychotics who want to rape them before killing them, you honestly can't figure out why you might need that weapon?
Click to expand...

How often have these weapons been use to thwart that from happening?

How much more effective would they be than a handgun or a shotgun?
 
PolishHeadlock said:
How often have these weapons been use to thwart that from happening?

How much more effective would they be than a handgun or a shotgun?
Click to expand...
When 2,3,4 or more psychotics are coming into my home, I'll take the AR. It just makes sense.
 
PolishHeadlock said:
You're not answering my question. From what I've read the effects of the ban from 1994-2004 were a small positive but it was small enough that researchers don't feel comfortable attributing it to the ban.

During that time period Violent Crime in the US went down in general.

So ignore Sweden and just focus on the US and assault rifles and for arguments sake lets just say an assault rifle is any semi automatic rifle.

Why would banning assault rifles be incredibly dangerous?
Click to expand...

I appreciate you acknowledging it did not have any major effects. Let me explain why I see its incredibly dangerous.

First and foremost understand something. I was completely against the 2nd amendment. I already made a thread where I said why I changed my stance. As a man of science I approach a situation without bias. The moment you go into researching epidemiological data with bias you need to stop and just turn around. I am not trying to come off like a dude named Riley with 6 AR's and saying you aint gonna take my damn guns. I used to sound extremely liberal on this issue and I was able to read the data and set my bias aside. It changed my views entirely because what liberals are talking about is so unrealistic much like banning abortions is for conservatives. Yes...theres other parts of the world where abortion is illegal but it is NOT ever going to happen here.

After listening to epidemiologists, criminologists, etc I attribute the majority of these mass shootings as a mental health problem. Many point to the fact that approximately 500-600 thousand individuals remained in mental health facilities in comparison to today which those numbers are something like 5-6 thousand to my knowledge.

These guns have been available since the 60's and these programs primarily shut down during the same time. The gun didnt go down a dark path of drinking and drugs and get fucked up. We did.

Am I opposed to 'reasonable gun laws'? No if they include fixing this mental health problem. But the idea that a psychologist is going to evaluate you for months for an AR is as unrealistic as conservatives asking for abortion to be banned. Its a lost cause...I tell my conservative peeps to let it go already but they wont.

Gun control is the liberal version of this. To answer your question directly (if you're still paying attention instead of just waiting to reply to win a debate). I received a notification that a March for our lives event is occuring tomorrow near my area of San Diego. I read hundreds of comments which are common stances the left take including,"We dont want AR's we want them all gone!" "Get rid of all guns! They kill poor black people."

My issue is that logical liberals are asking for realistic measures but the majority on the left want an entire gun ban. If I have to sit here and explain to you why an entire gun ban is asking for domestic terrorism in this country and the second coming of the civil war then we might as well just exchange numbers and chat bout it because it would be a 5000 page thread.
 
PolishHeadlock said:
I think the problem is deeper than just the amount of guns. Don't know enough about Russian or Italian gun ownership or laws to comment on them.

Do Russians and Italians own as many gun per capita? How hard is to get a Sporting license? Is there a restriction on the type of guns?
Click to expand...

They don't have the gun ownership culture we have here. Consumerism is king in the US, and it extends all the way to guns.

I know in Italy they could own handguns shotguns rifles.

You know what bothers me most about the gun debate?

Even if you eventually banned guns in the US, it would mean little to nothing. The amount of guns in the US really makes the whole conversation kind of absurd.

I really shouldn't even worry about it. I must rationalize it as being principled or something, because I honestly believe a manned mission to mars is a easier mountain to climb then removing 2/3 of the 300 million guns in the US, which of course would still leave 100 million guns.
 
BoxingFan653 said:
I appreciate you acknowledging it did not have any major effects. Let me explain why I see its incredibly dangerous.

First and foremost understand something. I was completely against the 2nd amendment. I already made a thread where I said why I changed my stance. As a man of science I approach a situation without bias. The moment you go into researching epidemiological data with bias you need to stop and just turn around. I am not trying to come off like a dude named Riley with 6 AR's and saying you aint gonna take my damn guns. I used to sound extremely liberal on this issue and I was able to read the data and set my bias aside. It changed my views entirely because what liberals are talking about is so unrealistic much like banning abortions is for conservatives. Yes...theres other parts of the world where abortion is illegal but it is NOT ever going to happen here.

After listening to epidemiologists, criminologists, etc I attribute the majority of these mass shootings as a mental health problem. Many point to the fact that approximately 500-600 thousand individuals remained in mental health facilities in comparison to today which those numbers are something like 5-6 thousand to my knowledge.

These guns have been available since the 60's and these programs primarily shut down during the same time. The gun didnt go down a dark path of drinking and drugs and get fucked up. We did.

Am I opposed to 'reasonable gun laws'? No if they include fixing this mental health problem. But the idea that a psychologist is going to evaluate you for months for an AR is as unrealistic as conservatives asking for abortion to be banned. Its a lost cause...I tell my conservative peeps to let it go already but they wont.

Gun control is the liberal version of this. To answer your question directly (if you're still paying attention instead of just waiting to reply to win a debate). I received a notification that a March for our lives event is occuring tomorrow near my area of San Diego. I read hundreds of comments which are common stances the left take including,"We dont want AR's we want them all gone!" "Get rid of all guns! They kill poor black people."

My issue is that logical liberals are asking for realistic measures but the majority on the left want an entire gun ban. If I have to sit here and explain to you why an entire gun ban is asking for domestic terrorism in this country and the second coming of the civil war then we might as well just exchange numbers and chat bout it because it would be a 5000 page thread.
Click to expand...

I know there are people out there that want o ban all guns.

But I think that's as likely as @VivaRevolution convincing the Proletariat to seize the means of production in the US.

We have the 2nd Amendment so the right to own guns is pretty safe.

I'm just not buying into the slippery slope. And while the past Assault Weapons ban only showed negligible results if any the ban on automatic weapons which was permanent seems to have been pretty effective.

I agree with the mental health stuff and that mass shooting are bigger than just gun access but guns are still a big part of that
 
PolishHeadlock said:
I know there are people out there that want o ban all guns.

But I think that's as likely as @VivaRevolution convincing the Proletariat to seize the means of production in the US.

We have the 2nd Amendment so the right to own guns is pretty safe.

I'm just not buying into the slippery slope. And while the past Assault Weapons ban only showed negligible results if any the ban on automatic weapons which was permanent seems to have been pretty effective.

I agree with the mental health stuff and that mass shooting are bigger than just gun access but guns are still a big part of that
Click to expand...

 
PolishHeadlock said:
That wasn't the 1st mass school shooting and why are you limiting it to schools?
Click to expand...


Well I figure that is what people care about, because they certainly didn't give a shit when it was in the ghetto, trailer park, or postal office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,401
Messages
55,417,989
Members
174,764
Latest member
durbanik916

Share this page

Back
Top