Freedumb

[Aglaopheme]

It doesn't depend. More guns equals more gun violence. Obviously there are people that own guns that will never kill anyone. It's a good thing gun sellers know who the "responsible" gun owners are.

I have lots of friends and family that are responsible gun owners/collectors. I have zero worries when my children are in their homes. I think the idiot father cited in the article above should be held accountable for this girl's death.

There's plenty of data that shows more guns equals more gun violence be it homicide, suicide or accidental. Data aside, it's just common sense.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&

 

[Oh_That_Guy]

I think most people would never consider harming another person with their gun. That being said, I told the wife the wrong code for the gun safe on purpose. Can't be too careful.

 

[phrodeau]

I think most people would never consider harming another person with their gun. That being said, I told the wife the wrong code for the gun safe on purpose. Can't be too careful.

Once she finds out, she'll buy a bigger safe and put your gun safe inside it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There's plenty of data that shows more guns equals more gun violence

Then explain how my town isn't a total fucking blood bath 24/7.........

Obviously there are people that own guns that will never kill anyone

That's in direct contradiction with moar gunz= mo violence!

 

[Oh_That_Guy]

Once she finds out, she'll buy a bigger safe and put your gun safe inside it.

That's ok because I can live without hunting.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Then explain how my town isn't a total fucking blood bath 24/7.........


I don't have the data on your town.

Here's more nationwide data.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/


That's in direct contradiction with moar gunz= mo violence!

Nowhere did I say everyone with access to multiple guns will kill themselves or others.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nowhere did I say everyone with access to multiple guns will kill themselves or others.

But you did say more guns = more violence.

If it were true everything outside metro areas would be a fucking war zone because so many guns, and more guns = more violence right?

But that's not the case now is it? It's easily arguable that population density+ poverty/lack of upward mobility has just as much to do with gun violence in Muricuh as the readily available guns.

But that would bring up other issues, real issues we might actually be able to do something about that would suck, and we can't have that.....better to stick with the slogan that gives you a political warm fuzzy but you won't have to own because it's simply not going anywhere in the foreseeable future instead.

Moar gunz = moar violence!

 

[richard_daily]

I have lots of friends and family that are responsible gun owners/collectors. I have zero worries when my children are in their homes. I think the idiot father cited in the article above should be held accountable for this girl's death.

There's plenty of data that shows more guns equals more gun violence be it homicide, suicide or accidental. Data aside, it's just common sense.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&

So by your logic: more people = more murder.

Should we legislate birth?

Anytime someone says "it's just common sense" in an argument, it usually isn't.

 

[Aglaopheme]

But you did say more guns = more violence.

If it were true everything outside metro areas would be a fucking war zone because so many guns, and more guns = more violence right?

But that's not the case now is it? It's easily arguable that population density+ poverty/lack of upward mobility has just as much to do with gun violence in Muricuh as the readily available guns.

But that would bring up other issues, real issues we might actually be able to do something about that would suck, and we can't have that.....better to stick with the slogan that gives you a political warm fuzzy but you won't have to own because it's simply not going anywhere in the foreseeable future instead.

Moar gunz = moar violence!

So by your logic: more people = more murder.

Should we legislate birth?

Anytime someone says "it's just common sense" in an argument, it usually isn't.

You both may call it what you wish, however you can't deny the data and the cold hard facts.

http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=30188387&catId=112032

I have no political "warm fuzzy", and work quite hard on many "real" issues. Gun legislation is not one of them. I've no desire to waste my time.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There may be some strange cases where more guns =/= more violence but realistically more guns equal more violence and you have to be simply denying reality to claim otherwise.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You both may call it what you wish, however you can't deny the data and the cold hard facts.

http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=30188387&catId=112032

1) that doesn't support "more guns= more violence" it really supports the idea that broke mother fuckers with no hope of being anything but a min wage slave + guns = recipe for suicide and maybe a liquor/convenient store robbery. Add the cold/dark environment of a northern state and you're REALLY going to blow your brains out.

2) Cold hard facts are California has more guns than any of those states if every man woman and child were packing five each.

According to you it should be a fucking SLAUGHTER out here by comparison, because more guns equal more violence right? LOL....not that any amount of

I have no political "warm fuzzy", and work quite hard on many "real" issues. Gun legislation is not one of them. I've no desire to waste my time.

You came in here touting your oversimplified slogan, and got called on it...but don't own it, oh god no don't ever do that!!

yet here you are.......

 

[BotanyBoy]

There may be some strange cases where more guns =/= more violence but realistically more guns equal more violence and you have to be simply denying reality to claim otherwise.

Then how is every gun show not a complete and total slaughter?

How come there are more murders in gun free zones than at gun shops and ranges?

How come in my county where the gun to person ratio is off the god damn charts our crime is practically non existent?

Yet in your county where there are far less guns per person the gun violence has led the nation more than once?

How does the military or police forces nation wide even function?

It's more complicated than more guns = more violence.

There are way to many contradictions to that statement, you have to be simply denying reality to claim otherwise.

Don't dare admit poverty and population density have anything to do with it though, dig heels in and defend the oversimplified slogan that fits teh narrative!

Wait were we talking about "Guns don't kill people, crazy kills people" Oh no it's the other side of the coin...

 

[Sean Renaud]

-snip-​

2) Cold hard facts are California has more guns than any of those states if every man woman and child were packing five each.

-snip-​

This sounds at best to be a convenient way of reading the facts if not simply incorrect. I would like citation on this one.

 

[Aglaopheme]

There may be some strange cases where more guns =/= more violence but realistically more guns equal more violence and you have to be simply denying reality to claim otherwise.

Yep. Zero guns=zero gun deaths.

1) that doesn't support "more guns= more violence" it really supports the idea that broke mother fuckers with no hope of being anything but a min wage slave + guns = recipe for suicide and maybe a liquor/convenient store robbery. Add the cold/dark environment of a northern state and you're REALLY going to blow your brains out.

2) Cold hard facts are California has more guns than any of those states if every man woman and child were packing five each.

According to you it should be a fucking SLAUGHTER out here by comparison, because more guns equal more violence right? LOL....not that any amount of



You came in here touting your oversimplified slogan, and got called on it...but don't own it, oh god no don't ever do that!!

yet here you are.......

You can make any excuses you'd like, but the facts are still the facts.

Of course I stand by what I said, and have provided data to back it up.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This sounds at best to be a convenient way of reading the facts if not simply incorrect. I would like citation on this one.

Alaska, total population is only 737k

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

Oakland has more guns that that.

The biggest state on the list is OK with 3.8 million folks. And I couldn't find anything more recent than

"Gun sales in California are booming. More than 600,000 were sold in 2011. However by last year, sales had jumped to 817,000. That's an increase of 36 percent. But we noticed the number of people wounded by gunfire is dropping."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-calif-gun-sales-go-up-number-of-gun-casualties-goes-down/

"Dealers sold more than 510,000 handguns in California during 2014, more than double the number sold four years prior, according to new figures from the state Department of Justice.

Handgun sales in 2014 set a new California record, far outpacing the prior high of 433,000 handguns sold in 1993, near the time violent crime peaked in the state.

Long gun sales slipped by 120,000 from 2013 to 2014. The 418,000 long guns sales in 2014 represent the third highest number on record, trailing behind 2012 and 2013."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article12510725.html#storylink=cpy

We sell more guns every year since O took office than one of the most gun violent states in the unions entire union. OK's population x5 rounded up is 20 million. I'd bet there are at least that many guns in CA. No real way to tell though.

Also apparently CBS didn't get the memo about more guns= more gun violence because they are reporting yet another total contradiction to 'teh narrative'.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yep. Zero guns=zero gun deaths.


You can make any excuses you'd like, but the facts are still the facts.

Of course I stand by what I said, and have provided data to back it up.

Zero guns = fantasy land....and they aren't facts they are propaganda designed to sell more guns, get a clue.

 

[yours2nite]

Well for sure there are a lot of people who think the right to carry guns is really important. So then I have a question for you. Say your innocent child gets killed in a mass shooting at their school and you have to bury them. Are you going to accept that murder in exchange for your right, and that of everyone else, to carry a gun?

Seems like too high a price to pay.

Of course, this point can be countered with the need to find another way to prevent the death of your child other than banning many sorts of guns etc etc., but what is that other way and is it really viable?

 

[richard_daily]

Yep. Zero guns=zero gun deaths.



You can make any excuses you'd like, but the facts are still the facts.

Of course I stand by what I said, and have provided data to back it up.

That's some rocket science level stuff there.

Are you advocating zero guns?

Your argument is all over the place to be perfectly honest. You're throwing out piles of real world examples where your oversimplification isn't true.

Following your argument, police stations should have dead bodies littering the place. Do you know how many guns there are in those places?!?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well for sure there are a lot of people who think the right to carry guns is really important. So then I have a question for you. Say your innocent child gets killed in a mass shooting at their school and you have to bury them. Are you going to accept that murder in exchange for your right, and that of everyone else, to carry a gun?

Seems like too high a price to pay.

http://i.imgur.com/cbolvBY.gif?1

Of course, this point can be countered with the need to find another way to prevent the death of your child other than banning many sorts of guns etc etc., but what is that other way and is it really viable?

There is no other way....either the left gets a super majority together and 2/3's it right up the 1/3's ass with total political domination.

They try to ban guns without the political super majority and start The M'urican Civil War Deux....

Or we deal with the fact that some folks are going to get crazy and shoot some shit up.

And those really are the 3 options because America is to fucking stupid to do any better.

 

[richard_daily]

Well for sure there are a lot of people who think the right to carry guns is really important. So then I have a question for you. Say your innocent child gets killed in a mass shooting at their school and you have to bury them. Are you going to accept that murder in exchange for your right, and that of everyone else, to carry a gun?

Seems like too high a price to pay.

Of course, this point can be countered with the need to find another way to prevent the death of your child other than banning many sorts of guns etc etc., but what is that other way and is it really viable?

Holy false equivalency batman.

If a kid gets killed with a knife at your school, do you advocate banning kitchen knives?

A horrible accident or tragedy is just that... a horrible accident or tragedy. Using a horrible accident or tragedy to push your political agenda is dishonest and gross.

 

[richard_daily]

Then how is every gun show not a complete and total slaughter?

How come there are more murders in gun free zones than at gun shops and ranges?

How come in my county where the gun to person ratio is off the god damn charts our crime is practically non existent?

Yet in your county where there are far less guns per person the gun violence has led the nation more than once?

How does the military or police forces nation wide even function?

It's more complicated than more guns = more violence.

These questions won't get answered here. This is a "common sense" zone.

 

[phrodeau]

Well for sure there are a lot of people who think the right to carry guns is really important. So then I have a question for you. Say your innocent child gets killed in a mass shooting at their school and you have to bury them. Are you going to accept that murder in exchange for your right, and that of everyone else, to carry a gun?

Seems like too high a price to pay.

Of course, this point can be countered with the need to find another way to prevent the death of your child other than banning many sorts of guns etc etc., but what is that other way and is it really viable?

There is no alternative.

She had to die so the rest of us can live free. The Second Amendment demands it, and there's no alternative.

 

[richard_daily]

There is no alternative.

Please stop pretending like you care about kid's lives. This is identity politics.

 

[yours2nite]

Holy false equivalency batman.

If a kid gets killed with a knife at your school, do you advocate banning kitchen knives?

A horrible accident or tragedy is just that... a horrible accident or tragedy. Using a horrible accident or tragedy to push your political agenda is dishonest and gross.

If a kid gets killed with a knife, it's tragic, but at least it's one and not 9, that is an improvement even though not perfect, but then the world is not perfect.

I wasn't pushing any agenda, and your feeble attempt to dismiss it is just that, feeble.

But I know your answer now, you'd accept your child's death as long as it means you can keep carry a gun.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Alaska, total population is only 737k

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

Oakland has more guns that that.

The biggest state on the list is OK with 3.8 million folks. And I couldn't find anything more recent than

"Gun sales in California are booming. More than 600,000 were sold in 2011. However by last year, sales had jumped to 817,000. That's an increase of 36 percent. But we noticed the number of people wounded by gunfire is dropping."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-calif-gun-sales-go-up-number-of-gun-casualties-goes-down/

"Dealers sold more than 510,000 handguns in California during 2014, more than double the number sold four years prior, according to new figures from the state Department of Justice.

Handgun sales in 2014 set a new California record, far outpacing the prior high of 433,000 handguns sold in 1993, near the time violent crime peaked in the state.

Long gun sales slipped by 120,000 from 2013 to 2014. The 418,000 long guns sales in 2014 represent the third highest number on record, trailing behind 2012 and 2013."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article12510725.html#storylink=cpy

We sell more guns every year since O took office than one of the most gun violent states in the unions entire union. OK's population x5 rounded up is 20 million. I'd bet there are at least that many guns in CA. No real way to tell though.

Also apparently CBS didn't get the memo about more guns= more gun violence because they are reporting yet another total contradiction to 'teh narrative'.

You can't compare Alaska to California for gun violence or really nearly anything it's unfair to all involved. That being said California has higher rates of poverty than Alaska does. It's a lot more racially diverse than Alaska. The population density isn't even comparible.

And we've been over this multiple times. Crime is down across the nation. Across the GLOBE actually. Everywhere in the industrialized world we're seeing decreases in crime. When you have the same trend in Oakland, London and Sydney you should probably start looking for things they all have in common and one way or the other it sure as fuck isn't gun laws.

In order for your argument to hold true one thing is necessary. If when EVERYTHING ELSE is exactly the same for equal or more people to be shot in an environment with guns than without. Anything else and your argument is simply incorrect.

And there is obviously a point where that would come true. I mean I've only got two hands. So you and me in a room with four guns would probably produce no more shootings than three or two. Probably considerably more than with one or none.

Holy false equivalency batman.

If a kid gets killed with a knife at your school, do you advocate banning kitchen knives?

A horrible accident or tragedy is just that... a horrible accident or tragedy. Using a horrible accident or tragedy to push your political agenda is dishonest and gross.

Depends on how often kids are getting killed at my school with kitchen knives. If kids were getting killed on a monthly basis at my school you're damn right I'd push to heavily restrict kitchen knives by any means possible.

This isn't an accident, and it's not a tragedy when you can remember the last time it happened. It's Tuesday. What is gross is not "using" the situation to push your agenda. This idiotic ideal only holds in America and only for guns. Two planes hitting some buildings meant the time for talking about massive security and freedom changes wasn't even necessary. We demanded immediate action. (Whether those actions were correct or not is beside the point.) Sharks get a handful of kills world wide annually. Let one be spotted near a beach and see the hoops people jump through. Look at all the research that goes into preventing shark attacks for that matter. I remember a banking tragedy about eight years ago. . .seems it wasn't too soon to talk about that either.

Guns are unique. We don't want to have the conversation. And that's fine but lets be honest. We like guns. We accept the blood on our hands. We understand that for our freedom people will die and some of them will be children and it's worth it. When mass shootings happen so often they don't even make the news if they don't do something more impressive than kill four people we can't not use the tragedy to push an agenda because there is always a fresh tragedy. The bodies are never cold because we pile them too quickly for that.