View Single Post
  #66  
Old 02-04-2018, 4:18 PM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,765
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECG_88 View Post
Most liberals I talk to about gun control are very concerned with mass shootings. They say things like "look at Australia and UK, they have no mass shootings." Then they will say "no one needs an assault weapon and if we banned them, we wouldn't have mass shootings anymore."

Of course, look at the Virginia Tech shooting, he used 2 hand guns...


But I am still amazed that they care so much about mass shootings which are actually very rare.

Any random person is way more likely to die in a car accident than a mass shooting incident. Why is one type of death worse than the other, especially when it is so unlikely to happen?

Is it that they feel the Mass Shooting is preventable through their logic? They feel if they could just ban those guns, no one would ever die that way again?

OK how do we fight that line of thinking?
1)I try to point out that Mass Shootings are very rare.
2)I point to FBI crime statistics to show less than 300 long gun deaths a year, which I think includes mass shootings
3)I ask is it worth all the money and effort to save 300 lives a year? Especially when things like banning cigarettes would save way more lives. What about the idea of millions of "assault weapon" type firearms that are used in a legal and safe way that will be taken away because of a handful of misuses a year? How do the reconcile that argument when applied to any other consumer product?

What else do you guys think?
they're sand castles in the sky? They sound better with focus groups than straight logical arguments about reducing crime and violence (re: which gun control does not). So; layering abstractions on each other to build up their weird false concepts ('gun violence' being another) is the only way to make their policy proposals sound reasonable.

"look at Australia and UK, they have no mass shootings."

They didn't have many when guns were legal. So few, in fact, that you cannot say gun control had an effect. The sample size is too small (re: if they have one in the next few years it will then be the same numbers they had before guns were taken away).

"Then they will say "no one needs an assault weapon and if we banned them, we wouldn't have mass shootings anymore."

They are not used in many crimes... and even in very few of what they now claim are mass shootings. They're really just low powered semi auto rifles that look scary to non gun owners. A honda civic... with an air wing if you will. Shooters like them because the parts are like VW bug parts... tons of people make them and they're interchangeable. If we banned guns (somehow; considering they won't build a wall to keep them out) we'd just see more car, bomb, and knife attacks. The number killed will probably go up as bombs (and airplanes) work better than guns. They'll reject this out of hand since they only want to consider 'gun violence'... talk about stacking the deck by playing Orwellian language police.

"But I am still amazed that they care so much about mass shootings which are actually very rare."

They don't. They just don't want people like you to have a gun. It will be easier to push you around and make you care.
Reply With Quote