Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-15-2017, 11:59 AM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Why are anti-gunners obsessed with Mass Shootings?

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?
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.

Nulla Fatere, Omnia Nega, Accusatorem Accusa
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:05 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,436
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

It’s the new hot button issue they use to get traction. They are actively trying to redefine what a mass shooting is to manipulate public opinion. They have done this so blatantly thst Mother Jones of all sources called them on it.

Before that, and carrying over, is “weapons of war”

Before that it was assault weapons and cop killer bullets

Before that it was Saturday night specials.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:06 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

People are instinctively bad at estimating risk. They worry about dying in an airliner crash and then merrily commute to work daily. They worry about gluten and then install a swimming pool.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:08 PM
BigBamBoo's Avatar
BigBamBoo BigBamBoo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: *NDBBM*
Posts: 4,990
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

You believe in what you believe in....religion, values, politics, etc....and so do folks who’s ideals do not align with yours. Simple as that.

Would you be persuaded to change your core beliefs?

.
__________________
Bring hay for my horse....wine for my men....and mud for my turtle!

What do hear ???...... Nothing but the rain. Well grab your gun and bring in the cat.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
It makes it bigger and longer.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:09 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 699
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

they just aren't very bright.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:27 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

1) There is a portion of our country that would prefer guns be completely banned.

2) Mass shootings are scary, horrific, random for the most part, and people feel completely helpless to stop it. They want to regain emotional control by doing 'something', regardless if that something does little toward the desired goal and has negative collateral impact in other areas.

3) Sadly, many media organizations care more about ratings and viewership than responsible reporting.

4) Most of this countries population don't know diddly about guns nor violence. Fear, ignorance, and movies give guns magical qualities. This current young generation hasn't participated in a large scale violent conflict or dealt with repressive governments, so there is no experience to see violence as an embedded human reality that has always been a part of our history.

Statistics and logical debate of the problem does not work for many because emotion dominates their way of thinking. Combine these and you get media organizations sensationalizing events for viewership, knowing it will boost their bottom line. A new generation not (yet) exposed to wide scale violence nor repression see violent acts as completely foreign concepts.

Summary: fear, ignorance, snowflakes.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:37 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,385
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

It’s all about getting votes
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-15-2017, 1:12 PM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,510
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"If it bleeds, it leads".
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-15-2017, 3:21 PM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 902
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
It’s the new hot button issue they use to get traction. They are actively trying to redefine what a mass shooting is to manipulate public opinion. They have done this so blatantly thst Mother Jones of all sources called them on it.

Before that, and carrying over, is “weapons of war”

Before that it was assault weapons and cop killer bullets

Before that it was Saturday night specials.
And before that, it was all about race. You can get a good feel for the details from Clayton Cramer's book "The Racist Roots of Gun Control".
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-15-2017, 3:57 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Emotions get the better of them.

If you ever do get them to admit to being concerned about body count them mention all the other causes of high body counts and how mass shootings are way down the list they switch up and go back to emotional reactionaryism.

Tried once a gambit where their hatred for Trump means fear of big govt leads to armed militia and exactly like the 2A says regarding a free state they simply refuse to use logic.

It's pointless to have reasoned discourse with folks that won't be logical. Pretty sure the best thing for them is to be slapped and physically dominated until they come to their senses. They seem to enjoy being dominated by big govt/father figures. How does one deal with those driven by fear?

In the dojo those using passive methods must be shown the futility of such and approach before they switch to a proactive mode. Then progress can be made. Regression is frequent so constant reinforcement is needed until a threshold is crossed - some never make the transition.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-15-2017, 4:28 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,265
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Why are anti-gunners obsessed with Mass Shootings?

"POLITICAL THEATER" Whatever it takes to grab or manufacture headlines in the Bias Stream Media aka BSM, in order to further the agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-15-2017, 4:41 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 11,897
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default Why are anti-gunners obsessed with Mass Shootings?

Because going after the real problem would mean bringing attention to the real gun problem, inner city criminals shooting each other. Liberals are not willing to address that problem because it exposes the failures of their big city policies and their dealings with the minority communities.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Weiner is in jail for doing much less than Kavanaugh or your Dear Leader Trump have done and they are walking around free.


NRA Benefactor Member

Police brutality? Visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRd5oucG114 to learn more about "isolated incidents"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-15-2017, 4:46 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 699
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
Because going after the real problem would mean bringing attention to the real gun problem, inner city criminals shooting each other. Liberals are not willing to address that problem because it exposes the failures of their big city policies and their dealings with the minority communities.
yup, this.

but to be fair, if not for ignorant drug laws, they wouldn't have as much reason to off each other.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-15-2017, 5:04 PM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,767
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

this is the same as when airplane crashes happen.

even thought airplane safety is very high, when 1 plane goes down, they make such a big deal about it and then all the news will be focusing on how airplane travel can be dangerous, they bring up the issues of pilots being overworked, etc, etc.

yet there are more people that die in automotive related accidents in 3 days in just USA than in airplanes worldwide for the entire year.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2535...son-you-think/

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/ge...fatality-facts

where is all the fear mongering about better car safety, or better driver education/training, or road safety/maintenance?

as is often quoted of Stalin (although it hasn't been hard proven he said this)

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

mass shootings are such a rare occurrence that it is a shocking news when it does happen. and shocking news always stay on the minds of the people. but everyday gang drive-bys, shootings, etc are so common, people don't care because it happens everyday.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post
Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
Proof we can all comment on whatever we want if it's at all related to the topic at hand!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-15-2017, 6:08 PM
Mr. Snuffalupagus Mr. Snuffalupagus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
"If it bleeds, it leads".
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry
Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em all around
We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blond
Who comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die
Give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry
You don't really need to find out what's going on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're stiff
Kick 'em all around
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're stiff
Kick 'em all around
Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry
We can do "The Innuendo"
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
We all know that Kraft is king
Give us dirty laundry!
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down

-Don Henley

as true today as it was 35 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-15-2017, 6:19 PM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 571
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

bottom line is that they don't like guns. they will use anything and everything against guns. It's the old "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks." they throw anything and everything at the wall. If something sticks, they play it out.

So, any particular argument will have a counter argument.

But, with all that said, if there's a bad guy with a gun and one of them is there, they'll be thankful if there was a good guy with a gun who stopped the bad guy.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-15-2017, 6:21 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

They parrot emotional responses they have been fed that they think remove all further discussion.
__________________
IF WE EVER FORGET WE ARE ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
THEN WE WILL BE A NATION GONE UNDER.
Ronald Reagan


We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:09 AM
Flogger23m Flogger23m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 21 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECG_88 View Post
But I am still amazed that they care so much about mass shootings which are actually very rare.
It comes down to what they perceive is more of a threat to themselves. Most shootings are gang related, but most people don't live in gang infested areas. People know that murders will happen in a ghetto, and it largely does not effect them. If you can avoid going to these areas the chances of you being caught up in a gang type firearm related murder is very low. It is what you expect when you go to these places. Also, a lot of these are cases of criminals killing other criminals so a lot of people won't care too much.

But when you see some type of mass killing in what is considered a safe area, where just about every victim is a random innocent person it is much more attention grabbing. Two thugs shooting each other in a crime ridden area is expected, from Chicago to the favelas of Brazil. But when young children are murdered at school in a well off suburban area, it will raise some eyebrows.

I think the most important thing to note is the strict firearm laws in Australia did not stop mass murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Even without firearms, lone killers managed to get kill counts as high as 15.

And while this event had to be timed to a specific day with a large crowd, again we can see a massive number (87) killed via a vehicular attack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-18-2017, 7:21 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,732
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I agree that most people are lousy at judging risk. However, to call "them" stupid or not bright" is just not right (or correct). IF you believe their point of view (i.e. if superman were to come down and magically whisk away ALL guns from ALL civilians) they are RIGHT. Yes, IF guns all magically went away like in England and Australia (both islands), sure, mass shootings would be rare to non-existent. WE must also acknowledge that FACT. No too many mass shootings with plasma rifles these days, right? Of course not.

Now, of course, rather than merely being a second grader and saying "you're stupid" we need to educate them to the reality. NO, you will NEVER get 300 MILLION guns off the streets of America. Even if we did, we have Mexico and South America right next door. (remind them how successful the drug was has been)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-18-2017, 7:26 AM
CG11's Avatar
CG11 CG11 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: I.E.
Posts: 216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They may be obsessed with mass shootings because, they, as anti-gun people, are at the mercy of a mass shooter. They own no guns, cannot fight back, and are simply at the mercy of the shooter. That, and they really do believe that if we outlaw guns they will be safe because the bad guys won't have guns to kill them with. They also believe in safe spaces, honest politicians and fairy tales.
__________________
I'm not that happy to see you - It's a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-18-2017, 9:31 AM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flogger23m View Post
It comes down to what they perceive is more of a threat to themselves. Most shootings are gang related, but most people don't live in gang infested areas. People know that murders will happen in a ghetto, and it largely does not effect them. If you can avoid going to these areas the chances of you being caught up in a gang type firearm related murder is very low. It is what you expect when you go to these places. Also, a lot of these are cases of criminals killing other criminals so a lot of people won't care too much.

But when you see some type of mass killing in what is considered a safe area, where just about every victim is a random innocent person it is much more attention grabbing. Two thugs shooting each other in a crime ridden area is expected, from Chicago to the favelas of Brazil. But when young children are murdered at school in a well off suburban area, it will raise some eyebrows.

I think the most important thing to note is the strict firearm laws in Australia did not stop mass murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Even without firearms, lone killers managed to get kill counts as high as 15.

And while this event had to be timed to a specific day with a large crowd, again we can see a massive number (87) killed via a vehicular attack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

I agree with this. Most people really don't care about gun violence if its happening in the ghetto. When it might happen to them its another story. But I believe there is more to it than that, because I have gotten people to admit based on stats that they are more likely to get eaten by a shark than be a victim in a mass shooting. I think it also gets wrapped up in being bad at calculating risk and the emotional response suppressing logic.
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.

Nulla Fatere, Omnia Nega, Accusatorem Accusa
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-18-2017, 9:42 AM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
I agree that most people are lousy at judging risk. However, to call "them" stupid or not bright" is just not right (or correct). IF you believe their point of view (i.e. if superman were to come down and magically whisk away ALL guns from ALL civilians) they are RIGHT. Yes, IF guns all magically went away like in England and Australia (both islands), sure, mass shootings would be rare to non-existent. WE must also acknowledge that FACT. No too many mass shootings with plasma rifles these days, right? Of course not.

Now, of course, rather than merely being a second grader and saying "you're stupid" we need to educate them to the reality. NO, you will NEVER get 300 MILLION guns off the streets of America. Even if we did, we have Mexico and South America right next door. (remind them how successful the drug was has been)
I think this important to have honest and genuine discussion. It is being purposefully ignorant to claim that having less guns in circulation would not result is less mass shootings. That logic is sound. What is flawed is that anti gun people think having less guns in circulation would result in less crime or murders. Having more guns will result in more people being able to defend themselves and overall crime dropping with maybe a few mass shooting incidents, but there are other things that can be done to help mitigate these such as background checks and better mental heath resources.

I think having bad things happen with guns is part of the cost of doing business. Not many people want to admit it, but yes you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. Freedom is not free, it costs blood. Freedom from the state and Security from the state is in balance all the time. Everyone knows the Franklin quote about those wanting security over freedom and getting neither. As a society we have to accept a certain amount of deaths. Just like there are a certain amount of deaths that are acceptable to have cars. Certain amount of butt hurt because we have the 1st amendment.

But I don't know if this is too much for some sensitive people to accept. It might trigger that emotional response that overrides logic.
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.

Nulla Fatere, Omnia Nega, Accusatorem Accusa
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-18-2017, 9:47 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,261
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Folks like to talk. Politicians like to spread fear. A diversion to hard topics like tax resolution and crime...

Gun control is easy and works into the control plan of gov.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:06 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch705 View Post
this is the same as when airplane crashes happen.

even thought airplane safety is very high, when 1 plane goes down, they make such a big deal about it and then all the news will be focusing on how airplane travel can be dangerous, they bring up the issues of pilots being overworked, etc, etc.

yet there are more people that die in automotive related accidents in 3 days in just USA than in airplanes worldwide for the entire year.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2535...son-you-think/

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/ge...fatality-facts

where is all the fear mongering about better car safety, or better driver education/training, or road safety/maintenance?

as is often quoted of Stalin (although it hasn't been hard proven he said this)

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

mass shootings are such a rare occurrence that it is a shocking news when it does happen. and shocking news always stay on the minds of the people. but everyday gang drive-bys, shootings, etc are so common, people don't care because it happens everyday.
The day the Vegas shooter killed 58, over 100 died on the nation's roads.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:19 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
The day the Vegas shooter killed 58, over 100 died on the nation's roads.
Be very careful with that kind of comparison, can be used against us and often is.

No where in the United States did 58 people die in the equivalent of one large vehicle crash that day.

Cars =/ Guns, period.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:33 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Be very careful with that kind of comparison, can be used against us and often is.

No where in the United States did 58 people die in the equivalent of one large vehicle crash that day.

Are they less dead then? Your ideas fascinate me, please subscribe me to your newsletter!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:35 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Win win win win
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 8,147
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Because...safety classes bro!

And...universal background checks bro!

And...it's for the children.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by teg33 View Post
Welcome, don't listen to readysetgo.
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:38 PM
nedro nedro is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,307
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billvau View Post
bottom line is that they don't like guns. they will use anything and everything against guns. It's the old "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks." they throw anything and everything at the wall. If something sticks, they play it out.

So, any particular argument will have a counter argument.

But, with all that said, if there's a bad guy with a gun and one of them is there, they'll be thankful if there was a good guy with a gun who stopped the bad guy.
That is not true.
The truth is that the politicians found something they can use to persuade you to vote a particular way.
They wouldn't care if it were guns or bunny rabbits. As long as they can manipulate your vote.
Plain and simple.
__________________
Here in California; Law abiding Citizens are simply Useful Idiots and Criminals are a Protected Species.
<nedro>
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-18-2017, 3:02 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
Are they less dead then? Your ideas fascinate me, please subscribe me to your newsletter!
You are playing into the left. Doesn't take much digging to see that the left constantly use Cars = Guns. We make cars safer right? Why not smart guns to make them safer? Cars are not "meant" to kill people so we do everything we can to minimize deaths! Guns are so evil as they are meant to kill, and therefore manufacturers should be held accountable! We mandate safety features on all new cars! Why not guns? And so on and so on.

Guns =/ Cars, period.
Guns =/ Heart Disease
Guns =/ Suicide Rate

or any of the other things the left likes to use as a comparison to restrict guns.

P.S. Not to mention driver's licenses! Anything that kills requires a license right??? Those cars so deadly, those guns so deadly. Let's compare them and treat them just the same!

Last edited by rootuser; 12-18-2017 at 3:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-18-2017, 8:07 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Not to mention driver's licenses! Anything that kills requires a license right?
Only a complete nincompoop would let the argument that cars require a license stand for a millisecond.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-18-2017, 9:06 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
Only a complete nincompoop would let the argument that cars require a license stand for a millisecond.
Hah! True. I completely agree but it is one of the "Common sense" gun control things the left uses all the time. No sense to it, but it's very common.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-19-2017, 7:48 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Hah! True. I completely agree but it is one of the "Common sense" gun control things the left uses all the time. No sense to it, but it's very common.
Anyone in America can buy any car, of any type, and as many as they want as often as they want, within their means. No license required.

If that's what anti-gunners have in mind for gun control then bring it on.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-19-2017, 9:17 PM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,670
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.
It doesn't matter.

Quote:
2)I point to FBI crime statistics to show less than 300 long gun deaths a year, which I think includes mass shootings
It doesn't matter. People don't need guns and no deaths are acceptable.

Quote:
3)I ask is it worth all the money and effort to save 300 lives a year?
Yes. It's worth it if it saves just one life.

Quote:
Especially when things like banning cigarettes would save way more lives.
Cigarettes aren't designed to kill people.

Quote:
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?
To quote Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was fund raising

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them…. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

then in the third presidential debate

"You mentioned the Heller decision and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the second amendment in that case. Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns."

Quote:
How do the reconcile that argument when applied to any other consumer pro

duct?
Guns are different because they're designed to kill people.


To quote anti-gunners trying to convince the Sunnyvale City Council to send people to jail for continuing to own lawfully possessed regular capacity magazines

"Living in a world where people own these things makes me sad"

and after being told it won't make a difference

"We need to send a message to the rest of the world!"

You can't argue against feelings or opinions.

Quote:
What else do you guys think?
You over state the number of mass-shootings by a factor of ten. Falling out of bed kills ten times more people annually than mass shootings or so-called assault weapons using Dianne Feinstein's statistics. Car drivers kill 4500 pedestrians annually - over 100 times more - 85 a week, every week, every year not just 59 in the worst ever event.

Neither mass shootings nor murders using assault weapons exist except for the few victims, their friends and families, TV news viewership, and political propaganda value.

Obviously none of this is relevant.


I tell Democrats gun rights are currently a package deal with politicians opposing things affecting them much more personally like abortion rights, Citizens United, LGBTQIA rights, and public funds for Christian schools.

40 states allow every law abiding citizen to own the guns of their choice (including machine guns) and to carry them concealed. Their residents want things that way, and care more about their gun rights than other issues.

The Senate is elected by the States, House States and population. The US President splits the difference with electoral votes apportioned according to total Senate and House seats. The Supreme Court falls between the President appointing judges and Senate confirming them. The entire US government favors the states, where the majority want concealed carry and so-called assault weapons, where many won't vote for a politician against guns.

By opposing guns rights, Democrats are going to lose things which affect them much more personally. The Democrats lost the election due to their platform position on guns, and have only themselves to blame for Donald Trump and judges he appoints like Neil Gorsuch. If they don't change course immediately, they'll be facing a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court for decades (Gorsuch replaced Scalia to preserve the 5-4 balance. Staying the course will mean a Republican president appointing Kennedy and Ginsburg's replacements with a Republican Senate confirming).




Using the FBI's mass public shooting definition of four or more victims not including the perpetrator, and not involving another crime like gang war or home invasions: America averaged 29 mass public shooting victims a year between 2000 and 2015, 33 from 2009 to 2015:



The US isn't even out-of-line with Western European countries, with places like France and Norway having higher mass-shooting event and fatality rates.

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/co...us-and-europe/


Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 12-20-2017 at 9:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-19-2017, 9:35 PM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nedro View Post
That is not true.
The truth is that the politicians found something they can use to persuade you to vote a particular way.
They wouldn't care if it were guns or bunny rabbits. As long as they can manipulate your vote.
Plain and simple.
As long as the other side is passing laws which can send me to prison for the same 8 year maximum term as a rapist if I merely neglect to register one of my guns or lock its case during transport, they can have my vote and campaign contributions.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-20-2017, 9:18 AM
spfabrication's Avatar
spfabrication spfabrication is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: ID
Posts: 880
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Speaking of mass shootings , what ever happened to the LV incident? Seems like it is a non issue compared to sexual allegations.
__________________
GO NAVY
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-20-2017, 10:09 AM
nedro nedro is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,307
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spfabrication View Post
Speaking of mass shootings , what ever happened to the LV incident? Seems like it is a non issue compared to sexual allegations.
That A Hole has created the best excuse to get rid of black rifles than any other A Hole in history.
That Bump-stock crap is doing us in. It is part of every single debate since.
Those POS A holes who marketed the retarded device need to burn in Heck!
__________________
Here in California; Law abiding Citizens are simply Useful Idiots and Criminals are a Protected Species.
<nedro>

Last edited by nedro; 12-20-2017 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-21-2017, 10:33 AM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post
It doesn't matter.



It doesn't matter. People don't need guns and no deaths are acceptable.



Yes. It's worth it if it saves just one life.



Cigarettes aren't designed to kill people.



To quote Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was fund raising

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them…. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

then in the third presidential debate

"You mentioned the Heller decision and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the second amendment in that case. Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns."



Guns are different because they're designed to kill people.


To quote anti-gunners trying to convince the Sunnyvale City Council to send people to jail for continuing to own lawfully possessed regular capacity magazines

"Living in a world where people own these things makes me sad"

and after being told it won't make a difference

"We need to send a message to the rest of the world!"

You can't argue against feelings or opinions.



You over state the number of mass-shootings by a factor of ten. Falling out of bed kills ten times more people annually than mass shootings or so-called assault weapons using Dianne Feinstein's statistics. Car drivers kill 4500 pedestrians annually - over 100 times more - 85 a week, every week, every year not just 59 in the worst ever event.

Neither mass shootings nor murders using assault weapons exist except for the few victims, their friends and families, TV news viewership, and political propaganda value.

Obviously none of this is relevant.


I tell Democrats gun rights are currently a package deal with politicians opposing things affecting them much more personally like abortion rights, Citizens United, LGBTQIA rights, and public funds for Christian schools.

40 states allow every law abiding citizen to own the guns of their choice (including machine guns) and to carry them concealed. Their residents want things that way, and care more about their gun rights than other issues.

The Senate is elected by the States, House States and population. The US President splits the difference with electoral votes apportioned according to total Senate and House seats. The Supreme Court falls between the President appointing judges and Senate confirming them. The entire US government favors the states, where the majority want concealed carry and so-called assault weapons, where many won't vote for a politician against guns.

By opposing guns rights, Democrats are going to lose things which affect them much more personally. The Democrats lost the election due to their platform position on guns, and have only themselves to blame for Donald Trump and judges he appoints like Neil Gorsuch. If they don't change course immediately, they'll be facing a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court for decades (Gorsuch replaced Scalia to preserve the 5-4 balance. Staying the course will mean a Republican president appointing Kennedy and Ginsburg's replacements with a Republican Senate confirming).

...


You are right on, I hear those counter arguments all the time even though they are crap. The "if it saves one life, then its worth it." What a bunch of crap. We can save one life by banning cigarettes. We can save one life by dumping all the defense budget in heart disease research. We can save one life by banning swimming pools. But we don't do all these things because it is expensive and takes away freedom. I would argue that spending so much money on gun control is the same. It costs too much money and takes away freedom.

Guns are not just designed to kill. As much as knives are designed to cut open throats. Guns are designed to expel a hunk of lead at high velocity. They can be used for many things besides killing people. If 90% of users are not killing people, how can you say it was designed to kill people?

Now if you designed something to build walls (hammer) and it ends up killing more people than something supposedly designed to kill people, does that mean there is something wrong with hammers? As we all know from the FBI numbers, hammers kill more than long guns.

I feel design is irrelevant. How it is actually used is what is important. The data shows they are only used for murder 300 times a year. Out of the millions of long guns in the US and only 300 misuses. I would say they are very safe.

Saying an "assault weapon" is designed to kill people based on how many people die mass shootings is like saying chainsaws are designed to kill teenagers in the woods based on horror movies.
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.

Nulla Fatere, Omnia Nega, Accusatorem Accusa

Last edited by ECG_88; 12-21-2017 at 10:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-21-2017, 11:07 AM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECG_88 View Post
Guns are not just designed to kill.
I would argue they are not designed to kill at all.

If one has access to the engineering requirements for any rifle I seriously doubt there are any "must kill X" engineering requirements in the entire project. Must be reliable. Must be durable. Must be ergonomic. Those and others such as cost constraints, accuracy, and maintainability are going to be the design goals that are given to engineering.


It's possible that specific projectiles or even maybe cartridges might have something closer to "must kill X" in their engineering specs I guess, maybe, but even there I suspect it's not given as that, but rather as the required energy and wound channel etc.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-26-2017, 10:24 AM
ducitis's Avatar
ducitis ducitis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 272
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

True Story!!!


When a school involved shooting happens.. Anti Gun Politician are at their happiest. If the word AR is involved, they hit the jackpot happy.

Then they release a statement on media outlet or twitter approximately 32 seconds after the incident how sad deeply saddened they are..

at 1 minute mark they tell us reason's why we need more gun laws.

Then repeat every hour for the next week until they realize it has been over saturated and no longer a good political tool.

Then they sit there impatiently waiting for the next one.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-31-2017, 1:10 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flogger23m View Post
It comes down to what they perceive is more of a threat to themselves. Most shootings are gang related, but most people don't live in gang infested areas. People know that murders will happen in a ghetto, and it largely does not effect them. If you can avoid going to these areas the chances of you being caught up in a gang type firearm related murder is very low. It is what you expect when you go to these places. Also, a lot of these are cases of criminals killing other criminals so a lot of people won't care too much.

But when you see some type of mass killing in what is considered a safe area, where just about every victim is a random innocent person it is much more attention grabbing. Two thugs shooting each other in a crime ridden area is expected, from Chicago to the favelas of Brazil. But when young children are murdered at school in a well off suburban area, it will raise some eyebrows.

I think the most important thing to note is the strict firearm laws in Australia did not stop mass murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Even without firearms, lone killers managed to get kill counts as high as 15.

And while this event had to be timed to a specific day with a large crowd, again we can see a massive number (87) killed via a vehicular attack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
The victim pool is an important aspect. As is the shock value of several deaths occurring at once.

But above and beyond that is the news media's obsession with supporting politicians and activist groups who seek to demonize guns and gun owners and restrict people's rights (also make people more dependent on government and thus more easily controlled). A "mass killer" who uses a knife, a car, and a gun to kill and wound a bunch of people will be described as a "gunman" and a "shooter" in media reports. Even killers who have not used guns have been mistakenly described by mainstream media outlets as "shooters".

If a person commits a mass killing using a truck, a knife, poison, arson, or a bomb, it will not get the same amount of media attention as if a gun is used.

Some mass killers clearly want fame/infamy - even if posthumously - and surely pick up on that fact.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Last edited by retiredAFcop; 12-31-2017 at 1:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.