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
  #41  
Old 12-31-2017, 1:17 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 ECG_88 View Post
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.
When I was 17, my cousin, some friends, and I were being beaten with pipes and clubs by several gang members for taking a wrong turn when looking for a party and ending up in the wrong neighborhood. They had rammed our car with a large truck, and it was clear that they didn't intend for us to survive the encounter.

Someone from the neighborhood fired a gun into the air and told them to leave.

They stopped beating us, and we all survived - although one of the group was hospitalized.

An armed citizen saved lives that night - not just one, but several.

If you subscribe to the "If it saves one life, it's worth it" argument, then you must support the Second Amendment, as it saved my life.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-31-2017, 1:54 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I dealt with statistics all my life and saw numbers used to lie to the public every day when used by people with an agenda. In politics the agenda is greed and power and victims have to exist in order for the democrats to get a frenzy started. Who starts riots? Liberals. when was the last time conservatives started a riot in this country? None. When was the last time for liberals? Look to Oakland, Los Angeles, and New York in the last year. Need i say more? As long as a deviant government is going to put anti-social people back on the streets and protect their rights over the victims the victims have the right to protect themselves. We are not German Jews marching to the gas chambers. America fights back and we have had one civil war already. Ready the cannons on the left and ready the cannons on the right if need be.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-14-2018, 1:15 PM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,964
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

It’s pretty easy to lay their hypocrisy bare;

- Ask them if they think that since cars kill far, far more people each year than guns (~40,000 per year car deaths vs. ~10,000 murders by gun), that cars should be banned or at least further regulated. I mean, there is no background check / criminal history check required to buy a car.

- Ask them if they think that since intoxicated driving needlessly kills people, if alcohol & drugs should be banned or at least further regulated, and the brakes put on pot legalization. Of course as pot has been made easier to get in various states, cases of driving while stoned have increased, along with crashes caused by DWI.

- Ask them if they think that since cars & trucks are used by terrorists to kill more people than they do with guns, if they should be banned or further regulated.

They’ll look at you funny, prob say something about cars & trucks serving a greater societal purpose than guns, blah, blah blah...

The point is, they don’t care about saving lives, they just don’t understand / are ignorant of, or are bigoted against guns.

I mean, for decades, the #1 cause of death among children has been drowning - did I miss all the calls to ban pools and 5 gallon buckets?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-14-2018, 1:36 PM
the_tunaman's Avatar
the_tunaman the_tunaman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 426
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Because boogeyman... Justifies their illogical positions.
__________________
MAGA - drain the swamp^D^D^D^D^Dcesspool!
Proud deplorable wacist!
#NotMyStateGovernment!
Just remember BAMN - there is no level too low for them to stoop!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-14-2018, 4:30 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The Dems need: High crime areas and mass shootings to prove how bad guns are

The Republicans need: High crime areas and mass shootings to prove how much guns are needed

Two sides of the same coin, neither one really wanting to deal with crime and or mass shootings because each benefit a certain line of thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-14-2018, 4:56 PM
TheZouave TheZouave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 388
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Well, to give you some perspective, lets go point by point:

First, this is a false comparison, you've limited gun deaths to murders, but included all car deaths. A more accurate comparison would be to compare times cars were used to murder people, compared to guns. That statistic isn't nearly as kind. So if we open it to all deaths, they're roughly equal in number (37K car deaths to 34K gun deaths), and yet cars require insurance, licensing, and are subject to a great deal of safety regulations and requirements that guns are not subject to. So, please use accurate comparisons between the two.

Intoxicated driving is already heavily penalized, this is pretty much a straw-man argument, as you could make the same argument by replacing cars with guns: having guns while intoxicated greatly increases the risk of harming others or yourself, therefore guns should be more regulated. Having anything, really, while intoxicated, makes it more dangerous, so regulate everything? Guns, specifically, are meant to cause harm (even as a gun owner and 2nd Amendment supporter, I can recognize and admit that), and that we'd have heavier regulations on items that have an intrinsic use (that were not created explicitly to inflict harm), like cars, is somewhat surprising to me. Do I think a lot of our regulations are BS? Absolutely, but there are lots of states where you can still walk in and buy a gun more easily than getting a drivers license. That's just.... weird? to me.

Pointing at the infinitesimally small number of people killed by terrorists in the US as any type of statistical support for anything is just a non-starter. You're pretty much more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist in the US. Also I suspect that your number is incorrect - unless you're counting worldwide, in which case, your number is probably ALSO incorrect, as you're only talking mass casualty events, rather than ongoing warfare, executions, etc. In at least one story (which, admittedly, is not a great source), guns are used in 10% of attacks, but inflict 55% of deaths, there's a pretty compelling case that guns are indeed the most effective weapon, as they're, again, designed to inflict harm.
Source: http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...006-story.html

As for pools, you did, apparently, miss that many jurisdictions require pools to be fenced off, because of large numbers of toddler deaths.

It isn't hypocrisy, its just looking at it from a different perspective. There is a great deal of statistical evidence to contradict what you're saying, if you actually look at the numbers.

Does that mean we need more regulation? Not necessarily - the biggest thing we need is to improve the current regulation (including fixing the background check system, as it has huge, gaping holes - see recent shooting in Texas), and, unfortunately, have some form of mental health restrictions on gun ownership.

I don't want to start a shouting match, but we really need to, as gun owners, be a lot better about understanding the 'other side of the coin' if we want to be effective in fighting additional (unnecessary) regulations. Because they have valid points, and if we refuse to acknowledge/address that, things are going to just get worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrjonesUSA View Post
It’s pretty easy to lay their hypocrisy bare;

- Ask them if they think that since cars kill far, far more people each year than guns (~40,000 per year car deaths vs. ~10,000 murders by gun), that cars should be banned or at least further regulated. I mean, there is no background check / criminal history check required to buy a car.

- Ask them if they think that since intoxicated driving needlessly kills people, if alcohol & drugs should be banned or at least further regulated, and the brakes put on pot legalization. Of course as pot has been made easier to get in various states, cases of driving while stoned have increased, along with crashes caused by DWI.

- Ask them if they think that since cars & trucks are used by terrorists to kill more people than they do with guns, if they should be banned or further regulated.

They’ll look at you funny, prob say something about cars & trucks serving a greater societal purpose than guns, blah, blah blah...

The point is, they don’t care about saving lives, they just don’t understand / are ignorant of, or are bigoted against guns.

I mean, for decades, the #1 cause of death among children has been drowning - did I miss all the calls to ban pools and 5 gallon buckets?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-14-2018, 5:03 PM
TheZouave TheZouave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 388
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

To provide context for the above post - I'm a liberal. I've converted my girlfriend (previously staunchly anti-gun) into a target shooter who actually admits that to her friends (mostly other liberals). I did so by being open about the dangers of guns, the drawbacks, and educating her about what regulations are productive, and what are not, and why. I didn't treat her as an enemy, like a lot of people on here do to liberals, and that demonization of anti-2nd Amendment people means that they won't listen to you, and currently, they're winning. A change of tactics is necessary for continued survival. We can be effective by arguing for responsible gun ownership and giving ground in areas that are responsible to make concessions in, in exchange for loosening of regulations that make no sense, and inviting in new shooters. But for as long as you take the stance of drawing a line in the sand and saying "All regulation is evil and state-sponsored oppression!!!", then you're going to keep losing this fight.

Sorry, that's just the reality in CA, and eventually, the rest of the country. If you're not at the table making the laws, someone else will make them for you.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-14-2018, 5:13 PM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZouave View Post
First, this is a false comparison, you've limited gun deaths to murders, but included all car deaths. A more accurate comparison would be to compare times cars were used to murder people, compared to guns. That statistic isn't nearly as kind.
The really interesting and fair comparison would be accidental deaths. All the rest is just human intent playing out via various instrumentalities.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-14-2018, 5:32 PM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,743
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste....”

- Rahm Emanuel
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-14-2018, 6:08 PM
TheZouave TheZouave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 388
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

As long as you correct for amount of usage (how long you spend in your car vs how long you spend using guns), that would be very interesting, indeed. But I disagree with that being the fair comparison - intentionally inflicting harm on others, rather than negligently harming yourself or others, and the ease at which that is done, is a very valid thing to look into. Just... no one here actually wants to look at it that way because its a tough thing to address properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deedle View Post
The really interesting and fair comparison would be accidental deaths. All the rest is just human intent playing out via various instrumentalities.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-14-2018, 7:28 PM
jimmykan's Avatar
jimmykan jimmykan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Taken from the funny picture thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ostcount=39866

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-14-2018, 7:49 PM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZouave View Post
As long as you correct for amount of usage (how long you spend in your car vs how long you spend using guns), that would be very interesting, indeed. But I disagree with that being the fair comparison - intentionally inflicting harm on others, rather than negligently harming yourself or others, and the ease at which that is done, is a very valid thing to look into. Just... no one here actually wants to look at it that way because its a tough thing to address properly.
No, no one here really cares about the instrument evil people use to kill because we understand that people are clever problem solvers and people who want to kill will kill. People who want to die will kill themselves. The really valid measure is how often people accidentally kill themselves, as this is a measure of how intrinsically safe the device is.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-14-2018, 7:59 PM
Guns and guitars's Avatar
Guns and guitars Guns and guitars is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Idaho
Posts: 1,422
iTrader: 8 / 100%
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.


This...
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-14-2018, 11:43 PM
TheZouave TheZouave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 388
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

So... Why do we not have bombs freely available to everyone? Again, the logic of 'people are clever problem solvers' just isn't supported by the above statistics. Guns are pretty clearly one of the most effective means of inflicting harm, you will have a hard time making the case that the Las Vegas shooter would have been as effective as he was if you take guns out of the equation and forced him to use another tool. Adapted equipment is rarely as effective as purpose built equipment. Yes, people who want to be killers will kill, but that doesn't mean we should make nerve gas freely available either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deedle View Post
No, no one here really cares about the instrument evil people use to kill because we understand that people are clever problem solvers and people who want to kill will kill. People who want to die will kill themselves. The really valid measure is how often people accidentally kill themselves, as this is a measure of how intrinsically safe the device is.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-15-2018, 8:17 AM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,964
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZouave View Post
I don't want to start a shouting match, but we really need to, as gun owners, be a lot better about understanding the 'other side of the coin' if we want to be effective in fighting additional (unnecessary) regulations. Because they have valid points, and if we refuse to acknowledge/address that, things are going to just get worse.

While YOU make some valid points in your counter to my post, no; the other side doesn’t have many valid points at all.

Unless you consider the complete and total confiscation of all guns and a complete and total ban on gun ownership to be a “valid point.”

Are there people on the other side who are truly OK with gun ownership? Of course.

However, even then we always lose, they always gain.

It’s never, “ok I’ll trade you national reciprocity for universal background checks,” or “I’ll trade you 10-day wait for complete de-regulation of suppressors” it’s always we lose something, they gain. Zero sum game.

The fact of the matter is that if you want rights and if you want freedom, that is not perfect. That is messy.

People will die. People will get their feelings hurt. That’s life.

You could prevent all loss of life and all butthurt if you locked everyone in securely padded cells forever....but is that how you want to live?

It always boils down to how much freedom, how many rights are you willing to trade for the promise of some “safety”?

You cannot with a straight face argue that we need more gun laws; look at that situation in TX I believe; if the GOVERNMENT had done their job and reported the murderer properly, he might not have gotten his hands on the firearms he used in the church massacre.

THE GOVERNMENT isn’t even following their own damn laws properly.

Until THAT gets fixed, you can take your “valid points” and.....Not you personally, Zouave, but you get it....
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-15-2018, 8:18 AM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,964
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZouave View Post
So... Why do we not have bombs freely available to everyone? Again, the logic of 'people are clever problem solvers' just isn't supported by the above statistics. Guns are pretty clearly one of the most effective means of inflicting harm, you will have a hard time making the case that the Las Vegas shooter would have been as effective as he was if you take guns out of the equation and forced him to use another tool. Adapted equipment is rarely as effective as purpose built equipment. Yes, people who want to be killers will kill, but that doesn't mean we should make nerve gas freely available either.

But here again you rely on the completely false, fantastical premise of imagining some dream world where not only do guns not exist, but the very idea of them has been imagined out of existence.

What color unicorn do you prefer? I’ve always felt white was more majestic...
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:28 AM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZouave View Post
.... you will have a hard time making the case that the Las Vegas shooter would have been as effective as he was if you take guns out of the equation and forced him to use another tool
Nah, it's actually pretty easy.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:34 PM
bandook bandook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ex-Oakland
Posts: 1,228
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrjonesUSA View Post
...
Unless you consider the [...] complete and total ban on gun ownership to be a “valid point.”
...
Why is this not a valid point?

Can you defend against this without relying on the 2nd Amendment?
The constitution CAN be amended to remove the restriction placed on the government by the 2nd Amendment.

That IS the end goal, so if all you have to stand on is the "It's Written!", that leg is getting shakier by the day.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:40 PM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandook View Post
Why is this not a valid point?

Can you defend against this without relying on the 2nd Amendment?
If that would work, we would just ban murder and be done with it.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-15-2018, 1:20 PM
bandook bandook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ex-Oakland
Posts: 1,228
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deedle View Post
If that would work, we would just ban murder and be done with it.
er... you DO go to jail for murder.
Is that your proposal for what should happen to gun owners?
I sure hope not or I'm looking at multiple life sentences..

We (USA) are an exception to a very high level of restriction on firearms worldwide. The anti-gunners are saying that guns are to blame. Our position is that they are not and/or there is a pretty good reason for firearm ownership. (what is it?)

Currently, we have the Constitution on our side. The other side is trying to take that away - and they have the numbers.

Slogans (molon labe, Gadsens' flag etc) or BS arguments like 'what about cars' aren't going to cut it.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-15-2018, 3:46 PM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,964
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandook View Post
Why is this not a valid point?

Can you defend against this without relying on the 2nd Amendment?
The constitution CAN be amended to remove the restriction placed on the government by the 2nd Amendment.

That IS the end goal, so if all you have to stand on is the "It's Written!", that leg is getting shakier by the day.

I sure can but honestly, I'm just tired & don't feel like it.

At the end of the day, it boils down to if you believe that any being has the right to live, then inherent in that right to live is the right to self-defense, for if you cannot defend your life, what "right" do you have to live?

You can only lay claim to those rights that you can defend.

The only tool in existence that can equalize a 250lb MMA fighter and a 40 year old double-amputee is a .45 ACP.

That's the basic of it; there is no right to exist, no right to life, without the 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-15-2018, 3:48 PM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,964
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deedle View Post
We rest our case.
Trucks can be just as deadly as guns; in fact in this case, the truck was MORE deadly than any firearm / mass shooting.

Where are the coalitions and groups?

Where are the tearful parents moaning and gnashing their teeth for truck reform?

I'm dead serious....

Where are they?

All that tells me is that the life of a person killed by anything other than a gun is less valuable than the life of one killed by a firearm.

That's it. No other argument stands.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-15-2018, 3:48 PM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandook View Post
The anti-gunners are saying that guns are to blame.
Their assertion, their burden of proof.

If banning guns would be effective, why is banning murder not effective?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-15-2018, 6:01 PM
bandook bandook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ex-Oakland
Posts: 1,228
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrjonesUSA View Post
I sure can but honestly, I'm just tired & don't feel like it.

At the end of the day, it boils down to if you believe that any being has the right to live, then inherent in that right to live is the right to self-defense, for if you cannot defend your life, what "right" do you have to live?

You can only lay claim to those rights that you can defend.

The only tool in existence that can equalize a 250lb MMA fighter and a 40 year old double-amputee is a .45 ACP.

That's the basic of it; there is no right to exist, no right to life, without the 2A.
... and this is where the conversation should always be...
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:03 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZouave View Post
So... Why do we not have bombs freely available to everyone? Again, the logic of 'people are clever problem solvers' just isn't supported by the above statistics. Guns are pretty clearly one of the most effective means of inflicting harm, you will have a hard time making the case that the Las Vegas shooter would have been as effective as he was if you take guns out of the equation and forced him to use another tool. Adapted equipment is rarely as effective as purpose built equipment. Yes, people who want to be killers will kill, but that doesn't mean we should make nerve gas freely available either.
Well, congrats on getting some anti gun liberals to the shooting range.

But, if they still continue to Vote and Support the Democrat Party,
They Still Support Gun Control.

Timothy McVeigh used, in your words, used "another tool."

The Oklahoma City Bombing
Truck Bomb
Killed 168
Wounded 680
Damaged 324 buildings & 86 cars in 16 block radius.
$652 Million Dollars in estimated damages.


"Bombs" ARE "freely available to everyone", for the most part, with just
a modicum of research and gathering of readily available materials.

Statistically, its not a problem, as most of the 196 million Adults
in America are not prone to murdering people.

And as far as "other tools" being available:

Americans already legally own Machine Guns, Tanks, Cannons, Gatling guns,
older military jets, Mini Guns, Flame throwers, 50 Caliber rifles,
Armored vehicles, Howitzers, etc.

It doesn't appear to be a problem... they have an excellent track record
of not hurting anyone with them.





Big Sandy 2016 SAR Promo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiVFaJ2o3KU



Freedom is Messy, by its Very Nature, but is well worth the cost, which is
why so many people come to the United States to have a taste of it.



Noble
Reply With Quote
  #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
  #67  
Old 02-04-2018, 4:23 PM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,765
iTrader: 2 / 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.
yep; another big issue... almost all the real gun violence comes from a few places... on the other hands other parts of the country have a lot of guns and UK levels of gun violence.

and on the other hand; my mother was ER nurse in LA in the early 70s and said gang members had the violence thing down, without guns, just fine back then. Chains, knives, bats, et cetera... lots of them in the ER every week.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-11-2018, 5:35 PM
CNCoolantsales CNCoolantsales is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Some people think a number of mass shootings that quickly push gun control are false flag operations and they don't follow the official narrative as there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions. just saying
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-11-2018, 7:13 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,517
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

they are obsessed with it because it furthers the cause of gun control with no effort.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-12-2018, 8:18 AM
newbutold newbutold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: CA
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mass shooters are nut cases and shouldn't have access to firearms.

If more sane citizens carried guns, the insane, would-be mass killers would be stopped much sooner.
__________________
"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people."

In spite of his lack of honesty, morals, ethics, and class, Donald was the better candidate at the time.

Only witches fear witch hunts, cast insults and dismiss real news reporting.

Yes, the FBI investigates crimes and crooks go to jail.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-23-2018, 10:14 PM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,765
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZouave View Post
So... Why do we not have bombs freely available to everyone? Again, the logic of 'people are clever problem solvers' just isn't supported by the above statistics. Guns are pretty clearly one of the most effective means of inflicting harm, you will have a hard time making the case that the Las Vegas shooter would have been as effective as he was if you take guns out of the equation and forced him to use another tool. Adapted equipment is rarely as effective as purpose built equipment. Yes, people who want to be killers will kill, but that doesn't mean we should make nerve gas freely available either.
Bombs are freely available... by putting them togeather... and you'll see more of them used if guns are harder to get. They're also more effective so guns being harder to get will result in more total fatalities in attacks. If it ever happened; I expect the gun violence crowd refuse to concede anything.

As to the Las Vegas attack; if he couldn't find guns he would have planned a totally different means to attack. Provided he didn't do the whole thing because he was anti gun.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-23-2018, 10:18 PM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 708
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
It’s all about getting votes

Actually, it's all about raising money. The Dems could have implemented draconian gun laws after 2008 but they didn't. Why? First is they know that the majority of Americans are not comfortable with laws limiting the access to firearms and, Second they like the fact that they can raise a lot of money after each new shooting.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-24-2018, 1:00 PM
AceGirlsHusband's Avatar
AceGirlsHusband AceGirlsHusband is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,657
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Because shooting more than 1 person at a time gets 24/7 coverage from CNN.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Lorcin L380 with bottle opener mag attachment
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-24-2018, 1:08 PM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,260
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Add copy sales for media.

Viewers love gruesome storys to elevate themselves.

Politicians get the limelight to make stupid ignorant statements.
__________________
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
  #75  
Old 02-24-2018, 6:48 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gabby Gifford has reportedly raised over 1.2 million dollars on from the Florida killings.

Mass killings involving guns are moneymakers for media, and for anti-gun organizations.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-24-2018, 7:12 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 9,083
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

I don't know what kind of echo chambers some of you guys live in. But it's astounding to me that you'd feel the need to ask this question.

They are "obsessed" with mass shootings (and yeah, they'll invoke other countries) because they rarely ever happen in other countries.

Yes, the chances of Little Billy of getting shot in school are probably lower than him getting hit by a car. That's true and you need to remind those anti-gun parents.

But there are two things to consider:

1. It's a perfectly normal emotional response to have. It's absolutely mind-blowing that we have mass shootings.

2. Those mass shootings don't happen in other developed countries. The few instances it has happened (Norway comes to mind), it was an outlying anecdote. There is no point denying it.

So if you want to counter that obsession, remind them that even though they have been happening at an alarming rate lately in the U.S., they remain anecdotal statistically ("anecdote" is obviously not the word you want to use).

Look, I see people who define themselves as conservative and pro-gun, and they are obsessed with terrorism and illegal immigration. They talk about it with the same irrational fear as anti-gun liberals obsessing over mass shootings.

It's the same thing.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-24-2018, 8:23 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
I don't know what kind of echo chambers some of you guys live in. But it's astounding to me that you'd feel the need to ask this question.

They are "obsessed" with mass shootings (and yeah, they'll invoke other countries) because they rarely ever happen in other countries.

Yes, the chances of Little Billy of getting shot in school are probably lower than him getting hit by a car. That's true and you need to remind those anti-gun parents.

But there are two things to consider:

1. It's a perfectly normal emotional response to have. It's absolutely mind-blowing that we have mass shootings.

2. Those mass shootings don't happen in other developed countries. The few instances it has happened (Norway comes to mind), it was an outlying anecdote. There is no point denying it.

So if you want to counter that obsession, remind them that even though they have been happening at an alarming rate lately in the U.S., they remain anecdotal statistically ("anecdote" is obviously not the word you want to use).

Look, I see people who define themselves as conservative and pro-gun, and they are obsessed with terrorism and illegal immigration. They talk about it with the same irrational fear as anti-gun liberals obsessing over mass shootings.

It's the same thing.
We have the Same emotional response of horror & sorrow as the Anti's.

If we had an Honest, unbiased media, discussions could be more rational.

But we don't.

People are being mislead, unaware they are being lied to by a legacy
corporate media that doesn't even try to publish the truth anymore,
its mostly Anti Gun Propaganda at this point.

As shown by Wikileaks, the majority of legacy mass media, while pretending
to be neutral journalists, supports the Democrats, and Democrats are the
ones Actively Attacking the 2nd Amendment... it has resulted in memes
like "CNN = Clinton News Network".

Furthermore, we have Billionaire Elitists like Bloomberg and Soros who
continue to dump endless piles of cash to support the Anti Gun Movement,
which would probably fall apart without their guidance and support.

I posit the Gun Control Advocates help create these horrible events
because they refuse to evaluate the situation realistically, for example,
they choose to ignore 98% of Mass Shootings occur in Gun Free Zones,
and yet the don't want to alter their policy, just the unrealistic mantra
of Banning "Assault Weapons" or similar nonsense, which, as you know
will have Zero Effect on future Mass Shootings.

And their opposition to armed, trained vetted school guards, as well as
allowing Teacher Volunteers, trained in CCW, to protect the kids,
something that Utah and other states already have, is frustrating,
since they refuse to even consider it, despite having numerous
states that have successfully implemented it.


Noble

Last edited by Noble Cause; 02-24-2018 at 10:07 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-24-2018, 8:58 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 a1c View Post
2. Those mass shootings don't happen in other developed countries. The few instances it has happened (Norway comes to mind), it was an outlying anecdote. There is no point denying it.

Actually, we come in 12th (frequency of mass public shootings per 1 million residents).

Norway, Finland, France, Austria, Belgium, even Switzerland are ahead of us.

And Canada is right behind us.

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

The difference is the media coverage. American tragedies get much more international coverage than those in other countries.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-24-2018, 10:09 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,204
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The gun grabber arguments are all specious and they well know it.

US has more school shootings, because it has more kids on mood altering drugs than anywhere else.

AR's are popular so of course they show up more than unpopular guns
Banning them would achieve absolutely nothing.

The gun grabbers know this, they want to ban ARs because they think they can, and once they successfully ban *something* (they don't care what) it will be easier to ban the next (admitted to on TV btw), and so on - until only govt and criminals have guns.

GFZ have killed more kids than any law on the books, repealing it should save at least one life - so we have to do it!

CCW saves lives - so we have to do it!
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-24-2018, 10:16 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 9,083
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredAFcop View Post
Actually, we come in 12th (frequency of mass public shootings per 1 million residents).

Norway, Finland, France, Austria, Belgium, even Switzerland are ahead of us.

And Canada is right behind us.

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

The difference is the media coverage. American tragedies get much more international coverage than those in other countries.
Well look, I like John Lott, but that is some serious number massaging here using a very narrow time period - and it's convenient that it managed to include some particularly violent episodes of terrorism in Europe.

(By the way, I'm familiar with those countries, I lived in some of them.)

But there's also another reason you'll still lose your argument with antis on this subject: none of the shootings in Europe cited in that compilation occurred in schools. School mass shootings are a U.S. thing, and you won't be able to deny it. That's what so many people in the U.S. and beyond are horrified. It's the fact that the victims are mostly kids.

That's why the public opinion is turning and companies are dropping their partnership with the NRA. Everytime a school shooting happens, they see the NRA and some pro-2A folks deny that we do have a problem.

So there's no point denying it (I'm not saying you or everybody does), but mostly I find it weird that some people here seem to fail to understand anti-gunners' reactions on this issue. You don't have to be manipulated by the liberal media to think there's something really screwed up here.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
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 2:15 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.