What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

USA Shootings (2 Viewers)

Wait, the gun guys are complaining that they shouldn’t be criticized for basing their arguments on logical fallacies?  But without fallacies and lies, we might as well not post!

stalker posts are hilarious

 
Notice that #1 ... the woman was right. #2 the liberal crowd tried to bully and harass her into silence. #3 she had a gun on her hip ... nobody was worried at all. Why ?

A Colorado woman confronted Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke Thursday on his controversial proposal to go after high-powered weapons through a mandatory buyback program.

"I am here to say: Hell, no, you’re not," Lauren Boebert told O'Rourke, passionately defending her rights under the Second Amendment.

"I have four children, I am 5-foot-0, 100 pounds, I cannot really defend myself with a fist. ... I want to know how you're going to legislate that because a criminal breaks the law, so all you're going to do is restrict law-abiding citizens, like myself."

According to the Denver Post, 32-year-old Boebert drove three hours from the town of Rifle to the event and is the owner of a restaurant where the staff carries firearms. As she spoke, a handgun was holstered at her side.

Many in the crowd tried to shout over Boebert as she spoke, but O'Rourke intervened, calling on the audience to be "respectful" and let her speak.
What an absolute lunatic.  

 
Remember how only a few days ago we were told that on Friday Trump would unveil a gun restriction proposal? No mention today. He continues to hope the entire issue will fade without him having to commit himself. 

 
Notice that #1 ... the woman was right. #2 the liberal crowd tried to bully and harass her into silence. #3 she had a gun on her hip ... nobody was worried at all. Why ?

A Colorado woman confronted Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke Thursday on his controversial proposal to go after high-powered weapons through a mandatory buyback program.

"I am here to say: Hell, no, you’re not," Lauren Boebert told O'Rourke, passionately defending her rights under the Second Amendment.

"I have four children, I am 5-foot-0, 100 pounds, I cannot really defend myself with a fist. ... I want to know how you're going to legislate that because a criminal breaks the law, so all you're going to do is restrict law-abiding citizens, like myself."

According to the Denver Post, 32-year-old Boebert drove three hours from the town of Rifle to the event and is the owner of a restaurant where the staff carries firearms. As she spoke, a handgun was holstered at her side.

Many in the crowd tried to shout over Boebert as she spoke, but O'Rourke intervened, calling on the audience to be "respectful" and let her speak.
What an absolute lunatic.  
I want to make a joke but out of respect for my comrade mods I will not as I would have to self ban.

 
Notice that #1 ... the woman was right. #2 the liberal crowd tried to bully and harass her into silence. #3 she had a gun on her hip ... nobody was worried at all. Why ?

A Colorado woman confronted Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke Thursday on his controversial proposal to go after high-powered weapons through a mandatory buyback program.

"I am here to say: Hell, no, you’re not," Lauren Boebert told O'Rourke, passionately defending her rights under the Second Amendment.

"I have four children, I am 5-foot-0, 100 pounds, I cannot really defend myself with a fist. ... I want to know how you're going to legislate that because a criminal breaks the law, so all you're going to do is restrict law-abiding citizens, like myself."

According to the Denver Post, 32-year-old Boebert drove three hours from the town of Rifle to the event and is the owner of a restaurant where the staff carries firearms. As she spoke, a handgun was holstered at her side.

Many in the crowd tried to shout over Boebert as she spoke, but O'Rourke intervened, calling on the audience to be "respectful" and let her speak.
She would still have access to bats, knives and cars.

 
She would still have access to bats, knives and cars.
Very true.  

I read a lot how a gun ban won't do a thing (i assume this means cause no reduction in deaths) because people will use bats and knives.  If that is true that must mean who writes that must believe that bats and knives are just as effective to kill people with.  If that is true, then they should be able to defend themselves with bats and knives.   

 
Very true.  

I read a lot how a gun ban won't do a thing (i assume this means cause no reduction in deaths) because people will use bats and knives.  If that is true that must mean who writes that must believe that bats and knives are just as effective to kill people with.  If that is true, then they should be able to defend themselves with bats and knives.   
Only violent people can use anything as a weapon with equal effect.   Law abiding citizens need assault weapons.  

 
If we’re going to have mandatory bat buybacks in the future, I vote we begin with my team, the Los Angeles Angels, (minus Mike Trout of course.) 

 
KarmaPolice said:
Very true.  

I read a lot how a gun ban won't do a thing (i assume this means cause no reduction in deaths) because people will use bats and knives.  If that is true that must mean who writes that must believe that bats and knives are just as effective to kill people with.  If that is true, then they should be able to defend themselves with bats and knives.   
It's also true that that person is not mentally fit enough to own a gun.

 
Funny how the people here are so concerned with the opinions of two pro gun posters on a random message board. But when we post about mandatory gun buybacks, proposed by two Presidential candidates, we are the ones being ridiculous.

Glad to know I carry as much power in regards to policy change as Beto and Kamala.

 
Funny how the people here are so concerned with the opinions of two pro gun posters on a random message board. But when we post about mandatory gun buybacks, proposed by two Presidential candidates, we are the ones being ridiculous.

Glad to know I carry as much power in regards to policy change as Beto and Kamala.
people are scared

they fear the violent people who terrorize with the rare actions of a mass shooting .... less fearful over everyday violence but its still a fear

they don't want to protect themselves, they want someone else to protect them .... and they'll agree with anything that's shouted at them that is under the disguise of " it will make you safer"

they don't have guns, they don't care if they're banned .... they don't care that other people lose rights. that's why its the way it is 

 
Amusing post coming from the guy living behind 4-5 layers of security at his house and is afraid of the government coming for his guns.  

 
people are dumb.
I think that is universally true - I've lost my faith in people, even the best people you know are likely liars :(   and rotten at their core

Anybody wanting to ban a gun used in  2% of all deaths (BETO has finally at least shown everyone the truth on the Democrat agenda) using guns as weapons and thinking it'll help? 

yeah .. that's kinda dumb and truly not trying to fight the core problem

 
I think that is universally true - I've lost my faith in people, even the best people you know are likely liars :(   and rotten at their core

Anybody wanting to ban a gun used in  2% of all deaths (BETO has finally at least shown everyone the truth on the Democrat agenda) using guns as weapons and thinking it'll help? 

yeah .. that's kinda dumb and truly not trying to fight the core problem
It's really more like 8% of gun crimes, but nobody expects you to tell the truth.   The real question is "do assault weapon bans accomplish anything?" Since we have data from a 10-year period where they were restricted (not banned) by the federal government (even with pretty poor legislation), based on the actual facts, the answer is yes, and multiple studies have confirmed it.

When looking more narrowly at active shooter incidents, researchers have found a correlation between the law and less frequent, less deadly gun rampages. There’s a logic to that finding: The weapons the ban covered are disproportionately used in mass shootings, so there was greater potential for them to make a difference with those crimes.

Louis Klarevas is a research professor at Columbia University Teachers College and the author of Rampage Nation, which examines American mass shootings and efforts to prevent the killings. His research looked at mass shootings resulting in six or more deaths, which he refers to as massacres, because they are “the most dangerous and threatening to American public safety.”

He found that deaths in such high-fatality mass shootings dropped by 25 percent under the ban. Massacre deaths involving assault weapons fell by 40 percent, fatalities involving both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines fell by 54 percent. After the ban lapsed, mass shootings and related deaths surged. “We know that during the federal assault weapon ban, we saw some significant reductions in high-fatality mass shootings compared to the decade before the ban and the decade after it expired,” he said. “What we don’t know exactly is the mechanism behind that change.”

A 2019 study looking at the impact of the federal law on mass shooting deaths arrived at a similar conclusion: While new assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were outlawed, mass shooting fatalities were 70 percent less likely than during the decades before and since.
If a restriction decreases the type of violence that it is addressing, even though nobody expects it to eliminate all gun deaths, a 70 percent reduction in mass shootings can only be called a success.  A more robust ban than the 1994 restriction can only be expected to have a greater effect.

Beto's extreme position also doesn't represent the majority of Democrats, but the NRA does love it as a talking point, even if the talking point is false.

Source

 
It's really more like 8% of gun crimes, but nobody expects you to tell the truth.
Where did you get this number?

I found this that said it was 4% of gun murders. 

I find it very difficult to believe that the number of other gun crimes involving these weapons would be higher. I dont think ar15 stick ups are very common. 

 
Where did you get this number?

I found this that said it was 4% of gun murders. 

I find it very difficult to believe that the number of other gun crimes involving these weapons would be higher. I dont think ar15 stick ups are very common. 
It’s in the link I posted.  The numbers vary based on the source of the data and how a gun crime is defined.  4% could be accurate.  What I haven’t seen is a credible source that supports 2%. 

 
It’s in the link I posted.  The numbers vary based on the source of the data and how a gun crime is defined.  4% could be accurate.  What I haven’t seen is a credible source that supports 2%. 
I think stealthy is speaking specifically to the ar15 when he says that, but i could be wrong. 

Looks like that 8% figure comes from a 2004 study. 

I dont care if it was 1% i am still in favor of banning them. Just thought it was a bit of an unfair characterization of what our feline friend said. 

 
I think stealthy is speaking specifically to the ar15 when he says that, but i could be wrong. 

Looks like that 8% figure comes from a 2004 study. 

I dont care if it was 1% i am still in favor of banning them. Just thought it was a bit of an unfair characterization of what our feline friend said. 
If I see a source for 2% that is credible I’ll acknowledge it.  I haven’t yet.

 
If I see a source for 2% that is credible I’ll acknowledge it.  I haven’t yet.
Well all rifles accounted for 4% of gun murders.

So it seems pretty logical that assault rifles would be less than that. 

Assault rifles are not an official statistic tracked by the fbi. 

 
people are scared

they fear the violent people who terrorize with the rare actions of a mass shooting .... less fearful over everyday violence but its still a fear

they don't want to protect themselves, they want someone else to protect them .... and they'll agree with anything that's shouted at them that is under the disguise of " it will make you safer"

they don't have guns, they don't care if they're banned .... they don't care that other people lose rights. that's why its the way it is 
Most of us aren't scared for ourselves. You, on the other hand...

 
@KarmaPolice the only one of those stats that seems to be junk is the 8%.

If we are talking gun deaths, assault rifles definitely are less than 2%. 

I personally prefer to separate suicides when talking about guns. 

 
Amusing post coming from the guy living behind 4-5 layers of security at his house and is afraid of the government coming for his guns.  
most people live behind 5 layers or more - how many layers do you think BETO has ?

how many layers do you have? locks, fencing, neighborhood watch, dog, security lights etcetc ?

I'm not "afraid" of the Govt coming for my guns, Beto has shown us that's exactly the plan , its a reality

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Next time someone is killed with a stray knife, please let me know.
exactly - nobody is killed by a stray knife and a gun isn't violent

"467 people were killed with “blunt objects,” like hammers and clubs in 2017, 403 were killed with rifles, the recent FBI crime statistics show."

"Knives or cutting instruments” were used to kill 1,591 people, the 2017 crime figures show, while 403 were killed with rifles."

so now .... what sense is this rallying cry for banning semi-auto rifles ?

 
most people live behind 5 layers or more - how many layers do you think BETO has ?

how many layers do you have? locks, fencing, neighborhood watch, dog, security lights etcetc ?

I'm not "afraid" of the Govt coming for my guns, Beto has shown us that's exactly the plan , its a reality
Who cares how much Beto has?

I have 1 of those listed I guess, but we don't really use it (locks).   I think you are an outlier that has that much security at your house, but I could be wrong.  

 
you mean deaths, crimes and murders?   why does the weapon being chosen matter that much ? 
If one weapon is a lot more effective at killing people and more likely to cause death by accident, then of course the weapon matters and should be considered as part of the discussion.  

 
@KarmaPolice the only one of those stats that seems to be junk is the 8%.

If we are talking gun deaths, assault rifles definitely are less than 2%. 

I personally prefer to separate suicides when talking about guns. 
Just pointing out that is a huge part of the frustration with this topic.  We have 3 people in a discussion and they used 3 different terms to discuss a stat.   Then you say you like to take out suicides, but some people don't.  

 
then tell me at night, do you lock your doors? do you lock your car when you park it? do you have a security system or yard fenced or live in a gated community ? 
Yes, I lock my doors at night. No, that doesn't have anything to do with guns. Anybody coming into my house or car, is not coming to kill me. They just want to rob me. I would not shoot somebody for robbing me.

 
Next time someone is killed with a stray knife, please let me know.
So you're siting intent? Death without intending to kill.

What is the intent of a drunk driver? When a drunk driver kills someone, it is the equivalent of a stray bullet. 

 
If one weapon is a lot more effective at killing people and more likely to cause death by accident, then of course the weapon matters and should be considered as part of the discussion.  
You mean the way alcohol is a likely cause of death by accident? 

 
No, not like that at all, KC.  
Why not?

You want to make a statement like:

If one weapon thing is a lot more effective at killing people and more likely to cause death by accident, then of course the weapon that thing matters and should be considered as part of the discussion.  
We know that hard liquor has a different effect on people than wine or beer. Does the CDC, ATF, or main stream media report what percent of DUI fatalities are caused by Jack Daniels vs Riunite Lambrusco? 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top