Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

How is defending the right to own guns the same as defending mass shootings?

That's completely insane.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 3:50 PM, Stealthycat said:

anti-gun people are shocked to think about the possibility but no .... violence can use any object and turn any object into an assault weapon

 

No, nobody is shocked to think about that and nobody thinks that people can only use guns to harm people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

No, nobody is shocked to think about that and nobody thinks that people can only use guns to harm people.  

but in the same breath, only semi-automatic rifles are targeted as a "solution" ........... which isn't reasonable or logical nor does it address the core problem

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

but in the same breath, only semi-automatic rifles are targeted as a "solution" ........... which isn't reasonable or logical nor does it address the core problem

 

actually, it's you rejecting incremental solutions that is being illogical.  in fact, nearly every post you make is based on either a logical fallacy, a deflection or a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -fish- said:

actually, it's you rejecting incremental solutions that is being illogical.  in fact, nearly every post you make is based on either a logical fallacy, a deflection or a lie.

incremental solutions ..... take the guns from 15-30 million American's to keep 2-3% of violence from using those semi-auto rifles (but lets not realize they'll just use handguns instead)

that's not a solution - that's an agenda, and a crazy one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

incremental solutions ..... take the guns from 15-30 million American's to keep 2-3% of violence from using those semi-auto rifles (but lets not realize they'll just use handguns instead)

that's not a solution - that's an agenda, and a crazy one

Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after?  Try telling the truth and not changing the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

actually, it's you rejecting incremental solutions that is being illogical.  in fact, nearly every post you make is based on either a logical fallacy, a deflection or a lie.

This sounds like an admission to an agenda. 

16 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after?  Try telling the truth and not changing the subject.

The difference is there were no gun buybacks during the last assault weapons ban. 

You're not comparing apples to oranges. And again shows an admission of an agenda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after?  Try telling the truth and not changing the subject.

truth ?

there are other things at play - The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment didn't it? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, or the lethality of gun crimes.

 

A 2017 review found that the ban did not have a significant effect on firearm homicides.[27]

A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[28] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives".[29][30]

A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[31]

In 2013, Christopher S. Koper, a criminology scholar, reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[32]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

but in the same breath, only semi-automatic rifles are targeted as a "solution" ........... which isn't reasonable or logical nor does it address the core problem

 

No, it's not "only" semi-auto rifles that are targeted as a solution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

No, it's not "only" semi-auto rifles that are targeted as a solution.  

then you are diving into -fish's zealot mentality .... incremental bans, removal, confiscations etc ........... and addressing the violence that's the core of it all? handguns? pffffhhhh   too hard to do that, its much easier to attack law abiding gun owners isn't it ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

truth ?

there are other things at play - The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment didn't it? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, or the lethality of gun crimes.

 

A 2017 review found that the ban did not have a significant effect on firearm homicides.[27]

A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[28] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives".[29][30]

A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[31]

In 2013, Christopher S. Koper, a criminology scholar, reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[32]

 

1.  It was not a ban.  Nobody but you ever says it was a ban.

2.  Fatalities from mass shootings decreased from the decade before and they increased after it ended.  That was the question.  None of what you posted contradicts that.   

Not answering the question asked is deflection.   Why do all of your posts contain either lies, deflection or logical fallacies?

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, -fish- said:

1.  It was not a ban.  Nobody but you ever says it was a ban.

2.  Fatalities from mass shootings decreased from the decade before and they increased after it ended.  That was the question.  None of what you posted contradicts that.   

Not answering the question asked is deflection.   Why do all of your posts contain either lies, deflection or logical fallacies.

I was going by the common naming of it - see link

You like studies and such .,.. I posted information that says the "assault weapons ban" really made no difference at all ............... why won't you discuss that? You clearly said " Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after? "

it didn't

so now where are you at with that ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

then you are diving into -fish's zealot mentality .... incremental bans, removal, confiscations etc ........... and addressing the violence that's the core of it all? handguns? pffffhhhh   too hard to do that, its much easier to attack law abiding gun owners isn't it ?

 

Search every page in this thread.   Find any time where I advocated for a ban or confiscation.   Why do you constantly lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I was going by the common naming of it - see link

You like studies and such .,.. I posted information that says the "assault weapons ban" really made no difference at all ............... why won't you discuss that? You clearly said " Did the period of 1994 to 2004 when there was a federal restriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons show less fatalities in mass shootings than the periods before and after? "

it didn't

so now where are you at with that ? 

I asked a specific question.  You didn't answer it.   Lies, deflection and logical fallacies are all you have.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Dick's Sporting Goods destroyed $5 million worth of assault rifles rather than sell them to the public.  I wonder how they knew what to destroy?  

It makes me laugh, the amount of people who are still upset with Dick's and refuse to buy anything from them now.  I honestly had no idea they even sold guns until they decided to stop selling them.  They act as if their rights were taken away because a business decided not to sell something anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

1.  It was not a ban.  Nobody but you ever says it was a ban.

2.  Fatalities from mass shootings decreased from the decade before and they increased after it ended.  That was the question.  None of what you posted contradicts that.   

Not answering the question asked is deflection.   Why do all of your posts contain either lies, deflection or logical fallacies?

1. You do not absorb material well.  If no one else called it a ban why is it called a ban in the Wikipedia article?

"The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition"

The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on September 13, 1994,

Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, or the lethality of gun crimes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

then you are diving into -fish's zealot mentality .... incremental bans, removal, confiscations etc ........... and addressing the violence that's the core of it all? handguns? pffffhhhh   too hard to do that, its much easier to attack law abiding gun owners isn't it ?

 

None of your post has anything to do with what I said.  I said nobody, or at least the people you are talking to in here, are suggesting to only do that.  Also, most you are interacting with are for gun bans, yet you keep posting that junk.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -fish- said:

I asked a specific question.  You didn't answer it.   Lies, deflection and logical fallacies are all you have.   

you refuse to answer almost all questions - deflect, deny, change the subject, .... and everyone see's it

 

3 hours ago, -fish- said:

Dick's Sporting Goods destroyed $5 million worth of assault rifles rather than sell them to the public.  I wonder how they knew what to destroy?  

a liberal told them what to destroy probably

idiotic action .... but some liberals are happy. Hope they did it right or they broke federal laws

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you refuse to answer almost all questions - deflect, deny, change the subject, .... and everyone see's it

 

Yeah, no.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

No, it's not "only" semi-auto rifles that are targeted as a solution.  

 

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

None of your post has anything to do with what I said.  I said nobody, or at least the people you are talking to in here, are suggesting to only do that.  Also, most you are interacting with are for gun bans, yet you keep posting that junk.  

 

we've talked around some on addressing violence ..... but almost always it reverts back to more regulations, restrictions, bans and even confiscations on law abiding gun owners and right now, specifically, semi-auto rifles that are rarely used in violence

its absolutely has to do with what you said - look at -fish ..... wanting to talk about the assault weapons ban and them totally ignore that many studies have shown it didn't impact violence much at all ..........then, when faced with that, refused to discuss it

I don't think you'll fall into that KarmaPolice - but yes, after Beto went into his Govt confiscation tirade and the crowds roared? At least they're telling the truth and nobody can deny bans and confiscation IS the goal of the Democratic Party in many ways

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, McJose said:

Yeah, no.

then what was his answer to the link I posted and the studies that showed his reference to the assault weapons ban ?

he wanted to use it to say hey, look how that ban helped!  it didn't much .... read the links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:

then what was his answer to the link I posted and the studies that showed his reference to the assault weapons ban ?

he wanted to use it to say hey, look how that ban helped!  it didn't much .... read the links

Quote

and everyone see's it

Just don't, please.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

 

 

we've talked around some on addressing violence ..... but almost always it reverts back to more regulations, restrictions, bans and even confiscations on law abiding gun owners and right now, specifically, semi-auto rifles that are rarely used in violence

its absolutely has to do with what you said - look at -fish ..... wanting to talk about the assault weapons ban and them totally ignore that many studies have shown it didn't impact violence much at all ..........then, when faced with that, refused to discuss it

I don't think you'll fall into that KarmaPolice - but yes, after Beto went into his Govt confiscation tirade and the crowds roared? At least they're telling the truth and nobody can deny bans and confiscation IS the goal of the Democratic Party in many ways

 

 

 

more lies and deflection.   I have posted two separate studies showing that in the period from 1994 to 2004 the number of fatalities from mass shootings was lower than the period before and after.   I never claimed anything else. 

I never claimed that a restriction on assault weapons had an effect on handgun violence or any other gun violence, so your studies about a different subject are just an irrelevant deflection.   You seriously can't go a single post without lies, logical fallacies or deflection.   

Now run along and lie about how I want to ban guns again.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -fish- said:

more lies and deflection.   I have posted two separate studies showing that in the period from 1994 to 2004 the number of fatalities from mass shootings was lower than the period before and after.   I never claimed anything else. 

I never claimed that a restriction on assault weapons had an effect on handgun violence or any other gun violence, so your studies about a different subject are just an irrelevant deflection.   You seriously can't go a single post without lies, logical fallacies or deflection.   

Now run along and lie about how I want to ban guns again.   

 

so the links/studies I posted you are saying are irrelevant and/or you don't like the sources or something like that I guess? 

not just the facts presented, but there are far more things in motion than just the assault weapons ban in 1994 .... crimes/violence had been going down anyway, as well as other things that could be simply a better economy, job growth, growing police forces .... 

I doubt you'll address it though - because once again, you're deflecting from questions - why do you do that ? too hard to answer? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

so the links/studies I posted you are saying are irrelevant and/or you don't like the sources or something like that I guess? 

not just the facts presented, but there are far more things in motion than just the assault weapons ban in 1994 .... crimes/violence had been going down anyway, as well as other things that could be simply a better economy, job growth, growing police forces .... 

I doubt you'll address it though - because once again, you're deflecting from questions - why do you do that ? too hard to answer? 

 

 

They are irrelevant to whether the laws in place from 1994-2004 were successful in reducing the number of fatalities from mass shootings, which is the question I asked you.   

If your premise were true, all gun violence would have dropped similarly.  It didn't.   Your deflection failed again.  

Honestly, at this point you just make me sad.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we already know there is no "gun" violence ... no more so than car violence, knife violence or anything else

now, murders have been decreasing steadily for decades, the 1994-2004 time frame was no different

mass shootings? define that ... 2 or more people? schools? etc 

I'm not deflecting - I showed you a link and multiple studies that the assault weapons ban as it was called did nothing much at all - 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

 

 

we've talked around some on addressing violence ..... but almost always it reverts back to more regulations, restrictions, bans and even confiscations on law abiding gun owners and right now, specifically, semi-auto rifles that are rarely used in violence

its absolutely has to do with what you said - look at -fish ..... wanting to talk about the assault weapons ban and them totally ignore that many studies have shown it didn't impact violence much at all ..........then, when faced with that, refused to discuss it

I don't think you'll fall into that KarmaPolice - but yes, after Beto went into his Govt confiscation tirade and the crowds roared? At least they're telling the truth and nobody can deny bans and confiscation IS the goal of the Democratic Party in many ways

 

 

 

Sure it can be part of their goal and platform, what I am arguing is that your use of "only" is very disingenuous and misleading.   I highly doubt that even the evil Beto is for ONLY doing this, and not for any programs that address mental illness, the economy, education, etc..  You know - all the other things that even you point to as being a part of the problem.  

Just because somebody suggests looking at guns as part of the solution it doesn't mean that this is the only thing they are for or are suggesting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

we already know there is no "gun" violence ... no more so than car violence, knife violence or anything else

This is an outright lie.  Also a logical fallacy and a deflection.  Trifecta!!!

Quote

now, murders have been decreasing steadily for decades, the 1994-2004 time frame was no different

thid is also a defection and a lie, since the question was limited to mass shootings.

mass shootings? define that ... 2 or more people? schools? etc 

deflection, but we’ve gone over it at least a dozen times in this thread  I’ll go with the FBI definition since it makes statistics more consistent f

I'm not deflecting - I showed you a link and multiple studies that the assault weapons ban as it was called did nothing much at all - 

another lie.

It must be sad being so afraid all the time and not being able to respond to any fact without resorting to lying.  

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

It makes me laugh, the amount of people who are still upset with Dick's and refuse to buy anything from them now.  I honestly had no idea they even sold guns until they decided to stop selling them.  They act as if their rights were taken away because a business decided not to sell something anymore.

I was pretty upset when McDonalds stopped selling their orange drink. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I was pretty upset when McDonalds stopped selling their orange drink. 

Wait, what's this now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Wait, what's this now?

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_drink

Quote

McDonald's Orange Drink, also often termed "orangeade" on menus until the 1970s; replaced with Hi-C Orange Lavaburst in some areas. It was discontinued in April 2017.

 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

Wait, what's this now?

Seriously. Something worth discussing. 

When i was in high school a friend of mine worked at mcdonalds. We used to play basketball in the summer and everybody would be waiting for him to show up after his shift. He would bring some of the syrup. We had one of those big orange coolers with a spout ready to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

I was pretty upset when McDonalds stopped selling their orange drink. 

assault soda

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

assault soda

 

That would be that baja blast crap from Mt Dew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

That would be that baja blast crap from Mt Dew. 

:no:

One of the best sodas ever created. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 2:27 PM, KarmaPolice said:

:no:

One of the best sodas ever created. 

I'm assaulted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

I'm assaulted. 

We should all cut back on our sodium intake.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The formula for the National Rifle Association after each horrific mass shooting has been: wait. Be patient. Oppose all quick legislation. Eventually the news will move on, and there will be no gun control. 

This strategy has been nearly 100% successful over the last two decades, and it was successful this time around as well. Remember the urgency on this issue from just a few weeks ago? Now you hear absolutely nothing about it, as intended.

There is no reason to believe that it won’t work again after the next mass shooting as well. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The formula for the National Rifle Association after each horrific mass shooting has been: wait. Be patient. Oppose all quick legislation. Eventually the news will move on, and there will be no gun control. 

This strategy has been nearly 100% successful over the last two decades, and it was successful this time around as well. Remember the urgency on this issue from just a few weeks ago? Now you hear absolutely nothing about it, as intended.

There is no reason to believe that it won’t work again after the next mass shooting as well. 

equally true is the left capitalizes on tragedy, using raw emotions of a horrible event to ram legislation home ,,,,, right ? The votes and support are rarely there for anti-gun legislation, but after a tragedy? 

 

arming of schools has taken off - when was the last school shooting ? its worked - can the people who were against it at least admit it ?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 12 year old carjacker operating in broad daylight at a busy grocery store.  Fascinating.  I would like to know more.  Where or how did he acquire the gun?  What was his purpose or intent in trying to take the car?  Who supervises the young man? 

 

Seems unlikely that even an immature mind could have conceived of getting away with the carjacking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN:  Shooter may still be out there.  3 people taken out on gurneys.  

Edited by beef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad, and from the experience of the rest of the world, eminently avoidable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.