This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
No there isn't.
And is still less than a third.
Not that I am in the 53%, but I can understand where they can see that. I'll agree it is moreso with the New York enforcment of the new laws then a national database IMO. But 53% probably feel if you give an inch they'll take a yard. In this case, it maybe if you give an inch they will have to take a mile, but it's still closer.
ATC1 said:
You took the word of high ranking police officers that act more like politicians than sheriffs as well as organizations paid to push an agenda and that is what you posted links to in this thread, the very same propaganda you point fingers at the other side for posting. I'm surprised you are not calling the police one survey propaganda so I will give you that, but you neglect to admit that you did not listen to the 80% of foot soldiers of the police that are saying universal background checks will not reduce violent crime. The question asked in the poll you are referencing is way too vague to have any relevance. It should have more accurately reflected the legislation that is trying to be passed, it should have asked opinions on the effectiveness they expect this to have on violent crime, it should have asked if they support how the application data is handled in that it would not be destroyed within 24 hours like happens today through FFL's and the NICS, but instead there would be severe data privacy concerns to the point that the data could (and most likely intended to) be used to build a gun registry, it doesn't even ask opinions on a national database which is required for UBC to have any hope of being useful. The politicians know this, you know this, and this is why there were obvious omissions covering the data privacy concerns. The quinnipiac poll question does not address the issue at hand, it dumbs it down to the point of being almost worthless. The poll questions in the police one survey are very direct and concise having much more bearing on the topic at hand, there is no ambiguity of intention. They outright say they will not enforce certain laws if they are passed, in line with what I previously posted about the CSPOA which you ignored.timschochet said:
Why don't you just ignore someone else from the same era. That's the same thing, right?He's a troll just ignore him.ATC1 said:mad sweeney said:
Salt Lake City - Man with a knife purchases the weapon at the local store. Pulls it out ans starts stabbing people. Two are injured and he looks for more people when a law abiding gun carrying citizen stops him, gets him to lay down the knife and waits for police.
Salt Lake City - Man with a knife purchases the weapon at the local store. Pulls it out ans starts stabbing people. Two are injured and he looks for more people when a law abiding gun carrying citizen stops him, gets him to lay down the knife and waits for police.
And at no point was I arguing that wouldn't be the case. It was simply a needle to the people who love to make the absolutely stupid argument that if these people didn't have access to guns they would just use another weapon.All of which (exception of explosives, obviously) are not only less effective, they are less fatal.
How will they not have access to guns? Stating a hypothetical like that is equally stupid. You come here to make a post about a guy going around cutting people with a knife at a publicly listed gun free zone, do you think he couldn't have gotten a gun if he wanted to? Do you think he decided to use a knife because guns weren't allowed on campus?
WHAT IS YOUR POINT, why respond if you don't read the clearly visible nested discussion above...In both scenarios (a person with a gun being there to stop the attacker, and there being no gun-owning law abiding citizen there to stop it) the attacker is guaranteed to hurt/kill more people than if he was using a knife. Its that simple. The reason I bring it up at all is because its part of the larger discussion that has been going on forever and in this thread...
The one with a gun to stop him = 2 victims. The one without a gun to stop him = 15 victims. That is the point.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-more-people-were-murdered-knive/
Well since they are aiming for the assault weapons in the federal ban I thought it was very fitting.
The point is, guns kill people. So if I can stop a mass murder with guns of 15 people or more and the downside is a stabbing of 15 people (where nobody dies) instead of 2, then I'll take that trade off.
The 2 I mentioned was in a stabbing and they survived.
My point was because of a law abiding citizen with a gun there are less victims.
Well, today a man stabbed 15 people, 5 of which were hardly injured, 2 of which were seriously injured and so far no one has died.Its not a reaching assumption at all that if he had a gun, the outcome would have been severely worse and likely would not have been tackled to the ground, or detained at all for that matter.
In your anecdotal situation... In several anecdotal situations that I know of, people died from being stabbed..
If guns were banned, do you think deaths from alternate weapons would not increase?
That didn't really answer my question now did it? If there were no guns, do you honestly think there would be more deaths?
boogie-men ans unicorns... yea... like the need to ban "assault type" rifles... when it's proven that assault rifles kill less people than knives..
Sure, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point. But at the same time, anyone who argues that they have been or will be injured by an assault weapons ban is wrong. I agree that the AWB isn't really addressing the problem as it stands now but it also doesn't really hurt progress. If gun rights advocates came to the table and offered up other meaningful change in return for assault weapons, then we might be somewhere.
It's pretty clear what my point was, you stated you were instigating your nonsense based off of a hypothetical situation that will never come true. I pointed out that your hypothetical situation where we lived in a world with no guns was as stupid if not more so than the case you were making bolded above since guns reduce the severity of incidents such as this when people are allowed to carry them into otherwise publicly listed gun free zones, such as Lone Star College. Just look at Israel if you want, to see how much safer a world without gun free zones is and they are allowed to carry fully automatic weapons concealed or otherwise.
Are you intentionally this dense? You clearly didn't read it at all, I never said in a world without guns, or even anything to that effect. I very clearly stated that this situation would have been worse if the man using a knife was in fact using a gun. Which was met predictably with an argument that no one was even contesting that if a person was there with a gun (presumably to try to stop the attacker) less people would have gotten hurt, which was never being argued even though it does not change in the slightest that more people would have been more seriously wounded if the attacker was using a gun...Are you oblivious to the discussion of guns in this country, am I to speak to you in a manner assuming that you know nothing about anything? I realize I made some assumptions in my response specifically that you paid any sort of attention to things that you apparently are so passionate about, was I wrong to do so? You do realize there is a large population of people that believe many of these tragedies would be less common and less harmful if CERTAIN PEOPLE (ie. not everyone) were not allowed their right to own a firearm and that the most common counter-point to this opinion is "well if they didn't have access to a gun they would just use another weapon" which even if it is true, are still less efficient tools for killing people.It's pretty clear what my point was, you stated you were instigating your nonsense based off of a hypothetical situation that will never come true. I pointed out that your hypothetical situation where we lived in a world with no guns was as stupid if not more so than the case you were making bolded above since guns reduce the severity of incidents such as this when people are allowed to carry them into otherwise publicly listed gun free zones. Just look at Israel if you want, to see how effective a world without gun free zones is.
It's pretty clear what my point was, you stated you were instigating your nonsense based off of a hypothetical situation that will never come true. I pointed out that your hypothetical situation where we lived in a world with no guns was as stupid if not more so than the case you were making bolded above since guns reduce the severity of incidents such as this when people are allowed to carry them into otherwise publicly listed gun free zones, such as Lone Star College. Just look at Israel if you want, to see how much safer a world without gun free zones is and they are allowed to carry fully automatic weapons concealed or otherwise.
I know I haven't really followed this thread much mainly b/c the stupidity is mind numbing and the arguments are so repetitive it gets tiring. But I thought we already debunked the whole Israel myth. You mean that the country with 7.3 guns/100 people is somehow safer b/c guns are always around b/c they don't have gun free zones? Or the fear that someone may have a gun, even though the likelihood is much higher in the US that someone is carrying (88 guns/100 people)? Yep, I'm sure the reason for Israel is safer b/c they have 7.3 guns/100 people while the US is more dangerous b/c the US only has 88 guns/100 residents but they have gun free zones.
Does Adam Lanza fall under your umbrella of certain people?Are you intentionally this dense? You clearly didn't read it at all, I never said in a world without guns, or even anything to that effect. I very clearly stated that this situation would have been worse if the man using a knife was in fact using a gun. Which was met predictably with an argument that no one was even contesting that if a person was there with a gun (presumably to try to stop the attacker) less people would have gotten hurt, which was never being argued even though it does not change in the slightest that more people would have been more seriously wounded if the attacker was using a gun...Are you oblivious to the discussion of guns in this country, am I to speak to you in a manner assuming that you know nothing about anything? I realize I made some assumptions in my response specifically that you paid any sort of attention to things that you apparently are so passionate about, was I wrong to do so? You do realize there is a large population of people that believe many of these tragedies would be less common and less harmful if CERTAIN PEOPLE (ie. not everyone) were not allowed their right to own a firearm and that the most common counter-point to this opinion is "well if they didn't have access to a gun they would just use another weapon" which even if it is true, are still less efficient tools for killing people.It's pretty clear what my point was, you stated you were instigating your nonsense based off of a hypothetical situation that will never come true. I pointed out that your hypothetical situation where we lived in a world with no guns was as stupid if not more so than the case you were making bolded above since guns reduce the severity of incidents such as this when people are allowed to carry them into otherwise publicly listed gun free zones. Just look at Israel if you want, to see how effective a world without gun free zones is.
There is no straw man in this argument, just because its contains a hypothetical comparison does not mean it is claiming one thing means another, nor am I trying to mislead anyone, in fact I've been quite clear in my point. Its a simple argument with no deception, some people don't deserve the right to own a firearm, and legislation should be in place to enforce it, the attack today is a show of why gun violence is different then all other kinds of violence.If people took the position that simply because someone could break a law that there was no reason for that law to exist there would be no reason to have a government (this is a straw man.)
You're both right
A country with only ~7.3 guns owned per 100 people still have 0 laws restricting individuals from concealed carry. Also if you read the post there is only ~7.3% of the population licensed to own a firearm due to living in dangerous areas or having dangerous job functions which would make them more likely to carry their weapon with them at all times.It's pretty clear what my point was, you stated you were instigating your nonsense based off of a hypothetical situation that will never come true. I pointed out that your hypothetical situation where we lived in a world with no guns was as stupid if not more so than the case you were making bolded above since guns reduce the severity of incidents such as this when people are allowed to carry them into otherwise publicly listed gun free zones, such as Lone Star College.
Just look at Israel if you want, to see how much safer a world without gun free zones is and they are allowed to carry fully automatic weapons concealed or otherwise.
You are making false and misleading assumptions.
The only way a "gun-nut" would remotely come close to making this comparison was if a full ban on all firearms and confiscation occurred nationwide, hello land of rainbows and unicorns, this is why your story fails.
