• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.
It's not a logical fallacy, but simply being sensible.

When you close path X you have to consider what the actual effect on people who wanted to take path X will be. When there is a path Y that is only slightly inferior to X you'll simply push them to Y and it will have minimal effect.

The reality of your assault weapons ban:

62615052.jpg
Since you don’t know what *my* “assault weapons ban” would be you’re just arguing against a strawman.

I find it interesting that the anti-abortion proponents on the right aren’t dissuaded by an argument that there is no point in banning it because women Will just go somewhere else to get it. Yet somehow we are supposed to Give up on the face of such an uncompelling argument presented by people with unsupported opinions stated as fact.
They are trying to ban all paths, not merely one path.

The equivalent would be a total ban on the civilian possession of firearms.
 
First of all, Mother Jones (who came up with that name anyway?) is a far-left rag. But even their data, with too many categories, agree that most mass shootings are done with handguns.

Being far left doesn't mean they don't have a good database.

2017 is definitely an outlier here, due to Las Vegas. And that type of long range shooting is where a rifle is definitely preferable to a handgun, unlike close quarters rampages that most mass shootings are. Note also that the shooter used a now illegal bump stock to make his semiautomatic rifle quasi-automatic.
Exactly. He was a rich guy who could afford to spend a lot on his plans. That's quite a rarity, most mass shooters are pretty much losers. AFIAK we have had a total of two mass shootings where long-barrel weapons were actually relevant.
 
This whole "you can't ban a specific type of firearm" is a bullshit argument and here's why;

It's already happened.

Saiga-12s have been banned since 2014. And I don't see them being legal anytime soon. So banning a firearm that is popular with the most irresponsible of gun owners and is most likely the type used in mass shootings? Should be a piece of piss.
That's not about banning a type of firearm. Rather, it's about sanctions against a specific manufacturer. The Saiga-12 is in no way illegal, dealing with it's manufacturer is illegal.
 
You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.
Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?
Which part WERE accomplished with Glock 19’s? But sure, ban those fuckers as well.
Showing your real position--ban all them piece by piece.
 
You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.
Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?
Which part WERE accomplished with Glock 19’s? But sure, ban those fuckers as well.
Showing your real position--ban all them piece by piece.
You keep saying that, as though it were a bad thing.
 
The problem is your "concrete" point isn't--you act like we can cleanly divide guns into AR-15 and other.
Quibble quibble

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.
We tried it. The gun makers simply made cosmetic changes so their products no longer met the definition. Why should we not expect the same result from trying it again?
By the industry and putting adequate laws in place. And fuck the NRA. Any legitimacy they once enjoyed has long since been squandered by their corruption —just like the GOP.
 
And fuck the NRA.
How many mass shooters are NRA members? What percentage of the gun homicide offenders in Chicago are card carrying members? This absurd fixation on the NRA seems like an effort to deflect from bad policy and inconvenient facts.
 
And fuck the NRA.
How many mass shooters are NRA members? What percentage of the gun homicide offenders in Chicago are card carrying members? This absurd fixation on the NRA seems like an effort to deflect from bad policy and inconvenient facts.
The NRA enabled each and every single one of them, your sophistry notwithstanding.
 
And fuck the NRA.
How many mass shooters are NRA members? What percentage of the gun homicide offenders in Chicago are card carrying members? This absurd fixation on the NRA seems like an effort to deflect from bad policy and inconvenient facts.
The NRA enabled each and every single one of them, your sophistry notwithstanding.
How? By setting low to no bail? By pressuing politicians and police to take a kid-glove approach to crime?
 
How? By setting low to no bail? By pressuing politicians and police to take a kid-glove approach to crime?
Exactly. You're so smart.
It's so much easier to blame an organization that has no control over the problem than blame government officials who refuse to do their jobs.

 
It's so much easier to blame an organization that has no control over the problem than blame government officials who refuse to do their jobs.
I'm going to have to revise my previous statement on you being smart if you believe the NRA is powerless to stop mass shootings.
 
How? By setting low to no bail? By pressuing politicians and police to take a kid-glove approach to crime?
Exactly. You're so smart.
Lol!
Anything, to avoid acknowledging that there is correlation between the ubiquity of guns and the rates of murder, suicide and accidental deaths, comparing international data. In that set, no matter how you look at it, the USA is a total outlier. We are awash in firearms.
But the terror campaign against immigrants, murderers, poor people, and, you know - the 'wrong' people - must continue. If we can't don't outgun them, and kill 'em or lockemup ... the GQP will totally fall! Don't let them take away your guns! Buy MORE GUNS!
Don't let the Republican Party be starved of иRA Cash!
 
We already have that. Plenty of folks commiting homicides with illegal guns.
Presumably suicides too, but that data is not easily accessible.
FT_22.01.26_GunDeaths_1.png
Well, how many of the 797 gun homicides in Chicago for 2021 were suicides? How many were done with legal guns?
I have no idea. I'm talking about the ubiquity of guns in the US, not Chicago. They are included in the national stats. Presumably the data would look a lot better if Chicago wasn't included. It doesn't matter
Whether to outlaw guns or permit open carry of bazookas (outlawed under federal statute, but then again so is pot) like they did in Ward Colorado in the 1970s, is up to their government.
It's irrelevant.
 
I have no idea. I'm talking about the ubiquity of guns in the US, not Chicago. They are included in the national stats. Presumably the data would look a lot better if Chicago wasn't included. It doesn't matter
In any case, the NRA has nothing to do with it.

 
A sufficiently sweeping ban will stop most mass shooters but that's all you'll do about crime.

And that would be a worthy goal. I already said I’m not Compelled by the argument that if you can’t stop all crime there’s no point in stopping any crime.

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

Again a false dichotomy. It’s not all guns or no guns. If there are people who want to use guns for legitimate self-defense they won’t be bothered by common sense gun laws.

And I’d like to see the statistics of AR-15s used in self defense versus those used in mass shootings. Do you have that information or are you speaking what you’d like to be true?

You have no reasonable way to sort out the mass shooters from the self defense people. Both will appear law-abiding.

And just because AR-15 type guns appeal to people who want to make a statement doesn't mean that they're necessary.
So you still don't have any statistics to back up your bullshit claims?

Got it.
 
Back
Top Bottom