It’s a matter of statistics and risk management in general. I’ll draw a comparison with that bullshit statistics how “furniture killed more people in the US than (islamic) terrorism”
Terrorism and mass shootings are scalable, which means that, unlike deaths from falling furniture, you cannot predict future performance from past perfomance, and all you’d need is one outlier to skew the numbers.
Why are we talking our shoes at the airport when there hasn’t been a terror attack on an airplane for over a decade? Surely, the number of death from terrorism is “roughly the same”
By insisting on the absolute sanctity of the 2A manifesting itself on some very specific aspects of gun ownership (which have outlived it’s initial purpose or are not applicable in it’s original intent) you’re making freely available types of weapons and modifications that can drastically scale up the body count of a massacre.
Shooting guns is fun. Bump fire is even more fun. But that ability to have “fun” (let’s face it, you’re not going to stop agents of a oppressive government with a bump stock) is supposedly more sacrosanct than lives of people.
When you can’t say school or mass shooting without putting “another” in front maybe it’s not hysteria.
Because NRA types don’t speed? And guess what? If a cop sees you texting or talking on your phone or speeding, he can pull you over, ask for certain documents, issue a ticket and even arrest you. NRA types, as you call them, want to walk around openly carrying their weapons without any expectation that a cop will stop and question them.
What? You should be telling popular culture and society that at the moment, not me. I’m not pulling this out of my nose. The NRA, and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to them, or seen as in anyone associated with them, are basically socially acceptable/trendy enemy number 1. Seriously, that’s a ludicrous comment. You’re either pretending, or you aren’t paying attention.
Then why try to make ME define “NRA type” if you already accept demonization and caricature as standard procedure?. You already knew I wasn’t making up the stereotyping and vilifying. So, why try to bog it down by demanding that I be responsible for defining who these people are? Look, I’m going on break.
A guy in France killed 86 people with a truck. People drink and drive and kill 10s of thousands of people. And again, more people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and fists etc in the US than with rifles. But please, go on and tell me why those lives aren’t politicized.
Anyone who thinks the regressive left doesn’t want your guns is delusional, hence why they always bring up Australia.
Um, that’s my line, not yours. This is the whole point of the discussion. The thread is gun policy in the US so when people say we need “common sense” gun laws, I’m asking what those laws would be.
At this point, I’m not sure what you’re even arguing. Are you ok with people having Ar-15’s? Do you have a certain policy in mind to help with mass shooters?
Who wasn’t French so now you are adding terrorism to the discussion.
Again, different subject.
No, you are asking what those laws would be minus any discussion of AR-15 regulation.
That’s because you aren’t paying attention. I have only said that the idea of gun owners taking on a tyrannical government is a fantasy. Maybe the Founders wanted that but times have changed. People can think that their guns will protect them from tyranny but the government doesn’t need their guns to implement tyranny.
No, I said it’s silly. Please explain how taking away AR-15s will help. I’m open to discussion…
Oh, I didn’t think we had parameters on what killings mattered. Ok, noted. Can I use Timothy McVeigh or na? 160 dead.
No, no it’s not. You’re completely missing the point. Why are guns the only thing blamed when someone uses it to kill another? Does anyone protest beer and call beer companies a terrorist organization when someone kills a family of four because they drank and drove? Knives aren’t politicized. Cars aren’t politicized. Bats/blunt objects aren’t politicized.All those lead to waaaaaay more deaths than mass shootings with rifles. We blame the people for those killings but when guns enter the equation, we blame the tool, even though it’s a fundamental right to self preservation.
We’re going to have to just agree to disagree about the tyrannical government part. I don’t care if you have a better chance of winning the powerball 5 times in one lifetime than to have to defend yourself against a tyrannical government. I’d rather have that option than not. I mean, Trump is literally Hitler I’ve heard so I’d rather just be prepared.
Do you have any thoughts on how to curb mass shootings or what exactly are you arguing? That the 2nd A is not needed anymore?
But yeah, what exactly are you saying? Are you for confiscating what are now legal firearms (AR-15), outlawing future purchases of firearms? Everybody is just assuming you’re anti-amend…I mean, you ARE ridiculing what is apparently the greatest motivation for the founders to even recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as expressed in the 2nd). Everybody is just assuming your position. So tell us. AR-15 has to go, yes or no? What else?
In a discussion about mass shootings I think it would be self-evident.
Because we are talking about mass shootings.
I don’t agree with that.
And yet, no one came to the defense of people who were victims of stop and frisk. No great army of civilians went to Waco or Ruby Ridge. No great army of citizens freed the Japanese from internment camps. It’s pure fantasy not backed by history. The opposite has been shown to be true. The greatest defense against tyranny is education, not guns.
No, sorry, perspective matters. And putting things back into perspective is legitimate. Because one homicide happened during a mass killing and the other killings or deaths happened as more individual (though in equal or even greater totals than mass killings) events, does not make the latter victims any less dead.
I don’t know about everybody but maybe the problem is assuming, or rather, the need to assume.
Which is to provide defense against foreign troops or the government? Either way, good luck. Americans who talk like that have no idea what a truly ruthless government can do to an armed populace. Think of Masada. Think the Mongol sack of Baghdad. Think of what the Germans did to civilians in eastern Europe. You can even think of Sherman’s March or the Trail of Tears, which were carried out by the “good” guys. Besides, the government can take your freedom without taking your guns.
I’m for reasonable gun laws. Raising the legal age is one option.
And what motivated the thread? But, even if you wanted to expand it to gun policy in general, then that still means bringing up traffic accidents, as you did, is irrelevant.