Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Baldimo,

Quote:

58 vs 422 isn't actually that deadly considering other mass shootings with the number of people injured vs killed

You may be the only one who's ever considered how deadly a mass shooting was, to be calculated not on the number of injuries/deaths (which is the normal gauge of how deadly a mass shooting was), but on the percentage of injured/dead as to bullets fired.

The accuracy vs firing rate (+ stopping power) may determine how deadly a gun it, but it doesn't determine how deadly a mass shooting was - that is determined by the number of casualties / fatalities.

There is no normal debate that considers a mass shooting with 6 dead to be more deadly a mass shooting than one where 58 are shot dead.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Would people be less dead if they were killed with knives?
perhaps, but theyd be less numerous cause
2. hard to kill lots of people with a Buck Knife

Since most murders are close-range one-on-one events, the greater lethality of guns has little impact on homicide rates.

farmerman wrote:

1.the Constitutional term "arms" doesnt include knives.

Sure it does. There is no reason to ban knives, therefore ownership of knives is protected under Heller.

farmerman wrote:

if you wish to share your findings, why not write to them and pose your own.

My findings are that gun availability has very little impact on homicide rates.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

What you call defense of civil liberties leads directly to gun violence killing thousands of innocent people a year.

They'd be just as dead if they were killed with some other weapon.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You might hazve noticed that the NRA are NOT elected.

Indeed. The NRA are the voters who do the electing.

MontereyJack wrote:

That makes the actions you talk about dictating policy treasonous.

The fact that liberals equate voting with treason shows why we need to remove liberals from society.

MontereyJack wrote:

Outlaw the NRA> Save lives.

Doing away with civil liberties will not save any lives. Liberals want to abolish civil liberties simply because they enjoy violating people's rights.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

WHAT DO THE NRA JAGOOFS HAVE TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT

America is a democracy. The NRA are the voters.

farmerman wrote:

You do know that the Bush's had all separated from the NRA because of what its become.

Freedom haters exist in both parties.

farmerman wrote:

You guy should really xtract your heads outta La Pierres Ass

We decline your request that we stop defending our civil liberties.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

same thing, NRA OWNS the GOP Congress.

We have good relations with the leaders of BOTH parties.

farmerman wrote:

YOU actully deny that? See how insidiously the treasonous NRA has snuck in on you??

This "voting equals treason" thing is a new low for liberalism.

It reminds me of one of the political cartoons that ColdJoint posted a month or so ago, where a cartoon Democratic spokesman announced that the voters had stolen the election from them.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you got me on the constitution issue . I looked into Heller which clearly Identified knives as included under arms. The nunchuk issue wouldnt be applicable anywhere but in the NY district (unless the other side took it higher).

The premise of Heller (which is that unjustifiable gun laws are unconstitutional) applies nationwide.

Unless someone can provide an actual good reason for banning a weapon, any ban against it is unconstitutional anywhere in the US.

farmerman wrote:

My argument remains that guns will kill way more than a knife per attack. WAAY more. "Bringing a knife to a gunfight" is an example of inequivalent units.

The fact that virtually all killings are close-range one-on-one affairs renders your argument rather pointless.

farmerman wrote:

NRA will, I believe, lose more and more of its "political stance begun in the 1970's".

The NRA will continue to represent the moderate gun rights position in the legislative process.

farmerman wrote:

I quit the NRA in the mid 80's when it asked for MY money to address industrial output. True , it is a lobby, but its a lobby of an industry that does not welcome anything but a deadly way of marketing its product.

That is incorrect. The NRA does not represent gun manufacturers.

farmerman wrote:

The comparison to Planned Parenthood is invalid. PP celebrates CHOICE on the birth control issue. Anti-Choice as a way of dealing with "Planning" is more like NRA's mantras.

The fact that you are so upset by the NRA is proof that they defend civil liberties.

If the NRA didn't prevent you from violating people's civil liberties, you would not be so upset by them.

farmerman wrote:

Im a multi gun owner but do not see why we protect clowns, nutz, and future terrorists, using a single hazy phraase in a 200+ year old document.

Luckily, very few Americans share your disdain for civil liberties.

farmerman wrote:

I hope we see the "bump stock" defined as deadly as other dangerous weapons and add-ons,

Already done. And with the support of the NRA.

Since the NRA led the way on this, are you sure you don't want to change your mind and oppose restrictions on bump stocks?

farmerman wrote:

and that we control large capacity clips

There is rich irony here, since you do more than anyone to prevent passage of laws controlling large magazines.

farmerman wrote:

and eliminate doctor-able semi-autos for more rapid fire by simple workshop tricks.

That was done more than 80 years ago.

farmerman wrote:

Heller set a plane that says we can meet the Constitution and still keep firearms within the realm of sanity.

Violating people's rights for fun though, very much violates Heller.

Heller only allows restrictions that can be justified with a good reason.

"I think it's fun to violate people's rights" doesn't count as a good reason.

farmerman wrote:

I consider myself a responsible gun owner and user

It is funny that you think that you would somehow be immune if your stance against responsible gun owners ever became policy.

farmerman wrote:

Im not buying his bullshit.

Notice your inability to point out anything that I'm wrong about?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
Dick's Sporting Gpopds saw its foot traffic INCREASE after it announced it was stopping selling assault-style weapons.

How many of these people were there to buy guns?
Zero again, right?
How long before Dick's Sporting Goods exits the firearms business altogether?

Dec 13, 2018

Dick's Sporting Goods (NYSE:DKS) shot itself in the foot when earlier this year it both banned the sale of modern sporting rifles (MSR) at its Field & Stream stores and prohibited adults under 21 from buying firearms. The backlash against the retailer was so great that double-digit comparable sales declines in hunting and related categories dragged down the performance of the entire company.

. . . .

While the general state of ill health in the firearms industry has masked just how deeply the policy mistakes are costing Dick's, we can see that the bad numbers are accelerating. Comparable sales were down 0.9% in the first quarter, 1.9% in the second, and 6.1% in the third. Even when accounting for the extra selling week in 2017, comps were down 2.5%, 4%, and 3.9%, respectively across 2018.

More telling is the double-digit declines experienced in the hunting category because customers who would have purchased firearms also would have bought other outdoor gear. CEO Ed Stack says the declines in hunting and hunting-related electronics were responsible for a 255-basis-point drop in comps in the most recent quarter.

http://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/13/dicks-sporting-goods-hunting-for-way-to-grow-again.aspx

Another one bites the dust.... Mr. Green

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Blickers wrote:
Dick's sporting goods has also decided to Stop The Madness. They have a conscience. More people should.

All they've done is prove that they hate freedom and civil rights. And now everyone who cares about freedom and civil rights doesn't shop there anymore.

So much for their hunting business. Maybe they can sell knitting supplies to old ladies instead.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

All they've done is prove that they hate freedom and civil rights.

actually what they are doing is exercising their freedoms. Noone has to believe as you, thats the beauty of our constitution.(Apparently this escapes your mind). Your own "interpretation" of the first amendment is rather shallow and one sided.
I dont have to buy the NRA's fascist bullshit if I own some guns and enjoy hunting .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Your own "interpretation" of the first amendment is rather shallow and one sided.

Hardly shallow.

There is only one side that counts: the factually correct side.

farmerman wrote:

I dont have to buy the NRA's fascist bullshit if I own some guns and enjoy hunting.

The NRA protects civil liberties. That is the opposite of fascism.

It is rather ironic that you hate the people who protect the rights that you enjoy exercising.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

"foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". Ralph musta been talking about you eh?

1 Reply

Defective guns are the only product that cannot be recalled. wheres the nra on this

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The NRA protects civil liberties. That is the opposite of fascism.

Boy, that the dimmest post Ive read from your nest of other dim bulb posts.
NRA is a lobby like the tobacco lobby. Member when these giuys all lied that butts doint cause cancer? and did it uner oath?

I see the NRA is just like the tobacco guys, they will use whatver douche bag logic they can muster to sell their products and cloak it in "patriotic" claptrap. AND YOU BUY IT HOOK LINE AND SINKER.

Im sure theres an NRA job for you pushing murder and mayhem and handing out baksheesh to the congress .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The NRA protects civil liberties. That is the opposite of fascism.
Boy, that the dimmest post Ive read from your nest of other dim bulb posts.

You don't like freedom. You don't like groups that fight to protect freedom. And you don't like it when people praise groups that fight to protect freedom.

farmerman wrote:

NRA is a lobby like the tobacco lobby. Member when these giuys all lied that butts doint cause cancer? and did it uner oath?

The NRA is a civil liberties organization.

The NRA is a lot like what the ACLU pretends to be, except the NRA is for real.

farmerman wrote:

I see the NRA is just like the tobacco guys, they will use whatver douche bag logic they can muster to sell their products and cloak it in "patriotic" claptrap. AND YOU BUY IT HOOK LINE AND SINKER.

That's because you hate civil liberties and you're frustrated that the NRA will not allow you to violate our rights.

farmerman wrote:

Im sure theres an NRA job for you pushing murder and mayhem and handing out baksheesh to the congress.

I do my bit.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Defective guns are the only product that cannot be recalled. wheres the nra on this

What defective guns are these?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". Ralph musta been talking about you eh?

Leftists get so petty and spiteful when they are prevented from violating people's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

thats it? consistency over substance? OK. Happy New Year

1 Reply

@farmerman,

If you want substance, post something more substantial than petty spitefulness.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The NRA protects civil liberties. That is the opposite of fascism.

It is rather ironic that you hate the people who protect the rights that you enjoy exercising.

There is a yen-yang between liberalism and fascism/authoritarianism. It has to do with the failure of judgement on how to property self-regulate one's freedom to avoid causing problems. It may also have to do with people who make a problem out of liberties that aren't actually problematic.

Democracy is supposed to work these conflicts out so that we can live together peacefully in our diversity, but when democracy is being abused for power grabbing . . .

Without decentralized power to resist infringements on liberties, there would be decentralized and centralized power to continually infringe. With too much (unchecked) power to resist such infringement, the resistance power itself can become oppressive.

So somehow we have to learn to appreciate the checks and balances of power that occur both within government and outside of it. Gun freedom is checking and balancing crime, but the spirit of vigilantism can get out of hand and lead to oppressive social relations between gun-wielders and other, non-criminals, that don't get along with them.

Gun ownership should not become a tool for decentralized authoritarianism/fascism, but it should also not be eliminated in order for (organized) crime to exercise that brand of decentralized authoritarianism/fascism either.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know