Texas legislature wants no background checks and NO LICENSES

@oralloy,

Of being a pompous idiot? Yep, ya got me on that one, that's all you.

@neptuneblue,

You low-IQ types always poison threads with your childish name-calling. Why don't you run along and find some other thread to ruin?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The only thing that's childish on this thread is you. Work on that, it's sorely needed.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Again, how about you go find some other thread to ruin with your childish name-calling?

0 Replies

Unfortunately, when you have a hammer, you tend to think of every problem as a nail. Having a highly armed population will result in lots of "good" people shooting each other because they feel "threatened" and will disengage all other problem solving skills. In my Navy days, several of the guys taught one of the wives to shoot for "self defense". She ended up in a parking lot dispute over a parking spot and the next thing you know, she was spraying bullets everywhere. (Luckily, no one was hurt but a waterbed store window died a horrible death.) There are multiple studies showing that carrying a gun significantly changes people's response to conflict, making them more aggressive. A heavily armed population will just mean more conflicts end in gunfire instead of someone just flipping the bird.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

So what? Are murder victims "less dead" if their murderer had to expend more effort killing them?

The concern is the increasing frequency of mass shootings in the USA. In 2019, nearly 10,000 murder victims were killed by firearms (mostly handguns), as opposed to less than 1,500 by knives. The fact is, it's simply easier to lethally employ a firearm as no physical contact with the victim is necessary.

The "less dead" argument is a red herring; it's the growing number of fatal shootings which affect public safety. The lethality of firearms and their ease of use results in the high numbers we see.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

There are multiple studies showing that carrying a gun significantly changes people's response to conflict, making them more aggressive.

I wonder how many of these studies could withstand scrutiny.

engineer wrote:

A heavily armed population will just mean more conflicts end in gunfire instead of someone just flipping the bird.

Even that it is true, it shouldn't be a problem for those of us who don't pick fights with other people.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

The concern is the increasing frequency of mass shootings in the USA.

Except, it's not a concern. It really doesn't matter what sort of weapon someone is killed with. They are just as dead no matter what is used to kill them.

hightor wrote:

In 2019, nearly 10,000 murder victims were killed by firearms (mostly handguns), as opposed to less than 1,500 by knives.

So what? They would be just as dead if they'd been killed with different weapons.

hightor wrote:

The fact is, it's simply easier to lethally employ a firearm as no physical contact with the victim is necessary.

Irrelevant facts make interesting trivia I guess, but they don't actually matter.

hightor wrote:

The "less dead" argument is a red herring;

The red herring is the focus on gun homicide rates.

The "less dead" argument proves that gun homicide rates are irrelevant.

hightor wrote:

it's the growing number of fatal shootings which affect public safety.

It makes no difference to public safety what sort of weapon someone is murdered with. They are just as dead either way.

hightor wrote:

The lethality of firearms and their ease of use results in the high numbers we see.

That is incorrect. Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Why? What does it matter what sort of weapon someone is murdered with?

I'm sure that your knowledge of criminology is better than mine.(I only got some basics at the law faculty and the police university.)
And superior to that of those, who publish and teach about it.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Maybe. But that doesn't answer the question.

Why does it matter whether a murder victim is killed with a gun instead of being killed with some other weapon??

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
So what? Are murder victims "less dead" if their murderer had to expend more effort killing them?

The concern is the increasing frequency of mass shootings in the USA. In 2019, nearly 10,000 murder victims were killed by firearms (mostly handguns), as opposed to less than 1,500 by knives. The fact is, it's simply easier to lethally employ a firearm as no physical contact with the victim is necessary.

The "less dead" argument is a red herring; it's the growing number of fatal shootings which affect public safety. The lethality of firearms and their ease of use results in the high numbers we see.

I know you already know what I’m going to write next. But I think it bears repeating, if only for the sake of all our collective senses of sanity, and not feeling as if we’re stuck in a perpetual deja vu from hell:

It doesn’t matter how many times we quote statistics about gun deaths to Oralloy. Half the US population could get gunned down. He’d dispute the numbers, say it’s fake news or just ignore it altogether. In his world, guns good - gun control bad.

It doesn’t matter how many times you spell out for him the very simple reality that it’s easier to kill more people quickly with a gun than with a knife. To anyone operating with rudimentary tools of reason and common sense, this is clear. To Oralloy,”reason” and “common sense” are just trick words used by progressives.

I understand why we keep trying to tell him these things. Our options are to keep repeating them to him, or just ignore him. How else to deal with someone proven impervious to reason, and determined to disrupt? Like the school teachers who find themselves neglecting their whole class because they have to manage the needs of the difficult child, we’re stuck with Oralloy.

I can only hope no one gets so discouraged by the sense of uselessness that comes from attempting to discuss guns with the gun-addled ( or police brutality with the police-addled, or racial injustice with the race-addled, or x with the x-addled) that they stop bothering to share their ideas on the subject with the rest of us.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

engineer wrote:
There are multiple studies showing that carrying a gun significantly changes people's response to conflict, making them more aggressive.

I wonder how many of these studies could withstand scrutiny.

I provided you a link, the article has other links and Google is wonderful if you want to read them yourself.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Why does it matter whether a murder victim is killed with a gun instead of being killed with some other weapon??

Because guns are the tools used in gun violence and not knives, screwdrivers .... or words.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

That doesn't answer the question as to why it matters which sort of weapon is used to kill someone.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

It doesn't matter how many times we quote statistics about gun deaths to Oralloy.

True. Irrelevant trivia may be a curiosity, but it hardly matters.

snood wrote:

Half the US population could get gunned down. He'd dispute the numbers, say it's fake news or just ignore it altogether.

It is wrong to say that trivia is untrue. I would never say such a thing.

The proper response to irrelevant trivia is to ignore it altogether.

snood wrote:

It doesn't matter how many times you spell out for him the very simple reality that it's easier to kill more people quickly with a gun than with a knife.

True. Repeating irrelevant trivia is just as pointless as saying it the first time.

snood wrote:

I understand why we keep trying to tell him these things.

So do I. You guys repeat your illogical positions because you are incapable of logic.

snood wrote:

Our options are to keep repeating them to him, or just ignore him.

No. You also have the option of thinking and learning from me.

snood wrote:

How else to deal with someone proven impervious to reason, and determined to disrupt?

You are wrong to credit your arguments as being based on reason. They are not.

snood wrote:

Like the school teachers who find themselves neglecting their whole class because they have to manage the needs of the difficult child, we're stuck with Oralloy.

Progressives always dislike it when I post facts and logic.

0 Replies

This just about broke my heart 27 years ago. And it wouldn't have happened with a knife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbNOaZbWdwk

1 Reply

@Mame,

Why wasn't the kid taught Rule #1?

And why wasn't the gun secured so that the kid couldn't get it?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Exactly to your #2 point. Why was it loaded? And kids will be kids - they disobey or forget all the time. The father should have had a serious chat with both kids about guns and then kept it out of reach.

0 Replies

Texas legislature wants no background checks and NO LICENSES

Quick Links

My Account

able2know