Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On October 17 2015 00:47 Ovid wrote: Why would you want to go around shooting your property to scare someone off anyway, surely shouting out I have a gun and if you don't leave this property I will use lethal force will give a similar effect.
4.5 times more likely to die from a gun if you own a gun? Similar stats about owning knives/other things intended to kill.
If you're escalating a situation be sure as hell the other person will respond in kind. There's not many people out there that are willing to kill an unarmed person for the contents of your house. Like what could someone rob on maximum in the average house, like £5k worth of electrical goods?
you don't get it man. it's the principle of it or, how dare he steal from me!
On December 03 2015 16:45 acker wrote: I'm surprised this thread hasn't been bumped, given the recent California shooting, Planned Parenthood shooting, BLM shooting, and Paris shooting.
bump for what lol its going to be the same arguments on both sides exactly what the person above said
It's actually quite exact. Sometimes reality is biased. And reality is biased towards gun control, no matter the emotional arguments pro-gun people tend to bring.
Gun control very effectively reduces the amount of violent crime, in every single country where it is applied. US gun nuts choose to not believe in reality, and instead believe in what they think reality should be like. Emotional arguments like "You need to protect your family" sound a lot better until you realize that this need to protect your family is a direct result of the prevalence of guns in US society, and other countries simply are a lot safer despite (or more exactly due) to the fact that there are less guns around.
On December 03 2015 20:12 Simberto wrote: It's actually quite exact. Sometimes reality is biased. And reality is biased towards gun control, no matter the emotional arguments pro-gun people tend to bring.
Gun control very effectively reduces the amount of violent crime, in every single country where it is applied. US gun nuts choose to not believe in reality, and instead believe in what they think reality should be like. Emotional arguments like "You need to protect your family" sound a lot better until you realize that this need to protect your family is a direct result of the prevalence of guns in US society, and other countries simply are a lot safer despite (or more exactly due) to the fact that there are less guns around.
Yeah, how about some statistics.
Cliff Notes: Gun control has had 0 (or even negative) effect on Murders.
Early reports suggest that the shooting is related to a workplace dispute arising out of an office party taking place at a San Bernardino Department of Health location. The whole thing seems a bit too well planned for that to be the case imo.
On December 03 2015 20:12 Simberto wrote: It's actually quite exact. Sometimes reality is biased. And reality is biased towards gun control, no matter the emotional arguments pro-gun people tend to bring.
Gun control very effectively reduces the amount of violent crime, in every single country where it is applied. US gun nuts choose to not believe in reality, and instead believe in what they think reality should be like. Emotional arguments like "You need to protect your family" sound a lot better until you realize that this need to protect your family is a direct result of the prevalence of guns in US society, and other countries simply are a lot safer despite (or more exactly due) to the fact that there are less guns around.
Cliff Notes: Gun control has had 0 (or even negative) effect on Murders.
indeed, the reason i said velr made a biased summary was because he implied the pro-gun camp had no statistics on its side, which is a complete lie.
a lot of people point to the uk and say that there have been no more school shootings since the handgun ban in 1997. well, it's an irrelevant point because there were no school shootings before dunblane either.
On December 03 2015 20:12 Simberto wrote: It's actually quite exact. Sometimes reality is biased. And reality is biased towards gun control, no matter the emotional arguments pro-gun people tend to bring.
Gun control very effectively reduces the amount of violent crime, in every single country where it is applied. US gun nuts choose to not believe in reality, and instead believe in what they think reality should be like. Emotional arguments like "You need to protect your family" sound a lot better until you realize that this need to protect your family is a direct result of the prevalence of guns in US society, and other countries simply are a lot safer despite (or more exactly due) to the fact that there are less guns around.
Cliff Notes: Gun control has had 0 (or even negative) effect on Murders.
indeed, the reason i said velr made a biased summary was because he implied the pro-gun camp had no statistics on its side, which is a complete lie.
a lot of people point to the uk and say that there have been no more school shootings since the handgun ban in 1997. well, it's an irrelevant point because there were no school shootings before dunblane either.
On the other hand, the "gun ban" (or strict gun law) in Australia dropped their mass shootings from roughly one a year to zero. And I say that as a gun owner who's favorable to gun control within reason.
On December 03 2015 22:29 farvacola wrote: Early reports suggest that the shooting is related to a workplace dispute arising out of an office party taking place at a San Bernardino Department of Health location. The whole thing seems a bit too well planned for that to be the case imo.
The guy and his wife were caught with automatic weapons and paramilitary uniforms or something like that. Office dispute ? I don't think so
Oh and by caught I mean they were gunned down obviously, they probably didn't give the police much choice.
On December 03 2015 22:29 farvacola wrote: Early reports suggest that the shooting is related to a workplace dispute arising out of an office party taking place at a San Bernardino Department of Health location. The whole thing seems a bit too well planned for that to be the case imo.
The guy and his wife were caught with automatic weapons and paramilitary uniforms or something like that. Office dispute ? I don't think so
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting.
On December 03 2015 22:29 farvacola wrote: Early reports suggest that the shooting is related to a workplace dispute arising out of an office party taking place at a San Bernardino Department of Health location. The whole thing seems a bit too well planned for that to be the case imo.
The guy and his wife were caught with automatic weapons and paramilitary uniforms or something like that. Office dispute ? I don't think so
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting.
I don't know. I read they had assault rifles but I'm not exactly a gun expert. Yes obviously any asshole can do this but I doubt he would just get into an argument, go to the mall to buy weapons and an uniform for him and his wife and then come back and kill everyone. It was most likely premeditated.
On December 03 2015 22:29 farvacola wrote: Early reports suggest that the shooting is related to a workplace dispute arising out of an office party taking place at a San Bernardino Department of Health location. The whole thing seems a bit too well planned for that to be the case imo.
The guy and his wife were caught with automatic weapons and paramilitary uniforms or something like that. Office dispute ? I don't think so
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting.
I don't know. I read they had assault rifles but I'm not exactly a gun expert.
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.
On December 03 2015 22:29 farvacola wrote: Early reports suggest that the shooting is related to a workplace dispute arising out of an office party taking place at a San Bernardino Department of Health location. The whole thing seems a bit too well planned for that to be the case imo.
The guy and his wife were caught with automatic weapons and paramilitary uniforms or something like that. Office dispute ? I don't think so
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting.
Yes obviously any asshole can do this but I doubt he would just get into an argument, go to the mall to buy weapons and an uniform for him and his wife and then come back and kill everyone. It was most likely premeditated.
You'd be surprised to see that people can own those in their homes for years. There's a bunch of americans with militaria in their homes right now. They have these "consumer" body armors with steel plates that can stop rifle rounds and stuff. And there's a bunch of hicks with those in their home for no real reason.
So many people have these "tacticool" things they don't need it's ridiculous.
On December 03 2015 22:29 farvacola wrote: Early reports suggest that the shooting is related to a workplace dispute arising out of an office party taking place at a San Bernardino Department of Health location. The whole thing seems a bit too well planned for that to be the case imo.
The guy and his wife were caught with automatic weapons and paramilitary uniforms or something like that. Office dispute ? I don't think so
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting.
I don't know. I read they had assault rifles but I'm not exactly a gun expert. Yes obviously any asshole can do this but I doubt he would just get into an argument, go to the mall to buy weapons and an uniform for him and his wife and then come back and kill everyone. It was most likely premeditated.
Assault rifles that are purchased in the US are not automatic. You have to pull the trigger each them. Not that is really makes much of a difference, since you can empty a clip very quickly.
The thing that happened is really sad... however I 'have' to say this... Every time that I see this thread title, I laugh a bit out loud. It's such a funny thread title, probably even more because it's on a serious topic.
We'll have to wait for more information regarding the motives, since a discussion on such stuff now is pretty useless. If this was a terrorist attack, they would've gotten access to the guns anyway. If this was just some sort of cropped up anger, which exploded, then it's an "American issue".
I think it is pretty strong and good of Obama to acknowledge the fact and speak out loud what everyone (especially the rest of the world) is thinking : “We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world,”
But, we'll have to wait for more info...
edit ;
On December 03 2015 23:17 Meavis wrote: Must admit, the thread title is really starting to grow on me
Lol, I almost made a one-liner aswell, but thought I contribute atleast something in that post
EPT
