If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On July 26 2016 09:34 dontforgetosmile wrote:

this is an excellent article. imagine how most of you feel when you hear about congress trying to regulate the internet, that is what reading most of this thread feels like.

On July 25 2016 21:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Statistically, there's a mass shooting every day in the United States

On July 20 2016 15:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I didn't say I didn't care about rape and murder, but for every study I find that says carrying around a gun helps deter criminal activities, I find another that says they don't. I've read articles about how there are correlations between high civilian ownership of guns and more crime, or how guns can cause escalation during a situation (potentially having a robber- who just wants your wallet- to end up attacking the victim), or how the number of prevented crimes is inappropriately extrapolated.

Here are two examples (there are countless more examples, just as how there are just as many on the pro-gun side):

""We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite.""
~ http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html

"5) Underneath all these statistical problems is a larger conceptual problem. When we hear "defensive gun use," we're invited to think of a law-abiding citizen confronting a criminal aggressor. Yet crime does not always present itself so neatly. The vast majority of homicides take place between intimates, not strangers. Assaults, too, are often an acquaintance crime. When guns are produced by two parties to a confrontation, one party may deter the other. Yet it may be seriously misleading to designate one of these persons as a "criminal" and the other as a "law-abiding citizen." Perhaps when we hear "defensive gun use," we should not imagine a householder confronting a prowler. Perhaps we should think of two acquaintances, both with some criminal history, getting into a drunken fight, both producing guns, one ending up dead or wounded, the other ending up as a "DGU" statistic -- but both of them entangled in a scenario that would have produced only injuries if neither had carried a gun."
~ http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/

So, given the tons of studies that are apparently pro-gun and the tons of studies that are apparently anti-gun, I'd rather err on the side of caution (or, at least, what I consider to be caution) and prefer not to be around strangers with guns. Of course, in a concealed/ open carry state, I don't exactly have a choice, but I'm merely talking about what I would consider a personal preference of mine. That's why I said "I'm not a fan..."

On July 31 2016 04:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
British police don't carry guns. Only a very small proportion of certain trained police officers do, and they are only called to do so when there is a clear reason to do so. But different culture breeds a different situation.

In any case, it's a little odd, for you acker, to extrapolate civilian gun statistics and to try to apply it to the police force.

i mean, how can you say with a straight face that a civilian statistic is appliable to every demographic, when it very clearly it excludes non-civilians; the very group you are including?

On July 31 2016 04:35 acker wrote:

First off, police are civilians. Second, "Britain" is not "most European countries", no matter what Brexiters might think about the importance of their country. Police in Northern Ireland carry guns, so even "The United Kingdom" is inaccurate.

Third, which paper are you referring to?

Also, after looking into this further, what paper are people getting the "more than one mass shooting a day" statistic? The only source for this number I can find is /r/GunsAreCool and their agitprop tracker.

On July 31 2016 04:45 Sermokala wrote:

they include non press covered things such as gang warfare and domestic homicide/suicide.

On July 26 2016 12:12 Soap wrote:


It's a bit silly when he says the AR-15 is underpowered for hunting and then calls the Mini-14 a common hunting rifle, even though both shoot the same caliber.

A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court's jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.

It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who tried to buy a firearm in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card.

On September 01 2016 09:01 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
I cant even...

how does smoking pot makes you more dangerous than someone else? How about people who drink beer?

this is so weird. Is it a way to dissuade people from buying legal dope?

"We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don't get a gun, but if you're on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,"

this is so strange