Defending guns by comparing stats to drunk driving is ridiculous and just deflection. Lesser evil doesn't mean it's not evil.

I don't need stats to tell you that in my country, anyone wanting to perform such atrocities would have no clue/access/supply to the amount of firearms these guys used.

I don't need stats to tell you that I've read more news coverage of mass gun-related murders in the USA, than the opposite "having a gun saved multiple lives" stories. I'm not American and I can easily list +5 similar mass murders, yet I cannot tell of one incident in which a gun (in hands of a civilian) saved a life.

How about you provide some stats?

Yeah but news corporations are money hungry evil *******s who far and wide don't give a **** about accurate reporting of the news or state of affairs. They salivate over mass shootings such as this for the amount of viewers it brings them.

Feel good stories just don't sell as well. Fear and death sells. Our world is so ****ed up.

well aren't you a reddit fiend

I'm not pro-guns but when atrocities such as this shooting happen and everyone gets all riled up and opinionated often basing their opinions from what they hear from the mass media, their friends, facebook feeds or what not it just seems wrong to me. It's good when important issues are raised and debated but they should be debated based on facts, logic and reason, not emotion. I think people have a difficult time separating the two in times like this.

"i don't need stats"

"i don't need stats"

"how about you provide some stats?"

Why don't you need stats? Why does only the unpopular opinion require stats?

Not to sound childish but if he's going to ask for stats, he should also be expected to give stats.

My point was that when the consentual opinion is in line with "banning guns would decrease this amount of violence", wtf do we need to show stats?

We dont need facts and statistics because this is just a discussion and we dont need to be able to prove our statements. Discussions very rarely change peoples opinions about things like this; events like this are generally what change peoples minds. Statistics arent always particularly useful - they dont necessarily mean what we think they mean; in order to know the validity of any stats we have to trust the source, and who's going to root around websites to work out whether someone else is telling the truth? Resorting to demanding stats in discussions like this is generally an argumentative ploy, intended to bog the argument down in needless details, and you usually see it from the clearly morally inferior side.

I dont agree with full free speech. Free speech has limits as it is; incitement to violence or racism is a crime. When you talk sh** about other people in public, youre influencing the opinions of others, and thats impinging on the rights of the people youre talking sh** about.

i never argued that their freedom of speech should be curtailed, i just said i'd rather the psycho's that shoot up public places target the WBC.

According to the Department of Justice:

Odds of being a victim of a completed or attempted robbery in a year in the US are 1 in 419.1

The annual odds are 1 in 296.8 for men versus 1 in 689.8 for women

The annual odds of being a victim of murder are 1 in 18,690

The annual odds of being a victim of mass murder are < 1% of the above

The annual odds of being a victim of any type of violent crime are 1 in 48.36

I could not find data that expressed how much crime is deterred by the use of a civilian's firearm.

Make of the numbers what you want. IMO; I have a personal experience when a gun in my hands (with proper training and a permit) saved my life and that of others. And as long as it is legal I will continue to carry a gun. I'm sure you country has much lower crime than ours. As commendable as that may be; that doesn't change our situation here.

Huge LOL at this. We don't really need to know what's going on to change the LAW do we?

And who determines if something is moral or not; YOU?

ROFL

XD45, nice of you to show stats but it's relatively useless on its own. Care to compare those %'s to other "developed" nations??

Hint, the US has the highest rate of gun related violence per capita in the developed world AINEC. Couldn't be a coincidence right?

I don't have the data but I imagine you are correct. So your solution is to ban legally acquired firearms? So that law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves? Criminals are not going to turn in their weapons if you ban them.

I'm all about making it more regulated but banning guns is not only a bad idea for the USA it's extremely bad and it will most likely increase violent crime in the USA

What makes America so unique that you need to protect yourself with guns in everyday life? Is this a first world problem?

What about innocent tourists? Issue loaners after passing customs?

I'm super curious to know if you (and any other gun toters) actually think the amount of deaths will INCREASE nationwide if legal firearms are no longer available.

[ ] yes [ ] no

I have already explained this to you in a previous post. It isn't very first world and no one is proud about it.

The tourist thing is lol. Obviously not, tourist don't have the same rights as citizens in just about every country in the world.

I think the amount of violent crime would definitely increase. The resulting amount of death may or may not increase. I doubt it would decrease; specially in the short run. The use of threats of deadly force by criminals to accomplish their goals would most likely increase.

If you could magically make all guns disappear, and prevent gun trafficking, then in a vacuum the resulting death toll from violent crime would decrease. It should be evident that this scenario is not possible in the USA.

Well, if your thoughts are representative of other americans, inasmuch as less guns will equate to equal or more gun-related deaths, I can see why you guys are having some problems.

Well considering the chart of guns in america is a sharp up slope, and the number of gun related deaths is on a downslope even with population increasing, I would say less guns would equal more gun related deaths.

I live in Canada and where I live despite having a town with > 1M people we had a perid of >18 month not so long ago with not even 1 murder. Firearms are heavily regulated here and we even had a register not so long ago. Despite all that, at 3 hours of where I live, there is Montreal. So in Montreal it's still very very hard to find firearms, and despite all this Montreal is probably 1 of the city where there has been the most mass murders like this per person in the past 30 years.

I think most of you have it backwards. Less gun doesn't necessarily equal more or less mass murders like these. It has more to do with how you threat your sick/poor people imho. The more mentally ill people you have running on the street untreated, the more the likelihood of something like that is going to happen.

Just my 2c.

I agree.

Most of the murders around here are caused by knives or bare arms, it's very rare someone to get shot (usually a professional job). Bullets are expensive, yo!

question to ppl that has big dogs and little babies.

since dogs like to eat meat,
dont you get threatened or scared of the chance?



*I have never had a dog before

i doubt any kind of dog with the slightest bit of training would eat a baby. we have had dogs my whole life, when i was born we prob had the biggest one of all, 180lbs or so, all i remember is riding it around sometimes.

my mom was a little freaked out when my dad bought a pure bred rottweiler for a house with a 5,6,7 year old but that turned out to be the nicest dog ever

Domestic breeds of dogs undergo an intense amount of socialization and conditioning towards humans from their birth. Feeding rituals, rules of play, learning to control their body weight around different body sizes, etc. are all a part of a dog's cognitive development.

Many of the larger breeds also come from a herding background so they're likely to consider the children as part of their territory.

OT: Don't get large dogs if you don't have adequate space for them to exercise.

My uncle has a boxer, weighs like 30kg. When she was young she was very wild when guests were over. She's jump on them and all that. But whenever they had their baby in the situation, she would be calm, and be aware of being careful with the baby. Dogs are smart, and often really good with kids.

Reach last vpp milestone for the year [x]
Take a vacation as said [-]
Unblock 25/50 [x]
Bust the account in 24h [x]



Merry Christmas and fkc my life!