yes, as the poster tinu is saying the boston example is very bad imo, as I've looked into this now.

nobody of the following list would have used rice cookers or anythjng like it. Maybe 1-2% max. the Tennessee case? never would she have used anything else than what she could get her hands on legally in a store. that goes for most people.
we in the West don't have that, why? we have all components here, but we don't have what u have. idiot access options and school shootings, why? think about it, why does Europe not have these shootings or attacks on schools etc? if they could just make rice cooker devices?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...s_(before_2000)

for some reason they have 2 sets of lists. before 2000 and after.
look at these lists, I guessing at least 50% could have been prevented by stricter access rules. what do you see? i don't see rice cookers etc. all you can see is guns being used, most of these people are idiots.

and for some reason the craziness seems to pick up after 1999 , the year of columbine.

Please lay out your plan for eliminating illegal guns first, as those by far are the more dangerous ones. Once those are gone, we can discuss reducing legal guns. As long as illegal guns are out there, restricting legal guns inly makes more people potential victims to gun violence.

We've gone over this before. Legal guns are the source of illegal guns. They're not being produced by illicit factories like drugs, they're being bought from legal sellers in legal states and brought over to do crime in places that restrict firearms sales.

This link leads to a deleted page

I don't think it is quite as simple as you suggest, but the dynamics with guns are similar to the dynamics with alcohol, tobacco, opioids, and a lot of other things.

That is, everyone knows that a non-trivial percentage of the overall legal production will be consumed or possessed in a manner that violates the law. And indeed, the economics of production depend in part on the demand that is represented by that illegal possession or consumption.

Assuming they would tell the truth, it would interesting to ask the executives of Smith & Wesson the following question: What percentage of the firearms that the company sold in 2022 do you estimate will be possessed illegally on December 31, 2024?

I would have been curious to ask opioid manufacturers a similar question.

my bad,
here is before 2000:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...s_(before_2000


and after 2000:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...2%80%93present)

what I think is that the numbers go up slowly but progessively.
It used to be one a year with few victims and now its every week and tons of victims. (a little exaggeration but not much)
How can this trend be explained? Are there more weaopons in circulation than 100 years ago? more schools?

Or are people just got more crazy now? whatever the cause is, it has to do with access and idiots imo. You dont put sharp objects next to babies and no weapons near monkeys, so why allow idiots with mental problems these things? they should have a social credit score so only the "good guys" have access and then those things wouldnt happen.

The parents of the tennessee girl said her daughter should not have any guns, she was too unstable, and yet she was able to buy 7 guns from 5 different stores.

So why is the state allowing things that are not common sense? thats gotta be a glitch in the system and it is.

So yes, imo the laws have to be changed at least a bit imo.

So when the 2A is amended or reinterpreted you will gladly and peacefully fork over any illegal weapons you possess, right?

Sure, my post was a little sloppy. I didn't mean to imply that all illegal guns are sourced legally with the intent that they later be used in a crime. My point is, regardless of the method of procurement (straw purchases, robberies, etc.) the source of nearly 100% of illegal guns is legal production. We can either ban them outright or make them much harder to get and easier to trace but going after illegal guns without addressing the legal market source is chasing your tail.

This is a low level troll. You can do better

Oh look. Another gun nut shot an innocent family. Those darn basketballs are obviously a threat.

Seriously, this sort of thing will happen more and more now that the gun nuts seem to have the political clout. And apparently the more it happens the more they want to make it worse.

Hi point AR? Not real iirc


So the point of guns is that we can keep the country safe from invaders. Some civilians have to die in order to keep the tyranny of govt and the tyranny of other govts at bay

We can all agree that more kids will die from war and occupation with China/Russia/robots than will die from all the gun violence

The gun crowd wants the net number of kids to be low, we just think it’s lower now with us having guns that it would be if we gave up our guns and got invaded

I am kinda shocked here, you guys can’t figure out why gun violence goes up year after year? Could it be because the population grows every year?

That "gun nut" was actually a felon who wasn't legally able to possess a gun to begin with.

The idea that civilian guns are doing anything to deter China and Russia is even more insane than the idea that it does anything to deter tyranny at home.

Guns are like a seatbelt that cuts you a little bit but saves your life when you crash.

When the countries invade and people with guns are what grant you and your family the extra minutes needed so that you can flee to safety, I will accept your apology.

Nobody is invading us in our lifetime. If they even attempted it, our military would squash them. Of all the arguments for everyone having a gun, that is probably the dumbest.

Why do you assume our military would be functional at that point? You don’t see any way our military could be taken out?

Seriously?

At 1.5 mass shootings per day in the US, you would have to be pretty brain dead or I guess a gun enthusiast to not want some form of gun control.

Are you accounting for population size or does relative frequency mean nothing to you

This is extremely out of touch with reality. Nukes are what keep people out of the US. Literally no one is invading the US unless it's in the wake of nuclear armageddon. In which case, you're not surviving no matter how many guns you have. Guns are less like seatbelts and more like cigarettes when smokers thought there were health benefits due to advertising. This tacticool Rambo fear porn fantasy is marketing to sell guns and the gun owners have bought it.

Yes, Britain has had only 1 mass shooting in 2022 with a population of 80million. The U.S.A has a population that is around 4x the size and the list of mass shootings is too long to count.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...States_in_2022

If we scaled it according to Britain the US should have around 4 mass shootings, but it looks like there are around 500 cases.

Also you can take any country with gun control and the results are about the same. Canada has way way less mass shootings per capita while having many guns in the country, but strong gun control. Like it's not even close.

OK, so your answer is "no'. Which means you're not about following the law, but rather you're about doing whatever the **** you want and using the current law to hide that fact. Got it. People like you are why societies crumble.

"For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law."

And that really unlucky dude who got caught inside the giant pressure cooker at the tuna factory

But since guns are now EVERYWHERE due to the tiny dicks and stupidity of gun nuts, he was still able to easily get one.

What color is the sky in your world?