I mean it is what it is. I've seen the uglier side of anti-s that cheered this watershed moment. The chance to "finally get something done". Some of you very folks on this board probably rationalized the tragedy with that same thought. That's what you guys do.

Every few months, one slips through, usually always in a gun free zone, but that fact is lost, it makes headlines, the anti-s pass a collection plate and beat the drums, and when it flames out they find themselves in the position of wishing that it was worse so that they can make a big sacrifice now to win the war in the long run.

You got your big one. The non-events don't make the news. The 900,000 times a gun prevents a crime doesn't get recorded or registered. The untold times a criminal makes a pass on a target because he fears an armed response doesn't make for a catchy news piece.

Let's do it your guys way for a while. If that's what it takes to convince some folks, let's do it. I'm comfortable either way because I am responsible for mine and my own, I don't lean on others or pass that buck off.

If it comes back and I was wrong I'll own it. If not, just promise me the same courtesy and don't blame it on crack, or montana, or moving boxes. Deal?

If you take the guns out of the hands of all law-abiding three year olds, only three year old criminals will have guns.

Bur the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of 3 year olds, too!

A video gamer practices some self awareness

http://penny-arcade.com/report/edito...re-of-violence

Except we've seen none of that ITT and I've seen none of it anywhere. Conversely, we have seen a gun advocate ITT imply he would shoot a cop for trying to enforce what was then the law.

Also the bolded is just stupid. What an incredible assertion based on nothing.

What is the British version of Montana? Or crack?

I want to say 1911. I remember that for obvious reasons.

Of course, any time violence increases during a gun ban, it is a result of random, unrelated occurences. Apparently guns do not actually spike crime or violence. But when we want to ban them, then they do. it just depends on what issue the anti-s are addressing at the moment.

This shooting wasn;t worse in terms of victims than Vtech so changes aren't happening because of this one event, but because it has become a reoccurring danger especially this year.

Nice to see after all the baseless assertions by team "10 minutes for a cop to show up, just hide under a desk emily" that you finally decided you would call someone out on an assertion based on nothing.

I guess it completely random that you picked me, eh? Or did crack do it.

Redbean vs MissileDog, 2+2 worlds colliding!

RB is unquestionably elite at arguing on the internet, and doesn't appear to have lost a step, but you can only make a turd so shiny

There are multiple problems with the data in this graph.

The biggest being that they used "homicide by firearm instead of the actual murder rate" proving less murders by guns but not less actual murders.

There is also a problem comparing any of these countries to the USA as they don't have the same problems with drugs and violence. Add other countries besides 1st world counties and the USA isn't even close to the worst in murder rate.

The USA is a consumer driven society leading the world in consumption of many many consumer products.

If you're upset by the fact that there is noise in your data then maybe you should find data which actually deals with the issue at hand.

10,000 gun deaths annually.

900,000 instances of defensive gun use by law abiding citizens to revent violent crime.

But oh forget all that.

You get a prayer chain with 20 cute smiling faces and you have to finger paint a card and send $5 to the VFW to buy Sandy Hook it's 1,708 christmas wreath saying "Our thoughts and prayers" and then go sign the online petition circling around on facebook to get to the magic 25,000 so Obama can get on TV to interrupt the wall to wall human interest pieces on generic likable 6 year old kids to give a speech about doing something "meaningful".

But hey, the antis all feel warm and fuzzy inside.

I don't have any idea what you're referring to. Has the length of this thread escaped you?

Also, did you just use the "they did it first" defense?

You have never cited evidence that more good guys with guns = less gun violence. That evidence doesn't exist.

Really? Because where I sit gun nuts did a hell of a job from stopping Trayvon Martin from getting home, but didn't do **** about any of these mass shootings. You want us to give credit to CCWs for keeping us safe, but:
A) It's not like armed vigilantes are running around thwarting crime left and right as a hobby, even your fictional nonsense stats are about people protecting themselves, not random members of the public
and
B) Jesus Christ I do not want armed vigilantes running around trying to thwart crime. Leave that **** to the professionals.

Again, again, again if the 2nd amendment is the right from what all others come from, I'll ask you, at what point do you guys spring into action?

Because here is a non-exhaustive list of things the government has done to us on your watch, while we were under your protection:

Jim Crow
Japanese Internment
Widespread anti-union violence
Gitmo/Patriot Act
Denied women the right to vote
Prohibition of all sorts of substances
Denied gay rights

Not to mention all the times crazies with guns shot up a school or church.

If you were in charge of protecting us, you're fired.

Basically, I don't want to have to move to Japan to live in a country with less gun violence. Why is the onus on the majority of people who want stricter gun laws to leave the country rather than change the laws?

How about you move to any of the numerous 3rd world hellholes with murder rates that make America look like Sweden? They clearly need more guns in Columbia.

It's not my data. It's FBI crime statistics.

I'm sorry if you don't think it deals with the issue at hand. We were talking teh affect of gun legislation on homicide rates. One side thinks they go up during bans, the other side thinks they go down.

The data...not my data, the data from the FBI, verifiable data shows that homicide rates went up during the DC ban.

It didn't go down. It did not support the anti position. It supported my position. Instead of owning that, I am being sold a line about how gun bans have no relationship to homicides all of a sudden. It was crack, and moving vans.

I mean, if guns are related to homicide, why the need for the ban?

It goes up after the ban in Britain and the rationalization is it can't have anything to do with guns, they are illegal, that doesn't count.

You guys are ridiculous with some of the explanations of this "noise".

Why is it that I am not having to dance around and make up all these silly stories to rationalize the noise in your data? Oh, because none of it supports the opposite position.

The only thing people keep showing is JAPAN....SWEDEN LOOK HAR HAR.

I mean, we went over that. Be honest with yourselves here. Don't be afraid to question your entrnched beliefs. I'm not saying you should be forced to own a gun. That only happens in Kennesaw, Ga.

I'm just saying you should be able to enjoy your freedoms and rights so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's enjoyment or rights. ANd take a little personal responsibility for your own safety for christ sake. Don't depend on johnny law and his 10 minute car ride over.

Wasn't the most recent mall shooting thwarted by a concealed carry?

Do most mass shootings go down where concealed carry is banned?

Obama sounds like he's going to be pushing background check stuff.

well, he stopped shooting other people so he could go shoot himself.

did he stop shooting people because he reached his internal crazy limit of 'enough dmg done'? Who knows?

did he stop shooting people because he wanted to take his own life and not let someone else kill him? Who knows?

the only certainty is that both sides will claim they are right and the other position is wrong

It's "yours" in the sense that you are using it for a purpose that the FBI most assuredly was not. There is a reason for this.



this is simply false, the harvard studies linking firearms to increased risk of homicide have been posted at least a dozen times ITT

Oh, I am. The fact that you continue to post (at best) unclear statistics to prove your point while claiming victory makes me question if you are, though.

Not quite sure I understand the argument.

pro-gun people say the person who was carrying stopped the rampage
anti-gun people say the person who was carrying didn't stop anything

So, the answer is "no", only a self-service assertion that someone with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, having allegedly seen someone holding a .22, decided to off himself instead....

No.

Coincidentally.

yes, despite the fact that the after the gunman saw the concealed carrier guy he ran away and the only shot after that was when he killed himself.

anti-gun people aren't interested in discussing facts, though.

In your mind, this is evidence of the effectiveness of conceal-carry?

I find that exceedingly difficult to believe.

How would we even make sense of it?

There's a guy with a gun.... I better shoot myself

?