Board 8 > Saddest part about banning guns?

(+) Yeah! (+)

redrocket_pub posted...

For what it's worth, American Rifleman and American Hunter (the official magazines of the NRA) have a monthly column that features roughly a dozen examples pulled from news stories around the country of gun owners successfully defending themselves against criminals, usually non-lethally. Granted, these are mostly home invasion type scenarios as opposed to them stopping an active shooter in public. But the former scenario is also much more common than the latter.

I mean yeah, of course they feature those stories front and center. That doesn't make them numerous, over-representation of minor incidences is just the basics of how propaganda works.
---

People doing illegal activities are, unfortunately, always going to find a way to get illegal items (guns, drugs, etc.)

So I don't see what the harm is in letting people keep weapons for self defense.

That being said, I don't see why we need to be selling high powered assault weapons like the guy in Vegas had. Maybe we don't sell those. Just a thought.
---

velocycloraptor posted...

Freedom rules, I want people to keep dying so that I know I can play army one day if I wanted to

You could always join the actual army anytime you want and kill thousands of people and receive absolutely 0 scrutiny from all the anti-gun people. Remember, you're a "trained professional". You're just "following the president's orders" ;)
---

People doing illegal activities are, unfortunately, always going to find a way to get illegal items (guns, drugs, etc.)

Yeah, people will always find a way to kill each other but that doesn't mean we should do absolutely nothing to try and limit it. Significantly less people could get their hands on guns if they were banned. Lives would be saved.

Like yeah, Ulti will always find a way to post on new alts, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all ignore all of his accounts. You will see way less Ulti posts.

You could always join the actual army anytime you want and kill thousands of people and receive absolutely 0 scrutiny from all the anti-gun people. Remember, you're a "trained professional". You're just "following the president's orders" ;)

in what world do you live in where anti-gun people give absolutely 0 scrutiny to the army?

Ignoring ulti posts makes it harder to troll ulti though...
---

it is actually the ultimate troll

velocycloraptor posted...

in what world do you live in where anti-gun people give absolutely 0 scrutiny to the army?

What world do you live in that doesn't?

Like if you honestly don't see how MASSIVELY pro-authoritarian the anti-gun crowd is, you need to look more closely. They NEED cops and the army to have guns, to enforce a gun ban, or anti-discrimination, or whatever. It's not a rare sentiment at all. Being anti-gun AND anti-cop/army is rare.
---

I feel like marking him is even trollier and that would be tough to do if he's ignored.
---

First, shoot self, obviously.

Secondly, I've lived in countries were the only gun crime is by illegal gun owners, including living in the gun crime capital of the UK for four years. It turns out not that many peopke have illegal guns, and when they do the police will take care of it. Never had any problems.
---

I've lived in many places in the US where lots of people have guns, illegal or otherwise, including one of the top homicide capitals of the US. I also never had any problems though. Privilege is a wonderful thing.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

over-representation of minor incidences

Are you sure that's what this is though?
---

yes
---

I know people who enjoy shooting animals, and would be disappointed if they could no longer shoot animals, so I voted 2. In fairness, I'm pretty sure they also own at least one composite bow.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I've lived in many places in the US where lots of people have guns, illegal or otherwise, including one of the top homicide capitals of the US. I also never had any problems though. Privilege is a wonderful thing.

You seem to have missed the point here. It's that illegal guns and no legal guns is not an issue.

Additionally anecdotal evidence is one thing, but the US has over 31,000 gun deaths per year and the UK has about 120. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
---

US and UK isn't really comparable though. would be interesting to see the number of gun deaths in europe per year and how they compare to the US numbers.
---

It's remarkable how easily people fall for transparent propaganda. Criminals will get guns whether they're banned or not. Drugs are a good analogy. The only thing a ban stops is law-abiding citizens. And if less law-abiding citizens own guns, it makes it easier for criminals because the police are the only ones who will be able to stop them. So you can support a gun ban if you either:
1. Want criminals to have an easier time committing crimes
2. Want a police state
3. Both

No other options.
---

Not really, because gun laws vary per country. You have to account for differences in population, but even when you do that it's a more than 50x difference. This being despite the UK's higher population density.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Additionally anecdotal evidence is one thing, but the US has over 31,000 gun deaths per year and the UK has about 120. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Then why are you using anecdotal evidence? That's my point.

My other point is that we are highly privileged members of society don't see any sort of the violence that necessitates self-defense and guns, so it's very easy to dismiss that necessity. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and there aren't thousands of people out there suffering powerful oppression from the state every single day.
---

Vlado posted...

It's remarkable how easily people fall for transparent propaganda. Criminals will get guns whether they're banned or not. Drugs are a good analogy. The only thing a ban stops is law-abiding citizens. And if less law-abiding citizens own guns, it makes it easier for criminals because the police are the only ones who will be able to stop them. So you can support a gun ban if you either:
1. Want criminals to have an easier time committing crimes
2. Want a police state
3. Both

No other options.

Notice the drop off also occurred after assault weapons were banned?
---

Also, nice labeled axes bro. Oh man people were dying at a rate of 4.
---

They were actually dying at a rate of 1972
---

I think the vertical axis is the literacy rate.
---

Cybat posted...

Also, nice labeled axes bro. Oh man people were dying at a rate of 4.

I wish that user Karma Hunter was still around. This post would be worthy of one of those "Karma Hunter Award for Excellence in Criticizing Vlado" awards he would give out back in the day.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

They were actually dying at a rate of 1972

Oh shit youre right.
---

Cybat posted...

Also, nice labeled axes bro. Oh man people were dying at a rate of 4.

foolm0r0n posted...

They were actually dying at a rate of 1972

scarletspeed7 posted...

I think the vertical axis is the literacy rate.

Eddv posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

They were actually dying at a rate of 1972

Oh shit youre right.

Some people are too lazy to do the slightest bit of research, huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The number is homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.
---