Poll of the Day > My sister and two cousins are at a mall that has an active shooter

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jen0125 posted...

Rasmoh posted...

.014% of deaths in the US are caused by mass shootings. Most people would consider that pretty rare.

Why are you lumping in murders with ALL types of deaths?

You're really missing the mark in this topic. Your trolling skills seem to be slipping.

Because mass shootings generally involve far more injuries than deaths, so it's a more convenient number for him.

Another shooting in Ohio. Ten dead.

MrMelodramatic posted...

Another shooting in Ohio. Ten dead.

Yep. It's absolutely pathetic that people care about gun ownership more than a functioning society.

---

At least 30 people have been killed in the past 24 hours in mass shootings. That is more than a majority of cities will have in an ENTIRE YEAR.

But at least we have our guns GOD BLESS THE USA

---

TheSlinja posted...

what are we supposed to do in the meantime, nothing?

You certainly aren't supposed to start shitting on the 140+ million people in the US who have done nothing wrong in a vain attempt to regulate tools that can be easily replaced by people willing to commit mass murder.

TheSlinja posted...

it boils down to what we can do for now and thats regulate guns while we work on the rest

That's actually far less likely than getting the media to stop exploiting tragedies for ratings though.

Jen0125 posted...

Why are you lumping in murders with ALL types of deaths?

Because when discussing significant causes of death, you should include other causes?

If we want to narrow it down to just murders, roughly 2.4% of murders are mass shootings. That would still be considered pretty rare by most standards. It doesn't help that mass shooting has such a blanket definition.
---

so once again you don't have a single fucking answer for what we SHOULD do, so shut the fuck up and watch by the sidelines while people actually make attempts to fix things thx
---

Rasmoh posted...

If we want to narrow it down to just murders, roughly 2.4% of murders are mass shootings. That would still be considered pretty rare by most standards. It doesn't help that mass shooting has such a blanket definition.

If we're talking about gun control you should include all gun deaths.

You are trying to pick and choose your data to make it seem like gun violence isn't absolutely out of control in the US.

And no, you shouldn't Iump it in with natural deaths because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

---

TheSlinja posted...

so once again you don't have a single fucking answer for what we SHOULD do, so shut the fuck up and watch by the sidelines while people actually make attempts to fix things thx

He did have an answer of what we should do.

Stop caring, he's literally telling us to do what they were doing in South Park in regards to school shootings.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Because mass shootings generally involve far more injuries than deaths

Comparatively speaking, injuries are far less significant than deaths. Not to mention the anti-gun crowd likes to push the "HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE YOU BAN GUNS?" narrative, so it's only natural to focus on deaths.

Jen0125 posted...

Yep. It's absolutely pathetic that people care about gun ownership more than a functioning society.

"It's absolutely pathetic that people care about rights and freedom more than restrictions based on events that are statistically extremely rare."

Sure.

Jen0125 posted...

But at least we have our guns GOD BLESS THE USA

I've always wondered why people who are so anti-gun choose to live in the one major country that has comparatively lax gun laws.

Tell me though, if you had it your way, what would you realistically do about the 140+ million gun owners and 300+ million guns in the US?
---

Rasmoh posted...

"It's absolutely pathetic that people care about rights and freedom more than restrictions based on events that are statistically extremely rare."

Sure.

I said what I said

---

Rasmoh posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Because mass shootings generally involve far more injuries than deaths

Comparatively speaking, injuries are far less significant than deaths. Not to mention the anti-gun crowd likes to push the "HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE YOU BAN GUNS?" narrative, so it's only natural to focus on deaths.

Oh so you also want us to not care about traumatic injury?

I mean I guess that makes sense when you are saying extremely sensational event is just being sensationalist.

Mass shootings should not happen. Should not be deaths. Should not be injuries. Should not be lingering mental harm from the event.

Rasmoh posted...

"It's absolutely pathetic that people care about rights and freedom more than restrictions based on events that are statistically extremely rare."

You're saying people shouldn't care about their right and freedom to live.

Rasmoh posted...

I've always wondered why people who are so anti-gun choose to live in the one major country that has comparatively lax gun laws.

Wow, is it just that easy to pick where you were born? I never knew.

Rasmoh posted...

Tell me though, if you had it your way, what would you realistically do about the 140+ million gun owners and 300+ million guns in the US?

If I had my way I'd do mandatory buy backs of everything that isn't a handgun or a rifle licensed for hunting.

Mandatory background checks and training for ANYONE who wants to purchase a gun.

Limit the amount of rounds and guns that can be purchased per person.

A database of all gun owners and gun related transactions so people who try to amass huge collections of guns can be tracked.

But I'm not in charge.

---

TheSlinja posted...

so once again you don't have a single fucking answer for what we SHOULD do, so shut the fuck up and watch by the sidelines while people actually make attempts to fix things thx

I did have an answer. Actually address the issues that push people to commit mass murder. You complained that that would take too long though. So really, your issue isn't the lack of an answer, it's the lack of a speedy resolution. Mass gun control is far more unlikely and far more time consuming in the US though.

Jen0125 posted...

If we're talking about gun control you should include all gun deaths.

Are you talking gun deaths in comparison to other causes of death? Or mass shootings in comparison to other gun deaths?
---

Rasmoh posted...

Are you talking gun deaths in comparison to other causes of death? Or mass shootings in comparison to other gun deaths?

When talking about gun control, I'm talking about all gun related deaths.

I just love how you want to paint mass shootings in the US as "extremely rare" when other countries have literally none for years on end. We just had 2 in 24 hours. Your perception is completely skewed.

---

Anyways it's 2am and I'm going the fuck to bed. Hug your guns extra tight tonight because they're obviously more important than the right to be alive once you're born lmao

---

If this ends up being Civil War 2, then stay safe, and keep out of any fighting.

Shit might turn ugly if this keeps happening.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Oh so you also want us to not care about traumatic injury?

Injury of any form can be traumatic and debilitating. I don't know if gunshot wounds are generally particularly worse than other forms of severe injury, it's hard to find information on that.

BlackScythe0 posted...

You're saying people shouldn't care about their right and freedom to live.

Guns, in and of themselves, don't inhibit people's right and freedom to live. I personally would argue that restricting the ability of people to have adequate means of self-defense is restrictive of that right.

Jen0125 posted...

Wow, is it just that easy to pick where you were born? I never knew.

I didn't know that people were required to live where they were born forever.

Jen0125 posted...

If I had my way I'd do mandatory buy backs of everything that isn't a handgun or a rifle licensed for hunting.

So you'd be ignoring handguns, which are overwhelmingly responsible for firearm deaths?

Mandatory background checks and training for ANYONE who wants to purchase a gun.

Limit the amount of rounds and guns that can be purchased per person.

A database of all gun owners and gun related transactions so people who try to amass huge collections of guns can be tracked.

None of these would do anything to stop mass murder.

But I'm not in charge.

Thankfully.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Guns, in and of themselves, don't inhibit people's right and freedom to live. I personally would argue that restricting the ability of people to have adequate means of self-defense is restrictive of that right.

Not defensive weapons being used.

Jen0125 posted...

I just love how you want to paint mass shootings in the US as "extremely rare" when other countries have literally none for years on end.

We're not other countries, we can't and shouldn't want every country to be the same. Even as a percentage of gun deaths, mass shootings are statistically very rare.

Jen0125 posted...

Hug your guns extra tight tonight because they're obviously more important than the right to be alive once you're born lmao

My gun protects my right to be alive. Good night to you though.

Side note, the topic about you missing your dog popped up at the bottom of my screen here. Despite our disagreements here, I'd like to say that I'm very sorry that you had to put him down. I had to do the same with my cat a couple years back and it still hurts sometimes.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Not defensive weapons being used.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Rasmoh posted...

Guns, in and of themselves, don't inhibit people's right and freedom to live. I personally would argue that restricting the ability of people to have adequate means of self-defense is restrictive of that right.

Not defensive weapons being used.

The best defense, is a good offense.

Laws restricting the ownership of firearms directly violates the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

By the way, "well regulated" does NOT mean "regulate firearms and put limits on it". It means "disciplined and trained", and "Militia" does not mean just the military, but ANY able-bodied man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_%22well_regulated_militia%22

It was put there to make government unable to restrict people's access from self-defense, defense from foreign nations, and to prevent the government from being tyrannical.

So why can't felons (especially nonviolent ones) own guns, because they might commit a crime with it? Shouldn't their freedom and right to be able to defend themselves trump such concerns like public safety? Why should some potentially dangerous groups of people have restricted assess to guns but not others?
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Shouldn't their freedom and right to be able to defend themselves trump such concerns like public safety?

No. Felons frequently have their rights restricted because of their felonies. That's part of the punishment.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Dreaming_King posted...

Shouldn't their freedom and right to be able to defend themselves trump such concerns like public safety?

No. Felons frequently have their rights restricted because of their felonies. That's part of the punishment.

Ahh, so there are cases when the right of an individual (like someone who has never committed a violent act, but shows they might by disregarding another of societies laws) should have lower priority than the safety of the whole. I wonder how else we could use that logic to keep people safe...
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Rasmoh posted...

Dreaming_King posted...

Shouldn't their freedom and right to be able to defend themselves trump such concerns like public safety?

No. Felons frequently have their rights restricted because of their felonies. That's part of the punishment.

Ahh, so there are cases when the right of an individual (like someone who has never committed a violent act, but shows they might by disregarding another of societies laws) should have lower priority than the safety of the whole. I wonder how else we could use that logic to keep people safe...

Comparing the recidivism rate of a felon to the odds of a random gun owner becoming a bloodthirsty murderer...nice false equivalency.

Who said anything about random? There are several different classes of people who have a statistical highly than average likelyhood to be involved in violence... Doesn't mean they will, but why take the chance by letting them own guns? Felons are a prime example is all.

Also I'm pretty sure murder has the lowest recidivism rate of most crimes, and yet I wouldn't say they should have assess to guns. Before that I was talking specifically about nonviolent felons though, who you could say have no recidivism rate at all since they've never hurt anyone physically before.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Also I'm pretty sure murder has the lowest recidivism rate of most crimes, and yet I wouldn't say they should have assess to guns.

Not 100% what you're trying to argue here. An FBI study showed that 38.9% of violent offenders were arrested again within the first year of release. (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf)

Before that I was talking specifically about nonviolent felons though, who you could say have no recidivism rate at all since they've never hurt anyone physically before.

Recidivism applies to all crimes. Not just violent crimes.

Rasmoh posted...

Jen0125 posted...

I just love how you want to paint mass shootings in the US as "extremely rare" when other countries have literally none for years on end.

We're not other countries, we can't and shouldn't want every country to be the same. Even as a percentage of gun deaths, mass shootings are statistically very rare.

I think Im with Jen here. Sure, we arent other countries. But comparing to other countries, we do seem to have much more. 2 in 24 hours is not rare. That makes no sense at all. And you seem to be saying its rare due to number of deaths or whatever. But number of deaths doesnt matter. No one has to die for a mass shooting to be a mass shooting. It seems to be a problem because it keeps happening rather than not an issue because the percentage of gun related deaths are low...
---

Rasmoh posted...

Jen0125 posted...

Wow, is it just that easy to pick where you were born? I never knew.

I didn't know that people were required to live where they were born forever.

You kind of are. Until youre 18, youre usually stuck with your legal guardians with no input on where you should live. Once youre 18, you can move... if you have the money. But not everybody does. Moving to another house cost money, and moving to a different town or state cost even more. Moving to a different country can be extremely expensive. In a country where I believe nearly 80 percent of people say they are living paycheck to paycheck, its probably not feasible for many to move to a different country. Other than monetary reasons, there are probably more than are more specific to each person...
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

The best defense, is a good offense.

Laws restricting the ownership of firearms directly violates the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

By the way, "well regulated" does NOT mean "regulate firearms and put limits on it". It means "disciplined and trained", and "Militia" does not mean just the military, but ANY able-bodied man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_%22well_regulated_militia%22

It was put there to make government unable to restrict people's access from self-defense, defense from foreign nations, and to prevent the government from being tyrannical.

what they didn't bet on was the ones with the guns actively desiring said tyrannical government.

---

InfiniteMick posted...

what they didn't bet on was the ones with the guns actively desiring said tyrannical government.

There is no tyrannical government. Especially because if it got that bad, more than half of our armed forces and law enforcement would defect.

You dont ban guns, you ban crazy people! The gun is just the tool. It cant do anything on its own. (Dont ban us crazy people who dont really like guns though. I know how to use them safely, but they are too loud for me.)
---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

You dont ban guns, you ban crazy people! The gun is just the tool. It cant do anything on its own. (Dont ban us crazy people who dont really like guns though. I know how to use them safely, but they are too loud for me.)

Guess what happened when the Left ordered all mental asylums closed?

We got a massive increase on homelessness, but also got an increase in mass murder.

Rasmoh posted...

Guns, in and of themselves, don't inhibit people's right and freedom to live. I personally would argue that restricting the ability of people to have adequate means of self-defense is restrictive of that right.

Don't you find it odd that the US, with all these "defensive tools" lying around, somehow has an absolutely sky-high murder rate that is more than double its developed-world peers?

It's almost like these things do jack shit to help people defend themselves, because the first one shooting is almost always going to be the one doing the attacking, not the one being attacked.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

You dont ban guns, you ban crazy people! The gun is just the tool. It cant do anything on its own. (Dont ban us crazy people who dont really like guns though. I know how to use them safely, but they are too loud for me.)

Guess what happened when the Left ordered all mental asylums closed?

We got a massive increase on homelessness, but also got an increase in mass murder.

I'll take 'Things That Happened' for $500.
---

Talking about the 2nd amendment is completely pointless. The Constitution was meant to be changed if something in it isn't working any more.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Talking about the 2nd amendment is completely pointless. The Constitution was meant to be changed if something in it isn't working any more.

The right to self-defense is an inalienable right.

The Bill of Rights is misunderstood. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anybody rights at all. The Bill of Rights is intended for rights which the government cannot rescind from the people, and rights that the government cannot rescind from other branches. There is a major difference.

TheWorstPoster posted...

The right to self-defense is an inalienable right.

The Bill of Rights is misunderstood. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anybody rights at all. The Bill of Rights is intended for rights which the government cannot rescind from the people, and rights that the government cannot rescind from other branches. There is a major difference.

you don't need ar-15s to defend yourself

you don't need more than one handgun to defend yourself

---

Jen0125 posted...

you don't need ar-15s to defend yourself

Would you need an AR-15 to defend yourself in case if Russia or China decides to invade, or if the government turns completely against its own people?

There is a reason why Japan never bothered to invade our mainland during World War 2. They were scared shitless because "there would be a rifle hiding behind every blade of grass", and only tried to attack a Hawaii naval base and only managed to briefly invade uninhabited islands in the Aleutian islands of Alaska.

I can also apply your arguments to speech. You don't NEED free speech on the internet. It can be regulated.

Jen0125 posted...

you don't need ar-15s to defend yourself

you don't need more than one handgun to defend yourself

I'll explain this slowly.

The second amendment, in case you're not aware, mainly exists so that citizens can be armed and readily have the means to fight a tyrannical government (which you lefties keep saying the current government is), or a foreign threat, if the needs ever arise.

Which means that citizens need to have access to weapons which would effectively allow them to somewhat actually be able to fight back against the army. Guess what? You don't do that with handguns.

Now, does it sucks that a TINY, infinitely insignificant amount of nutcases decide to forego the law and decide to shoot people? Absolutely. But you'll find that no matter how many laws you put in place, you will always find a few bad apples that will break them for their own benefits, whether it is financial, moral, or ideological. I am with those who believe that punishing the overwhelming majority who respect the gun laws, due to the action of an insignificant amount of people is idiotic at best. And no amount of lefties outrage will change that.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Jen0125 posted...

you don't need ar-15s to defend yourself

you don't need more than one handgun to defend yourself

I'll explain this slowly.

The second amendment, in case you're not aware, mainly exists so that citizens can be armed and readily have the means to fight a tyrannical government (which you lefties keep saying the current government is), or a foreign threat, if the needs ever arise.

Which means that citizens need to have access to weapons which would effectively allow them to somewhat actually be able to fight back against the army. Guess what? You don't do that with handguns.

Now, does it sucks that a TINY, infinitely insignificant amount of nutcases decide to forego the law and decide to shoot people? Absolutely. But you'll find that no matter how many laws you put in place, you will always find a few bad apples that will break them for their own benefits, whether it is financial, moral, or ideological. I am with those who believe that punishing the overwhelming majority who respect the gun laws, due to the action of an insignificant amount of people is idiotic at best. And no amount of lefties outrage will change that.

Don't bother. She probably thinks it was made for hunting deer, or that "only muskets" existed back then, completely ignorant of fireams. Here is a list containing a few.

https://guidearms.blogspot.com/2011/07/early-multi-shot-weapons.html

Also, contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment is not just about firearms, but all arms in general (such as bladed weapons or heavy artillery).

TheWorstPoster posted...

Don't bother. She probably thinks it was made for hunting deer, or that "only muskets" existed back then, completely ignorant of fireams. Here is a list containing a few.

https://guidearms.blogspot.com/2011/07/early-multi-shot-weapons.html

Also, contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment is not just about firearms, but all arms in general (such as bladed weapons or heavy artillery).

Nah. I can certainly understand why she feels that way. Her reaction is understandable, but based on emotion and thus wrong.

On the other hand, I think it's pretty admirable that, unlike most leftists, she actually proposed alternatives instead of just being offended, even if her ideas would be, for the most part, utterly pointless and ineffectual.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

I'll explain this slowly.

The second amendment, in case you're not aware, mainly exists so that citizens can be armed and readily have the means to fight a tyrannical government (which you lefties keep saying the current government is), or a foreign threat, if the needs ever arise.

Which means that citizens need to have access to weapons which would effectively allow them to somewhat actually be able to fight back against the army. Guess what? You don't do that with handguns.

Now, does it sucks that a TINY, infinitely insignificant amount of nutcases decide to forego the law and decide to shoot people? Absolutely. But you'll find that no matter how many laws you put in place, you will always find a few bad apples that will break them for their own benefits, whether it is financial, moral, or ideological. I am with those who believe that punishing the overwhelming majority who respect the gun laws, due to the action of an insignificant amount of people is idiotic at best. And no amount of lefties outrage will change that.

it's not tiny. and the constitution is meant to be changed. this amendment was added in 1791.

if anybody has their idea about the 2nd amendment "based in emotion" it is people who throw an absolute MUH GUNS shit fit whenever someone mentions how maybe the 2nd amendment is being used too loosely and should be altered to be more specific or restrictive

it's not 1791 anymore. the 2nd amendment ratified in 1791 isn't working for 2019.

---

I hope they made it out OK.
---

Jen0125 posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

I'll explain this slowly.

The second amendment, in case you're not aware, mainly exists so that citizens can be armed and readily have the means to fight a tyrannical government (which you lefties keep saying the current government is), or a foreign threat, if the needs ever arise.

Which means that citizens need to have access to weapons which would effectively allow them to somewhat actually be able to fight back against the army. Guess what? You don't do that with handguns.

Now, does it sucks that a TINY, infinitely insignificant amount of nutcases decide to forego the law and decide to shoot people? Absolutely. But you'll find that no matter how many laws you put in place, you will always find a few bad apples that will break them for their own benefits, whether it is financial, moral, or ideological. I am with those who believe that punishing the overwhelming majority who respect the gun laws, due to the action of an insignificant amount of people is idiotic at best. And no amount of lefties outrage will change that.

it's not tiny. and the constitution is meant to be changed. this amendment was added in 1791.

if anybody has their idea about the 2nd amendment "based in emotion" it is people who throw an absolute MUH GUNS shit fit whenever someone mentions how maybe the 2nd amendment is being used too loosely and should be altered to be more specific or restrictive

it's not 1791 anymore. the 2nd amendment ratified in 1791 isn't working for 2019.

"How dare we have common sense regulations when the amendment says it should be well regulated!"

TheWorstPoster posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

Jen0125 posted...

you don't need ar-15s to defend yourself

you don't need more than one handgun to defend yourself

I'll explain this slowly.

The second amendment, in case you're not aware, mainly exists so that citizens can be armed and readily have the means to fight a tyrannical government (which you lefties keep saying the current government is), or a foreign threat, if the needs ever arise.

Which means that citizens need to have access to weapons which would effectively allow them to somewhat actually be able to fight back against the army. Guess what? You don't do that with handguns.

Now, does it sucks that a TINY, infinitely insignificant amount of nutcases decide to forego the law and decide to shoot people? Absolutely. But you'll find that no matter how many laws you put in place, you will always find a few bad apples that will break them for their own benefits, whether it is financial, moral, or ideological. I am with those who believe that punishing the overwhelming majority who respect the gun laws, due to the action of an insignificant amount of people is idiotic at best. And no amount of lefties outrage will change that.

Don't bother. She probably thinks it was made for hunting deer, or that "only muskets" existed back then, completely ignorant of fireams. Here is a list containing a few.

https://guidearms.blogspot.com/2011/07/early-multi-shot-weapons.html

Also, contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment is not just about firearms, but all arms in general (such as bladed weapons or heavy artillery).

The Second Amendment is outdated in the 21st century.
---

it's crazy the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify mass murder in the US

---

Jen0125 posted...

it's not tiny. and the constitution is meant to be changed. this amendment was added in 1791.

if anybody has their idea about the 2nd amendment "based in emotion" it is people who throw an absolute MUH GUNS shit fit whenever someone mentions how maybe the 2nd amendment is being used too loosely and should be altered to be more specific or restrictive

it's not 1791 anymore. the 2nd amendment ratified in 1791 isn't working for 2019.

So you believe that the rights to self-defense, and defense of the country, and from the country, are outdated all because of technological change?

I guess we can also throw away the First Amendment as well, since it is no longer 1791, and the Founding Fathers had no idea that the internet would ever exist. How about the Fourth, because of all of these terrorist attacks and the NSA, CIA, and DHS needs to do it job? How about the 10th amendment, so that the Federal and State government can ban every little thing because some invasive species of fish don't like it?

TheWorstPoster posted...

Jen0125 posted...

it's not tiny. and the constitution is meant to be changed. this amendment was added in 1791.

if anybody has their idea about the 2nd amendment "based in emotion" it is people who throw an absolute MUH GUNS shit fit whenever someone mentions how maybe the 2nd amendment is being used too loosely and should be altered to be more specific or restrictive

it's not 1791 anymore. the 2nd amendment ratified in 1791 isn't working for 2019.

So you believe that the rights to self-defense, and defense of the country, and from the country, are outdated all because of technological change?

You believe our right to live is irrelevant?

Jen0125 posted...

it's crazy the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify mass murder in the US

Spare us your typical hysteria. Nobody is trying to justify murder. On the other hand, people like YOU are 100% trying to punish the overwhelming majority of gun owners who are indeed responsible and law abiding. How unsurprising.

Anyone that believes that the second amendment would somehow be effective or realistic in this modern age if people stuck to have a handgun and 1 ammo clip is utterly out of touch with reality.

I am 100% for good regulations. Your ideas, however, are indeed 100% based on reactionary emotions and completely unrealistic.

Blackscythe0

You believe our right to live is irrelevant?

https://i.imgflip.com/236ale.jpg

Once again: spare us your dramatics.
---