Current Events > Texas to loosen restrictions on gun restrictions starting today.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Shablagoo posted...

SiO4 posted...

Something doesn't get talked about enough is, Campain Finance Reform.

I guaranty if our politicians weren't bought in the election, there would be more actions taken to counter these situations.

Does anyone really believe these Lilly White Politicians sitting in their Ivory Towers actually care about guns?

This guy talks about it plenty:

Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders

Billionaires and large corporations oppose us because they know they can't buy us. We don't want their money.

Our campaign has received 2.5 million contributions from people around the country. That is what a movement to defeat Trump and transform America looks like.

7:55 PM Aug 31, 2019

https://mobile.twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1167964034647433216

This is true! And probably just one of the reasons he's been stonewalled.
---

burns112233 posted...

Bad guy with gun starts shooting.

Good guy with gun takes it out and starts shooting.

Another good guy with gun sees 2 people shooting and takes out gun and starts shooting them.

The bad guy is probably not running around with a handgun. The good guy is probably not running around with an AK.

SauI_Goodman posted...

AlecSkorpio posted...

SauI_Goodman posted...

Ehhh we had a situation in Vegas not too long ago where a guy and his girlfriend shot a cop at a Denny's then ran into a walmart to hide. They eventually got found out and started taking hostages and some guy who was shopping tried to be a cowboy and took out his gun to take out the guy, but he didn't know the girlfriend was with the other guy and came up behind him and shot him in the head.

Got a news article? I want to read more.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/vegas-cop-killers/two-cops-three-others-killed-las-vegas-shooting-spree-n125766

Thanks
---

Agnostic420 posted...

burns112233 posted...

Bad guy with gun starts shooting.

Good guy with gun takes it out and starts shooting.

Another good guy with gun sees 2 people shooting and takes out gun and starts shooting them.

The bad guy is probably not running around with a handgun. The good guy is probably not running around with an AK.

How many mass shootings in USA with a Kalashnikov have we had this year?
---

Texas gonna Texas
---

What restrictions?

Fox News should post good guy with gun statistics
---

the last good guy with a gun story I remember reading the cops showed up and shot the good guy while he had the bag guy on the ground at gunpoint
---

To put things into perspective, the United States had about 15,000 gun related homicides in 2017.
Bulk mortality rates for that same year were around 2.8 million.
(sources: U.S. Dept of Justice-FBI division, and the Center for Disease Control, respectively)
Expressed as a percentage: Firearm related homicides accounted for 0.00537% of all deaths that year.
Or as a ratio: 1 out of every ~187 deaths.

If you cut out gang/drug related violence and focus on mass shooters exclusively, that figure drops even further, to around 300 total deaths, or 0.00001% bulk mortality, putting it one order of magnitude above being struck dead by lightning. (~20-50 deaths annually; which have been in varying decline in the past decade)

By comparison, roughly 42% of all households in the United States owns a firearm of some kind as of 2017 (source: Gallup; as reported by the Washington Post)
Obviously, I can't translate what one "household" is into raw values because it varies, but even assuming a generously conservative estimation of 1:4 ownership per household (That is, one owner in each "family of 4"), that still amounts to ~41 million firearm owners.

Sufficed to say, there are literally thousands of times many more law abiding firearms owners in the country than there are criminals. So it puzzles me why it's seen as paramount that we stomp all over their rights in the name of safety for an issue that is more than four standard deviations in rarity for all mortality causes in the country. (speaking specifically on the matters of gun bans/seizures and restrictions)

Note: I don't own a firearm and have no particular interest in owning one, as they serve no practical function for me at this time. This is simply me looking at the bigger picture to determine the magnitude for the cause of concern, without presumption or politics.

The results suggest to me that the entire gun debate issue is borne out of political necessity than practical necessity. As evidenced by the fact that the same people ballyhooing about evil guns give not one whit publicly about issues that kill far, far, FAR more people in their own demographics, let alone the country.

I don't consider such people credible, nor do I have to when the facts speak louder than any argument they can hope to muster.
---

definitely more political than practical. plenty of disingenuous people who are simply posturing.
---

AtmosOmega posted...

To put things into perspective, the United States had about 15,000 gun related homicides in 2017.
Bulk mortality rates for that same year were around 2.8 million.
(sources: U.S. Dept of Justice-FBI division, and the Center for Disease Control, respectively)
Expressed as a percentage: Firearm related homicides accounted for 0.00537% of all deaths that year.
Or as a ratio: 1 out of every ~187 deaths.

If you cut out gang/drug related violence and focus on mass shooters exclusively, that figure drops even further, to around 300 total deaths, or 0.00001% bulk mortality, putting it one order of magnitude above being struck dead by lightning. (~20-50 deaths annually; which have been in varying decline in the past decade)

By comparison, roughly 42% of all households in the United States owns a firearm of some kind as of 2017 (source: Gallup; as reported by the Washington Post)
Obviously, I can't translate what one "household" is into raw values because it varies, but even assuming a generously conservative estimation of 1:4 ownership per household (That is, one owner in each "family of 4"), that still amounts to ~41 million firearm owners.

Sufficed to say, there are literally thousands of times many more law abiding firearms owners in the country than there are criminals. So it puzzles me why it's seen as paramount that we stomp all over their rights in the name of safety for an issue that is more than four standard deviations in rarity for all mortality causes in the country. (speaking specifically on the matters of gun bans/seizures and restrictions)

Note: I don't own a firearm and have no particular interest in owning one, as they serve no practical function for me at this time. This is simply me looking at the bigger picture to determine the magnitude for the cause of concern, without presumption or politics.

The results suggest to me that the entire gun debate issue is borne out of political necessity than practical necessity. As evidenced by the fact that the same people ballyhooing about evil guns give not one whit publicly about issues that kill far, far, FAR more people in their own demographics, let alone the country.

I don't consider such people credible, nor do I have to when the facts speak louder than any argument they can hope to muster.

But muh radical left narrative

I didn't expect Texas to do anything different.

---

@AtmosOmega

The main difference is that curbing gun violence is a simpler thing to do than curbing heart attacks.
---

Shablagoo posted...

@AtmosOmega

The main difference is that curbing gun violence is a simpler thing to do than curbing heart attacks.

So what do you want to do about the annual 10,000+ alcohol related driving deaths? You'd be okay with restricting or even banning alcohol, right? I mean, it'll save tons of lives and money each and every year.
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

Shablagoo posted...

@AtmosOmega

The main difference is that curbing gun violence is a simpler thing to do than curbing heart attacks.

So what do you want to do about the annual 10,000+ alcohol related driving deaths? You'd be okay with restricting or even banning alcohol, right? I mean, it'll save tons of lives and money each and every year.

Who said I want to ban guns?
---

TheAnthraxBunny posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

---

burns112233 posted...

Bad guy with gun starts shooting.

Good guy with gun takes it out and starts shooting.

Another good guy with gun sees 2 people shooting and takes out gun and starts shooting them.

And then another good guy with a gun is confused and starts shooting all good guys with a gun. Then another good guy with a gun jumps into action to save the day only to get shot down by police. Another good guy with a gun notices the police brutality and takes his gun to fight against the tyranny of cops. Soon this triggers a civil war in Florida that drags the rest of America into a civil war. The world goes into despair as America can no longer be the world's police. Russia and China mobilze against smaller countries becauses theres nothing stopping them now. Then WW3 starts all because you didn't switch to DirecTV.

Greetings from the UK.

We've had 3 (Arguably 4 since we had a riot that was put down with gunfire) Mass Shootings in our nation's entire history.

Just thought I'd bring that up for the people who say gun control doesn't work.

Hope you find a solution to your gun violence.
---

Maze_ posted...

Greetings from the UK.

We've had 3 (Arguably 4 since we had a riot that was put down with gunfire) Mass Shootings in our nation's entire history.

Just thought I'd bring that up for the people who say gun control doesn't work.

Hope you find a solution to your gun violence.

We wont but thx
---

pls posted...

AtmosOmega posted...

To put things into perspective, the United States had about 15,000 gun related homicides in 2017.
Bulk mortality rates for that same year were around 2.8 million.
(sources: U.S. Dept of Justice-FBI division, and the Center for Disease Control, respectively)
Expressed as a percentage: Firearm related homicides accounted for 0.00537% of all deaths that year.
Or as a ratio: 1 out of every ~187 deaths.

If you cut out gang/drug related violence and focus on mass shooters exclusively, that figure drops even further, to around 300 total deaths, or 0.00001% bulk mortality, putting it one order of magnitude above being struck dead by lightning. (~20-50 deaths annually; which have been in varying decline in the past decade)

By comparison, roughly 42% of all households in the United States owns a firearm of some kind as of 2017 (source: Gallup; as reported by the Washington Post)
Obviously, I can't translate what one "household" is into raw values because it varies, but even assuming a generously conservative estimation of 1:4 ownership per household (That is, one owner in each "family of 4"), that still amounts to ~41 million firearm owners.

Sufficed to say, there are literally thousands of times many more law abiding firearms owners in the country than there are criminals. So it puzzles me why it's seen as paramount that we stomp all over their rights in the name of safety for an issue that is more than four standard deviations in rarity for all mortality causes in the country. (speaking specifically on the matters of gun bans/seizures and restrictions)

Note: I don't own a firearm and have no particular interest in owning one, as they serve no practical function for me at this time. This is simply me looking at the bigger picture to determine the magnitude for the cause of concern, without presumption or politics.

The results suggest to me that the entire gun debate issue is borne out of political necessity than practical necessity. As evidenced by the fact that the same people ballyhooing about evil guns give not one whit publicly about issues that kill far, far, FAR more people in their own demographics, let alone the country.

I don't consider such people credible, nor do I have to when the facts speak louder than any argument they can hope to muster.

But muh radical left narrative

All of which discounts the unquantifiable trauma that such acts of mass shooting commit on our personal, and collective sense of well being.
Or for that matter, the notion that we even live in a civilized culture.

Fuck off with your long winding bull shit. We have a real problem.
---

Shablagoo posted...

@AtmosOmega

The main difference is that curbing gun violence is a simpler thing to do than curbing heart attacks.

No. It isn't.
Restrictions thus far have failed in every capacity in this country.

The assault weapons ban put in place during the Reagan administration was laughably ineffectual in curbing the violence in the early 90s; and even after the ban expired, we saw no significant difference in firearms related homicides, since the majority of such crimes are committed with handguns. (being cheaper and easier to hide is much better suited for crimes of opportunity anyway)

Presently, my home city of Chicago has the strictest firearm laws in the nation, and still has a higher violent crime rate per capita than any other city in the nation; including other major population centers with far more registered firearms in ownership surrounding the region. (Indianapolis, Gary, Madison, Springfield...)

In fact, the only demonstrable correlation that exists is broader than that, between firearms availability and fatalities (which is to be expected) in grosse. However, given the extreme unlikelihood of being shot to death by a random criminal/madman (as I demonstrated previously) I don't find it terribly worrying or of practical relevance.

Because of these failures, the next "logical" step for the anti-gun advocates is to state that we aren't going far enough, and push for outright bans and federal seizures. (arguments that I am in fact seeing more of today than at any point prior, including the media blitzes of Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc)

Sufficed to say, that would result in social upheaval and be completely illegal under current precedence ala interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. To implement legally would require a Constitutional Convention, and 75% supermajority vote to repeal the 2nd.
That simply isn't happening, to say the least.

To combat heart disease, by comparison, would require more education and development of better eating habits, which while not trivial, at least can be advocated for and implemented without instigating civil war. Personally, I find that far more plausible and simple than the firearms debate.

SiO4 posted...

All of which discounts the unquantifiable trauma...

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rebuked without evidence.
By your own admission here, you have no evidence, so in reality, it's YOU who should fuck off; pathetic sophist.
---

Antifar posted...

It's fucking insane

Its like Texas wants mass shootings to happen. And they will.

And the tears shed by those who support this will be hypocritical.
---

AtmosOmega posted...

Shablagoo posted...

@AtmosOmega

The main difference is that curbing gun violence is a simpler thing to do than curbing heart attacks.

No. It isn't.
Restrictions thus far have failed in every capacity in this country.

The assault weapons ban put in place during the Reagan administration was laughably ineffectual in curbing the violence in the early 90s; and even after the ban expired, we saw no significant difference in firearms related homicides, since the majority of such crimes are committed with handguns. (being cheaper and easier to hide is much better suited for crimes of opportunity anyway)

Presently, my home city of Chicago has the strictest firearm laws in the nation, and still has a higher violent crime rate per capita than any other city in the nation; including other major population centers with far more registered firearms in ownership surrounding the region. (Indianapolis, Gary, Madison, Springfield...)

In fact, the only demonstrable correlation that exists is broader than that, between firearms availability and fatalities (which is to be expected) in grosse. However, given the extreme unlikelihood of being shot to death by a random criminal/madman (as I demonstrated previously) I don't find it terribly worrying or of practical relevance.

Because of these failures, the next "logical" step for the anti-gun advocates is to state that we aren't going far enough, and push for outright bans and federal seizures. (arguments that I am in fact seeing more of today than at any point prior, including the media blitzes of Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc)

Sufficed to say, that would result in social upheaval and be completely illegal under current precedence ala interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. To implement legally would require a Constitutional Convention, and 75% supermajority vote to repeal the 2nd.
That simply isn't happening, to say the least.

To combat heart disease, by comparison, would require more education and development of better eating habits, which while not trivial, at least can be advocated for and implemented without instigating civil war. Personally, I find that far more plausible and simple than the firearms debate.

SiO4 posted...

All of which discounts the unquantifiable trauma...

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rebuked without evidence.
By your own admission here, you have no evidence, so in reality, it's YOU who should fuck off; pathetic sophist.

So how do you quantify trauma? Body Counts? That's it. No nieces and nephews, no, mothers and daughters, no sons and brothers. The action is a body count to you?
---