Gun control is coming

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The first contact should always be about peacefully resolving the situation, whatever it is.

I appreciate your sentiment, but you can't train a turd not to be a turd, despite any feverish polishing of the turd. It will remain a turd.

"The police" are not and cannot ever be actual peace officers using the present model, literally impossible. Not the fault of the individual cops either, it is a systemic problem, which cannot be solved with "better training".

Police' purpose is not to "resolve situations". They enforce laws, codes, etc. and follow orders regardless of whether following the order or law is an act of breaking the peace or not. They have no duty to protect citizens (supreme court ruling) and even if they did, that too would be impossible in total since their pay is derived from a confiscatory means. Meaning if you remain peaceful, but say, "no thanks, I don't need your service and would prefer to be left alone" you can and will be attacked. Pay up bitches! Forcing an unwilling, but peaceful person to pay you, is not a good way to "peacefully resolve situations".

The first contact of any real service provider would be to make an offer to potential customers. That offer could then be accepted or declined by the potential customer. We know Police don't do that. Yet, if you or I had a business model where we could extort our customers, people would realize we were thugs and not "peace officers".

Police are not real service providers, they are the enforcement arm of a revenue and population control scheme orchestrated by the people who rule other people. That can only change if the "peaceful customer" has the option of declining their "service" without being harmed. Otherwise, the police are initiating the breaking of the peace, at their first contact. This is an irrefutable fact.

1675768685608.png
 
Last edited:

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
There goes Joe blaming AR15's again. From what I heard the guy didn't have an AR. I heard he had 2 handguns, which is the most common gun used in gun deaths.

what your Yahoo link conceals is the source: the strongly right-biased National Review.

Bottom line:
gun(s)
death(s)
a problem with a solution, if you don’t mistake the Constitution for scripture.
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
what your Yahoo link conceals is the source: the strongly right-biased National Review.

Bottom line:
gun(s)
death(s)
a problem with a solution, if you don’t mistake the Constitution for scripture.
Why not go after the guns which cause the most gun deaths instead of the semi automatic rifles which only account for a tiny percentage?
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Why not go after the guns which cause the most gun deaths instead of the semi automatic rifles which only account for a tiny percentage?
If these guys are right, 16% of mass shootings used semiautomatic rifles, accounting for 25% of deaths and 76% of injuries.
Not only is that not a tiny percentage, but the class of firearm caused disproportionate casualties.


If we look at nonsuicide shootings, the low percentage points out that the rate of shootings is itself quite high. To dilute the mass shooting numbers above to 3% caused by “assault” rifles, the total number of firearm murders is necessarily large.


Rittenhouse being a) acquitted and b) even celebrated for what was plainly grabbing an AR and looking for trouble shows we have a long difficult uphill climb to even get the problem recognized against the hard rain of NRA-type propaganda muddying perceptions.

Certainly, go after the problem
on all fronts. But the choice and effectiveness of the semiauto rifle or carbine for mass shootings should not be so cavalierly minimized.
Imo.
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
If these guys are right, 16% of mass shootings used semiautomatic rifles, accounting for 25% of deaths and 76% of injuries.
Not only is that not a tiny percentage, but the class of firearm caused disproportionate casualties.


If we look at nonsuicide shootings, the low percentage points out that the rate of shootings is itself quite high. To dilute the mass shooting numbers above to 3% caused by “assault” rifles, the total number of firearm murders is necessarily large.


Rittenhouse being a) acquitted and b) even celebrated for what was plainly grabbing an AR and looking for trouble shows we have a long difficult uphill climb to even get the problem recognized against the hard rain of NRA-type propaganda muddying perceptions.

Certainly, go after the problem
on all fronts. But the choice and effectiveness of the semiauto rifle or carbine for mass shootings should not be so cavalierly minimized.
Imo.
Straight from the pew research site.

Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.

Wouldn't you consider 3% a tiny percentage?
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
I've know 100's of murderers in my life and the vast majority used a gun. several with a knives, a couple with bare hands, one with a microwave and one with a cast iron skillet. My personal experience tells me guns kill a lot of people..
(edit) I forgot several with automobiles...
 
Last edited:

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
I've know 100's of murderers in my life and the vast majority used a gun. A several with a knives, a couple with bare hands, one with a microwave and one with a cast iron skillet. My personal experience tells me guns kill a lot of people..
(edit) I forgot several with automobiles...
i have to ask, was the microwave used as a bludgeon, or did they cram someone in it and nuke them?
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
I've know 100's of murderers in my life and the vast majority used a gun. several with a knives, a couple with bare hands, one with a microwave and one with a cast iron skillet. My personal experience tells me guns kill a lot of people..
(edit) I forgot several with automobiles...
Microwave control is coming
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Straight from the pew research site.

Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.

Wouldn't you consider 3% a tiny percentage?
not when they cause 76% of injuries in mass shootings.

The rising incidence of shootings, mass and otherwise, merits examination from a health perspective. A condition that kills or injures a hundred thousand a year deserves aggressive treatment. People get considerably more exercised over the safety of the vaccine, which has a much lower incidence of adverse effects even with a much broader exposure. So I consider the epidemiology of gun violence to be an essential part of any discussion of gun ownership and use.
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
not when they cause 76% of injuries in mass shootings.

The rising incidence of shootings, mass and otherwise, merits examination from a health perspective. A condition that kills or injures a hundred thousand a year deserves aggressive treatment. People get considerably more exercised over the safety of the vaccine, which has a much lower incidence of adverse effects even with a much broader exposure. So I consider the epidemiology of gun violence to be an essential part of any discussion of gun ownership and use.
Everytime there's some kinda shooting on mainstream media the far lefties immediately start yelling to ban semi automatic rifles. Even if that wasn't the gun used.
 
Top