- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dayton, OH bar mass shooting - 10 dead, 27 wounded
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:05 am to fallguy_1978
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:05 am to fallguy_1978
quote:
As tragic as they are, mass shootings account for a very small percentage of murders in this country.
Very small and you can't let your emotions get in the way of facts and the facts are that guns protect 100 times more people than we lose in mass shootings every year.
quote:
Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”
(In comparison, there were 11,208 homicide deaths by firearm in the US in 2012. There were a total of 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms,” of which the majority were suicides, 21,175.)
LINK
1
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:15 am to stout
quote:
stout
It's sad, but no politician ever wants to bring this up. And the article is over a year old. It's a strong argument against any sort of gun ban.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:18 am to SUB
Something else inconvenient to their argument
LINK
The murder rate was already decreasing and banning guns didn't accelerate the decrease but it did accelerate the amount of crime as criminals had nothing to fear and citizens had no way to defend themselves.
In fact, rape actually tripled one year.
quote:
Australia’s Gun Ban…
In 1996 Australia experienced a horrible mass shooting and subsequently enacted restrictive gun control.
The mass shooting is referred to as the “1996 Port Arthur Massacre” and the anti-gun legislation they adopted the same year is called the “National Firearms Agreement.”
…didn’t work.
Since the gun ban in 1996, the use of firearms in crimes may have gone down but violent crime overall has either stayed the same or increased.
This is an important point: If you’re looking to reduce gun use, ban guns. However, if you’re truly looking to help protect people and reduce violent crime, then Australia’s gun ban teaches us that you should NOT ban guns.
In fact, disarming people clearly makes more victims.
Robbery (both armed and unarmed), assault, kidnapping, and rape have all increased dramatically in Australis since their 1996 gun ban.
Yes, homicides are down. That’s GREAT news.
However, they have been decreasing at a consistent rate since well before the gun ban and the worst year was experienced after the 1996 gun ban.
LINK
The murder rate was already decreasing and banning guns didn't accelerate the decrease but it did accelerate the amount of crime as criminals had nothing to fear and citizens had no way to defend themselves.
In fact, rape actually tripled one year.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:21 am to MightyYat
quote:
While this is true, where do we go from here? You can't possibly get all of the semi/automatic weapons off the streets. I'm not a gun guy and I don't see the reason one would need to own an AR or AK other than "because I can" but I also don't think I'm ready for the buffoons in Washington be the ones in charge of regulating shite either.
I was making a sarcastic joke
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:28 am to Bayou_Tiger_225
quote:
It looks like a low budget frankin-gun that some guy put together in his garage and then sold online.
why does he have to put it together in a garage. Whats wrong with a low budget gut? I have put together a few of these. And you think someone put this together then "sold it online"? 
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:29 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I was making a sarcastic joke
I know but it doesn't make it any less true. It's the same thing as people believing the bible word for word when it was written during a time when people thought the world was flat, heaven was just beyond the clouds and some dude really could walk on water.
Things evolve and new information becomes available. Yet people still cling to rules/stories from that time.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:29 am to TigerBait1971
quote:
None of you will get the reference.
Is Buckeye banned?
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:31 am to MightyYat
quote:
I know but it doesn't make it any less true
quote:
"The founding fathers had flintlock muskets in mind when they wrote the constitution, not percussion cap rifles capable of accurate shots out to 500 yds" While this is true, where do we go from here?
this is not true at all. they believed the people should have access to the same weaponry as the government to be able to over throw it if ever the people became oppressed by the government. And when you bring up "you think people should own nukes"....... Wel if some billionaire has enough money to purchase a nuke, why not? There are nuclear powered private vessels. those are essentially "nukes" on a boat. This post was edited on 8/5/19 at 9:38 am
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:34 am to upgrayedd
quote:i dont think anyone should own a van because you can pack it full of fertilizer and blow up a building. While we are at it we have seen a few people just mow other people down with their corolla, We should ban automobiles all together. You know because they are used to kill people.
I'm not a gun guy and I don't see the reason one would need to own an AR or AK other than "because I can"
/sarcasm
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:44 am to CarRamrod
quote:
this is not true at all. they believes the people should have access to the same weaponry as the government to be able to over throw it if ever the people became oppressed by the government.
Right. And at the time the weaponry available was vastly different to what's available today. It was written to say that citizens should have access to the type of weapons as the militia. Well, that's out the window because these AR-15's aren't even close to what our soldiers are going into battle with these days.
Again, not saying assault weapons need to be banned in any way but the 2nd amendment was written when citizens genuinely feared the military. That's all out of the window now. It was never intended for protection from common criminals. That just happened to be a byproduct of the amendment.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:49 am to MightyYat
Why do the police need weapons that I don't? They are in the same situations as regular citizens.
One thing you'll always notice about these politicians and gun bans, is that they always include exclusions for their protection details
One thing you'll always notice about these politicians and gun bans, is that they always include exclusions for their protection details
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:52 am to MightyYat
quote:
It was never intended for protection from common criminals.
Ya, it was. It was intended for citizens to defend themselves, whether it be from criminals or their own government.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 9:59 am to CarRamrod
quote:
hey believed the people should have access to the same weaponry as the government to be able to over throw it if ever the people became oppressed by the government.
So I can own a nuke?
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:00 am to Centinel
quote:
Ya, it was. It was intended for citizens to defend themselves, whether it be from criminals or their own government.
It was specifically to help the citizens not be afraid of the British military. The 2nd and 3rd amendments were written solely for that purpose. They had no idea the amendment would have to cover carrying a weapon in public to fend off a psychopath in a grocery store in 2019.
quote:
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
The Third Amendment
The Third Amendment prevents government from forcing homeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes. Before the Revolutionary War, laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:04 am to MightyYat
quote:
They had no idea the amendment would have to cover carrying a weapon in public to fend off a psychopath
You think these people didn't exist then?
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:07 am to MightyYat
quote:right so you want to continue to "weaponize" the population?
Right. And at the time the weaponry available was vastly different to what's available today. It was written to say that citizens should have access to the type of weapons as the militia. Well, that's out the window because these AR-15's aren't even close to what our soldiers are going into battle with these days.
quote:Assault weapons ARE banned without a massive tax and registry.
Again, not saying assault weapons need to be banned
quote:are you saying that people in the 1700s didnt own guns to protect themselves from tribes of Indians, or wildlife, or to hunt for food?
It was never intended for protection from common criminals. That just happened to be a byproduct of the amendment.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:08 am to ashy larry
quote:like clock work.
So I can own a nuke?
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:10 am to MightyYat
quote:
It was specifically to help the citizens not be afraid of the British military.
no it wasnt. It was written to allow its citizens to protect themselves from anything ranging from other citizens, other governments and its own government. Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:17 am to MightyYat
quote:
Things evolve and new information becomes available. Yet people still cling to rules/stories from that time.
I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying the constitution is irrelevant because it's old?
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:23 am to Centinel
quote:
Ya, it was
Nah, it was not.
Page 37 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News