BAN GARLIC

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, Blacksmith311 said:

when data proves in mass shootings handguns are are used in a vastly greater percentage than any rifle. 

Weren't the guns used in both recent deadly mass shootings .223 caliber rifles? Do you have a link the "the data" that proves this? What is the percentage of deaths caused, versus the percentage of guns used? Over what period of time was this data collected?

[Blacksmith311 0]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

 

handguns 64% rifles 4%. I believe it went back to 1982. I see what you are saying that you have the potential to kill more at one time.

[jakee 1,489]

7 hours ago, Blacksmith311 said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

 

handguns 64% rifles 4%. I believe it went back to 1982. I see what you are saying that you have the potential to kill more at one time.

Those are the types of guns used in all murders, not mass shootings.

[kallend 2,027]

Are you more dead if shot with a rifle or a handgun?

Clearly, regulations should be targeted at the type of firearm that leaves you deader.

[Coreece 190]

On 8/10/2019 at 11:47 PM, Blacksmith311 said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

 

handguns 64% rifles 4%. I believe it went back to 1982. I see what you are saying that you have the potential to kill more at one time. 

Only about 20% of all mass shootings in the last 50 years involved assault rifles, but they accounted for almost half of the deaths.

https://rockinst.org/issue-area/assault-weapons-mass-shootings-and-options-for-lawmakers/

[brenthutch 444]

There is ALWAYS a most deadly something.  Once you get rid of it, the second most deadly will take its place, so on and so forth, AKA the slippery slope argument.

[billvon 2,991]

Just now, brenthutch said:

There is ALWAYS a most deadly something.  Once you get rid of it, the second most deadly will take its place, so on and so forth, AKA the slippery slope argument.

So curing heart disease and cancer would be worthless, because then strokes will kill more people?  After all, it's a slippery slope.

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

So curing heart disease and cancer would be worthless, because then strokes will kill more people?  After all, it's a slippery slope.

Really Bill?

[kallend 2,027]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Really Bill?

Your logic. Bill was just illustrating how stupid it is,

[Stumpy 284]

Meanwhile, Australia demonstrates again that making weapons more difficult to get is effective - man on "Stabbing rampage" is subdued using a chair and a plastic crate. An AR15 would have made that a much different situation....

 

https://www.insider.com/sydney-cbd-stabbing-suspect-chased-trapped-under-chairs-and-crates-2019-8

[mbohu 77]

On 8/11/2019 at 8:39 PM, Coreece said:

Only about 20% of all mass shootings in the last 50 years involved assault rifles, but they accounted for almost half of the deaths.

That's what I thought was likely. It's somewhat common sense, I would think.

Here is another issue: It looks the commonly cited statistic is, that there were over 250 mass shootings this year already in the US, which means there were over 1/day. However, I can "only" think of less than a dozen that were reported as mass shootings.
It looks like the definition of mass shooting only takes into account how many people died (I think it's 3 or more) as a result of a firearm incident. The popular, colloquial definition of "mass shooting" seems to be more something like: "someone with a lot of guns went to a crowded place and indiscriminately started shooting people he didn't even know at all--usually expecting to get killed himself in the process". This particular definition of mass shooting seems to make them so unique to America (and usually seems to involve rifles with large capacity magazines). It does muddy the waters a bit, when it is unclear what one is talking about when using the term "mass shooting."

[brenthutch 444]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

Your logic. Bill was just illustrating how stupid it is,

A real world example of my “stupid” logic.

”First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Edited August 14, 2019 by brenthutch

[mbohu 77]

47 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

A real world example of my “stupid” logic.

”First they came for the socialists

That isn't quite the same: "Them coming for anyone at all" isn't something that should be happening, period. So this saying just illustrates that you should care, if something bad happens, even if it doesn't happen to you, or people that you care about.
If we were arguing "They should be coming for law abiding gun owners", i.e. putting them in prison or deporting them without any legal due process or reason other than they are gun owners, then your argument applies here.

The typical "slippery slope" argument is a different one: It says, we should not consider taking action A, which in itself is potentially a good action, because it may then lead to action B, which leads to action C,D,E,...  and because at the end of that line, somewhere between E and Z is an action that is so extreme that nobody can justify it, we should never take action A. It tries to get around even arguing about if action A, in its own right, is a reasonable and useful action.
It kills any subtlety in a debate (and usually also tries to make it look like proponents of action A would be in favor of the completely crazy action Z at the end of that line.)

In both cases one should instead be looking at the proposed action itself: "Coming for the socialists", which probably means putting them in prison or something like that, purely on the basis of their political belief is in and of itself a bad thing--I think most would agree on that--even if they are opposed to their philosophy.
Regulating dangerous and deadly weapons in some way, shape or form, is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is something that can reasonably be argued about. Not looking at this by itself, because eventually it could lead to the complete banning and confiscation of all kitchen knifes, is not a well reasoned argument.

 

[Coreece 190]

14 hours ago, mbohu said:

Here is another issue: It looks the commonly cited statistic is, that there were over 250 mass shootings this year already in the US.

Here's a comprehensive database of those 257 mass shootings:

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?sort=asc&order=%23 Killed

They are defined as "mass shootings based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot OR killed, not including the shooter."

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology

 

14 hours ago, mbohu said:

However, I can "only" think of less than a dozen that were reported as mass shootings.

Because the majority of those 257 shootings didn't involve any deaths and were related to things like domestic violence, gang fights and other issues that aren't typically associated with mass shootings nor deemed worthy of national attention.  That type of air time is reserved for angry Muslims, Christians, Atheists, white supremacists and depressed teenagers pumped up on psychotropic drugs that decide to shoot up schools, churches, mosques, nightclubs, concerts, etc.

Regardless tho, it's important not to lump all these shootings together but to categorize them appropriately since things like domestic violence will obviously require a different set of solutions than that of school shooting rampages.

 

14 hours ago, mbohu said:

It does muddy the waters a bit, when it is unclear what one is talking about when using the term "mass shooting."

The link to the 340 mass shootings over a 50 year period that I posted earlier were all defined as:

"an incident of targeted violence carried out by one or more shooters at one or more public or populated locations. Multiple victims (both injuries and fatalities) are associated with the attack, and both the victims and location(s) are chosen either at random or for their symbolic value. The event occurs within a single 24-hour period, though most attacks typically last only a few minutes. The motivation of the shooting must not correlate with gang violence or targeted militant or terroristic activity."

https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/

[billvon 2,991]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

A real world example of my “stupid” logic.

”First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

That's the exact opposite of what you were just talking about.  We were talking about ways to reduce the incidence of bad things - shooting and cancer - by taking actions that would reduce the incidence of them.  I assume (I hope) you are not claiming that "coming for people" is good.

So let's use your real world quote in the context of what you are replying to:

First they came for cancer, and I did not speak out—because I did not have cancer. Then they came for heart disease, and I did not speak out— because I did not have heart disease. Then they came for stroke - and I did not speak out, because I had had a stroke.

 

[brenthutch 444]

How about “When they came for the AKs, I didn’t speak out because I didn’t have an AK, when they came for the ARs, I didn’t speak out because I didn’t have an AR, when they came for the semi-autos and detachable magazines I didn’t speak out because I did not have a semi-auto with a detachable magazine, and when they came for my Winchester 30-30 there was no one left standing to defend my Second Amendment rights.”

[billvon 2,991]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

How about “When they came for the AKs, I didn’t speak out because I didn’t have an AK, when they came for the ARs, I didn’t speak out because I didn’t have an AR, when they came for the semi-autos and detachable magazines I didn’t speak out because I did not have a semi-auto with a detachable magazine, and when they came for my Winchester 30-30 there was no one left standing to defend my Second Amendment rights.”

Much better.  But of course taking away a gun does not take away people, so your last phrase there doesn't really make any sense.  If they take away your 30 round magazine, everyone is left standing to fight for your AK (for example.)

[brenthutch 444]

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

 But of course taking away a gun does not take away people

Tell that to the six million Jews who where disarmed in 1938 

[tonyhays 86]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Tell that to the six million Jews who where disarmed in 1938 

Uh huh

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/

[SkyDekker 1,465]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Tell that to the six million Jews who where disarmed in 1938 

This shows such an incredible lack of understanding and nuance.

[billvon 2,991]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Tell that to the six million Jews who where disarmed in 1938 

So the Third Reich wasn't involved in killing them?  In that case, it's the lack of guns that kills people, not people that kill people?

I think you're going to pull a muscle there making that much of a stretch.

[brenthutch 444]

https://www.abqjournal.com/1154293/governments-that-disarm-the-people-have-troubling-history.html

So it wasn’t just the Nazis

[brenthutch 444]

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm

Turks disarmed the Armenians prior to their genocide.

[brenthutch 444]

It’s hard to imagine this

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

 without this

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

 

[jakee 1,489]

32 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It’s hard to imagine this

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

 without this

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

It's hard to imagine the Soviet Revolution without an armed and organized militia.

 

What's your point?