Another mass shooting

[jfish26]

Ok so explain Chicago then, or new York. Or any other city with tougher than average gun laws but higher than average homicide rates

As you appropriately pointed out, there are confounding factors there, and nobody is saying tougher gun laws would bring homicide rates to zero anywhere among any group.

But, as you know, mass shootings - particularly school shootings and the like - are their own unique animal.

Yes or no: the homicide rate (death by way of mass shootings (particularly school shootings and the like)) would be at least as high as it is today, if assault weapons were less accessible.

Yes or no.

So its not the guns? Its compounding factors?

I said "confounding," which isn't the same as "compounding".

But in any case, answer the yes or no question ("yes" or "no"). I don't understand why "will this 100% solve every problem?" is a gating question to you rubes.

(I mean, I very much do know why you do this.)

[jfish26]

Mass shootings make up a ridiculously low percentage of gun deaths. And are committed by a ridiculously low percentage of gun owners. And is given a ridiculously high percentage of attention by the media, driven by a political agenda. Thats the part we leave out in this conversation

Just because it's "rare" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it.

Right?

And what you are saying, is that (to you) limiting access to assault rifles is too great an infringement on liberty to be worth pursuing. You ARE saying that the present cost of things is a worthwhile price to pay for FREEDOM.

And that's, to me, a fucking gross point of view.

[KUTradition]

it’s gross, callous, and anti-civil society

[TDub]

what's Vermont doing that other states aren't?

high gun ownership numbers, low gun crime rates

[Overlander]

what's Vermont doing that other states aren't?

high gun ownership numbers, low gun crime rates

I found the answer:

[randylahey]

Mass shootings make up a ridiculously low percentage of gun deaths. And are committed by a ridiculously low percentage of gun owners. And is given a ridiculously high percentage of attention by the media, driven by a political agenda. Thats the part we leave out in this conversation

Just because it's "rare" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it.

Right?

And what you are saying, is that (to you) limiting access to assault rifles is too great an infringement on liberty to be worth pursuing. You ARE saying that the present cost of things is a worthwhile price to pay for FREEDOM.

And that's, to me, a fucking gross point of view.

Infringing liberty is going to cause more problems and in this case not solve the ones its aimed to fix. Thats argument people. Its not that anyone doesn't want to cut down violence. But sacrificing liberty would an unsuccessful attempt to treat the symptoms, not the cause of the problem

[PhDhawk]

Requiring people to register their guns, take a safety course, insure their guns, having a waiting list, prohibiting bump stocks, or applying some of the same rules to private sales that apply to public sales aren't infringing on liberty.

We require permits to go fishing in a lake and no one bats an eye.
You have to pass a driver's test and it doesn't infringe on liberty.
You have to have insurance on your car.
We regulate all kinds of things and no one bitches about their "liberty"
Hell, you have to register to vote and the people who are complaining about liberty when it comes to gun laws are the same ones who want to make stricter regulations on voting.

[jfish26]

Requiring people to register their guns, take a safety course, insure their guns, having a waiting list, prohibiting bump stocks, or applying some of the same rules to private sales that apply to public sales aren't infringing on liberty.

We require permits to go fishing in a lake and no one bats an eye.
You have to pass a driver's test and it doesn't infringe on liberty.
You have to have insurance on your car.
We regulate all kinds of things and no one bitches about their "liberty"
Hell, you have to register to vote and the people who are complaining about liberty when it comes to gun laws are the same ones who want to make stricter regulations on voting.

My shotguns are all capable of holding only two or three shells, because that's what the laws pertaining to migratory bird hunting require. That's been the law for generations, and you don't see some sort of OUTRAGE groundswell over it. "Liberty" has seemed to more or less chug along despite this infringement on unfettered access to firearms.

[jfish26]

Mass shootings make up a ridiculously low percentage of gun deaths. And are committed by a ridiculously low percentage of gun owners. And is given a ridiculously high percentage of attention by the media, driven by a political agenda. Thats the part we leave out in this conversation

Just because it's "rare" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it.

Right?

And what you are saying, is that (to you) limiting access to assault rifles is too great an infringement on liberty to be worth pursuing. You ARE saying that the present cost of things is a worthwhile price to pay for FREEDOM.

And that's, to me, a fucking gross point of view.

Infringing liberty is going to cause more problems and in this case not solve the ones its aimed to fix. Thats argument people. Its not that anyone doesn't want to cut down violence. But sacrificing liberty would an unsuccessful attempt to treat the symptoms, not the cause of the problem

Just endless, bad-faith, ignorant horseshit.

If people kept getting killed trying to cross a highway on foot, you wouldn't NOT put up a fence just because some percentage of the drivers were speeding and/or looking at their phones when striking pedestrians. You'd put up the fucking fence, AND have sensible speed limits AND sensible restrictions on distracted driving.

But you'd start with the fucking fence, because if there are fewer pedestrians to hit, then the speeding, distracted drivers would have fewer pedestrians to hit! The fence would be a no-brainer.

And again, just so we're not losing sight of the big-picture stupidity of your argument: we're talking about restricting access to assault rifles. Your panties are this twisted up over access to assault rifles. The number of people killed in the US every year by assault rifles isn't high enough for you to be supportive of any new restrictions on buying, owning and using assault rifles.

It is simply TRUE that, to you, the weekly-ish mowing down of children with assault rifles is a worthwhile price to pay for your continued freedom to purchase, own and use assault rifles.

That's some real Karen shit.

[randylahey]

Just because it's "rare" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it.

Right?

And what you are saying, is that (to you) limiting access to assault rifles is too great an infringement on liberty to be worth pursuing. You ARE saying that the present cost of things is a worthwhile price to pay for FREEDOM.

And that's, to me, a fucking gross point of view.

Infringing liberty is going to cause more problems and in this case not solve the ones its aimed to fix. Thats argument people. Its not that anyone doesn't want to cut down violence. But sacrificing liberty would an unsuccessful attempt to treat the symptoms, not the cause of the problem

Just endless, bad-faith, ignorant horseshit.

If people kept getting killed trying to cross a highway on foot, you wouldn't NOT put up a fence just because some percentage of the drivers were speeding and/or looking at their phones when striking pedestrians. You'd put up the fucking fence, AND have sensible speed limits AND sensible restrictions on distracted driving.

But you'd start with the fucking fence, because if there are fewer pedestrians to hit, then the speeding, distracted drivers would have fewer pedestrians to hit! The fence would be a no-brainer.

And again, just so we're not losing sight of the big-picture stupidity of your argument: we're talking about restricting access to assault rifles. Your panties are this twisted up over access to assault rifles. The number of people killed in the US every year by assault rifles isn't high enough for you to be supportive of any new restrictions on buying, owning and using assault rifles.

It is simply TRUE that, to you, the weekly-ish mowing down of children with assault rifles is a worthwhile price to pay for your continued freedom to purchase, own and use assault rifles.

That's some real Karen shit.

You being on some endless rant is the Karen shit. Im saying its not worth sacrificing liberty for children to still get shot illegally. Its already illegal to shoot kids. Its already illegal to take guns to schools. That hasn't stopped criminals. Whatever new gun law you suggest won't stop them either

[randylahey]

If you want to use analogies jfish heres one. Lets say you were shitting yourself every day, and soiling all your underpants. Would you consider plugging or removing your butthole, or would you consider changing your diet?

This nation's diet is the problem. A unrealistic ban of the symptoms will not cure the root of the problem

[Overlander]

If you want to use analogies jfish heres one. Lets say you were shitting yourself every day, and soiling all your underpants. Would you consider plugging or removing your butthole, or would you consider changing your diet?

This nation's diet is the problem. A unrealistic ban of the symptoms will not cure the root of the problem

Awesome analogy.

Amazing amount of thought clearly went into it.

Bravo!

[jfish26]

If you want to use analogies jfish heres one. Lets say you were shitting yourself every day, and soiling all your underpants. Would you consider plugging or removing your butthole, or would you consider changing your diet?

This nation's diet is the problem. A unrealistic ban of the symptoms will not cure the root of the problem

You can't even come up with decent bad-faith analogies, that's how bad your point is.

Because the answer here is obviously that I'd wear a diaper to stop shit from running down my leg, unless/until I solved the underlying issue by taking steps that are longer-burn in nature.

I sure as fuck wouldn't just keep shitting my shorts while trying to figure out other solutions.

You treat the symptoms AND the root of the problem. That's how being a rational actor works.

[jfish26]

Infringing liberty is going to cause more problems and in this case not solve the ones its aimed to fix. Thats argument people. Its not that anyone doesn't want to cut down violence. But sacrificing liberty would an unsuccessful attempt to treat the symptoms, not the cause of the problem

Just endless, bad-faith, ignorant horseshit.

If people kept getting killed trying to cross a highway on foot, you wouldn't NOT put up a fence just because some percentage of the drivers were speeding and/or looking at their phones when striking pedestrians. You'd put up the fucking fence, AND have sensible speed limits AND sensible restrictions on distracted driving.

But you'd start with the fucking fence, because if there are fewer pedestrians to hit, then the speeding, distracted drivers would have fewer pedestrians to hit! The fence would be a no-brainer.

And again, just so we're not losing sight of the big-picture stupidity of your argument: we're talking about restricting access to assault rifles. Your panties are this twisted up over access to assault rifles. The number of people killed in the US every year by assault rifles isn't high enough for you to be supportive of any new restrictions on buying, owning and using assault rifles.

It is simply TRUE that, to you, the weekly-ish mowing down of children with assault rifles is a worthwhile price to pay for your continued freedom to purchase, own and use assault rifles.

That's some real Karen shit.

You being on some endless rant is the Karen shit. Im saying its not worth sacrificing liberty for children to still get shot illegally. Its already illegal to shoot kids. Its already illegal to take guns to schools. That hasn't stopped criminals. Whatever new gun law you suggest won't stop them either

You keep coming back to this "if we can't stop everything bad immediately and forever, it's not worth doing anything now" standard. That's not how life works. If you have a job, I can't imagine that's how your job works.

You keep doing this, though, because it's right from the rube playbook when you can't make your case on the merits. Make the other side of the argument prove negatives. Keep moving the goalposts. Deflect/distract/gaslight/mislead/confuse. Chum the water. Identify problems, but don't ever put forward a plan of your own.

[randylahey]

Just endless, bad-faith, ignorant horseshit.

If people kept getting killed trying to cross a highway on foot, you wouldn't NOT put up a fence just because some percentage of the drivers were speeding and/or looking at their phones when striking pedestrians. You'd put up the fucking fence, AND have sensible speed limits AND sensible restrictions on distracted driving.

But you'd start with the fucking fence, because if there are fewer pedestrians to hit, then the speeding, distracted drivers would have fewer pedestrians to hit! The fence would be a no-brainer.

And again, just so we're not losing sight of the big-picture stupidity of your argument: we're talking about restricting access to assault rifles. Your panties are this twisted up over access to assault rifles. The number of people killed in the US every year by assault rifles isn't high enough for you to be supportive of any new restrictions on buying, owning and using assault rifles.

It is simply TRUE that, to you, the weekly-ish mowing down of children with assault rifles is a worthwhile price to pay for your continued freedom to purchase, own and use assault rifles.

That's some real Karen shit.

You being on some endless rant is the Karen shit. Im saying its not worth sacrificing liberty for children to still get shot illegally. Its already illegal to shoot kids. Its already illegal to take guns to schools. That hasn't stopped criminals. Whatever new gun law you suggest won't stop them either

You keep coming back to this "if we can't stop everything bad immediately and forever, it's not worth doing anything now" standard. That's not how life works. If you have a job, I can't imagine that's how your job works.

You keep doing this, though, because it's right from the rube playbook when you can't make your case on the merits. Make the other side of the argument prove negatives. Keep moving the goalposts. Deflect/distract/gaslight/mislead/confuse. Chum the water. Identify problems, but don't ever put forward a plan of your own.

Youre describing yourself bud

[randylahey]

You want to make changes because or your emotions, without considering the logical side of things

But its cool. Carry on.

[randylahey]

How do you feel about banning sugar? Its responsible for more death and disease than guns are

[randylahey]

[randylahey]

This sums up why I refuse to budge on gun rights to compensate for your feelings

[zsn]

You being on some endless rant is the Karen shit. Im saying its not worth sacrificing liberty for children to still get shot illegally. Its already illegal to shoot kids. Its already illegal to take guns to schools. That hasn't stopped criminals. Whatever new gun law you suggest won't stop them either

Actually the better analogy is that it’s already illegal to break into someone’s house or car. But we have locks on doors and anti theft safeguards in cars.

Do you have a lock on your front door and car? Do you have burglar alarms? Nothing stops them from throwing a brick through the window and entering the house or car. So, no locks or alarms?