actually chicago shows that gun control works. when hand guns were banned in chicago not a single gun used in crime was from chicago. Chicago proves places with loose gun laws are the problem. there is a reason gun stores in georgia sell the most guns used in crime including ones used half way acroos the country. So no this is a flatout lie it has not been shown statistically that banning guns increases crime. This is a purely emotional argument that doesn't have a shred of actual evidence to support it.
Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster
- Thread starter Xelor
- Start date
You're right. I mentioned the "3 or more deaths" criterion but then listed the shootings that resulted in 10 or more dead. My bad.
Maybe off-topic, since most are discussing the removal of weapons from law-abiding citizens, but how many mass shootings have been in areas that aren't gun-free zones?
Nobody shoots up my neighborhood, anyway. The old man up the road has a .243, and no doubt a shotgun as well. Two houses up from him, a Mexican man I know has an AK-47 and a couple of pistols, at least. The gentleman across the street has several rifles, my son's brother has a gun safe that weighs twice what an empty one weighs.
So on and so forth. Nobody shoots up my neighborhood. But once.
Isn't that nice? Folks get to go to the range and hunt as they choose, and nobody fucks with their lives. Sounds like America.
Nobody shoots up my neighborhood, anyway. The old man up the road has a .243, and no doubt a shotgun as well. Two houses up from him, a Mexican man I know has an AK-47 and a couple of pistols, at least. The gentleman across the street has several rifles, my son's brother has a gun safe that weighs twice what an empty one weighs.
So on and so forth. Nobody shoots up my neighborhood. But once.
Isn't that nice? Folks get to go to the range and hunt as they choose, and nobody fucks with their lives. Sounds like America.
Last edited:
There were armed guards around in several of the "gun free zone" shootings. Let's say they don't count:
Most of the non-school ones, including the Las Vegas shooting - the big one - and the one that is usually credited as the first of the modern age, in the Texas tower. There were good guys with guns pinned down in both of those, iirc.
Earlier we had a posting of nine incidents in which good guys with guns supposedly helped stop a mass shooting. It was bogus about the "help", but accurate about the presence of the good guys with guns.
My neighborhoods, past and present, have plenty of guns as well, and no mass shootings so far. And the neighborhoods are not unsafe on account of them.
Nor are they safe on account of them. Cross your fingers.
Last edited:
Define "poisoning" - the death toll from Flint's bad water is yet to be determined, but it's not going to be in single digits.
I didn't mean to interrupt your perfectly good point about poisoning being much less of a person to person threat than a firearm, of course. Sorry.
Again, though - intent does not seem adequate to define evil. Some of the worst evils we know of fall into the "depraved indifference" and "collateral damage" categories.
Last edited:
Almost all of them.
Per a study by Everytown Research:
63% of mass shootings took place in private homes where guns for self defense are legal. (However, many of the people using those guns were not legally allowed to own them.)
27% of mass shootings took place in areas where there were no specific rules.
10% of mass shootings took place in "gun free zones."
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
And in some of those, there were in fact guns present - not just the shooter's.
Careful, he might put you on ignore too and make a Voodoo doll of you from his extensive collection of finely-preserved possum skins.