Can the pro gun folks help us prevent mass shootings in any way?

[Rich2018]

I'll say this every time that useless word is whipped out: If pointing out flaming hypocrisy is "whataboutism," sign me up.

Once you've filled in your pool, you get to lecture gun owners about mass shootings. Deal?

Why, I can't take my pool on a killing spree can I ?

If mass shootings are equivalent to the world burning, I can't even imagine what metaphor you would apply to the problems you hypocritically ignore.

Then I'll tell you, it's "what-about-ism"

To you, 420 mass shootings in one year (2019) is tolerable, to me it's not.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Why, I can't take my pool on a killing spree can I ?

Nope, pools kill loads of children all by themselves. All you have to do is keep it filled with water.

Then I'll tell you, it's "what-about-ism"

To you, 420 mass shootings in one year (2019) is tolerable, to me it's not.

There's your first error. We never had 420 mass shootings in one year.

 

[Ginger Ale]

They won't even try bud.

All they care about is the right to have their gun.

I've barked up this tree, and nothins there. Nothin.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope, pools kill loads of children all by themselves. All you have to do is keep it filled with water.

So you need to make them safer.

Point is, they're designed for fun, not to kill with

There's your first error. We never had 420 mass shootings in one year.

I even gave you the year (2019):

There were more mass shootings than days in 2019

365 days. 417 mass shootings.

www.cbsnews.com

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Noodlegawd]

So you need to make them safer.

Point is, they're designed for fun, not to kill with

So are guns. They're loads of fun.

I even gave you the year (2019):

There were more mass shootings than days in 2019

365 days. 417 mass shootings.

www.cbsnews.com

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please tell me why I should care about the definition of "mass shooting" made up by the "Gun Violence Archive" so they could claim that there's at least one mass shooting every day (regardless of whether anyone actually dies or is even seriously injured).

I suppose if I redefined "drowning" to include any injury within 50 yards of a swimming pool, you'd be in big trouble.

But even with that ridiculous definition of mass shootings, such events led to just over 500 deaths in total in 2019. That's about 3 weeks' worth of drunk driving deaths, or 6 weeks' worth of drowings.

 

[TurtleDude]

They won't even try bud.

All they care about is the right to have their gun.

I've barked up this tree, and nothins there. Nothin.

what do you all care about ? pretending you have done something and then pat yourself on the back, while requiring other people to pay for your worthless solutions?

 

[Ginger Ale]

what do you all care about ? pretending you have done something and then pat yourself on the back, while requiring other people to pay for your worthless solutions?

Keep telling yourself that, seems to work for ya. Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to lower the death count caused by being a free to be armed to the teeth society by voting in people who give a sheet about lives lost and want to do something productive about it.

I just assume you fight for the right and whatever they say to fight for you do, even if it costs lives. Between Covid and gun rights, you guys rights kill a lot of people but it doesn't seem to bother you. I've asked.

 

[Rich2018]

So are guns. They're loads of fun.

They might be, but they're not designed for fun (sporting target rifles/pistol excepted)

Please tell me why I should care about the definition of "mass shooting" made up by the "Gun Violence Archive" so they could claim that there's at least one mass shooting every day (regardless of whether anyone actually dies or is even seriously injured).

Because how do you know the extent of the problem of mass shootings, without being able to define what one is ?

I suppose if I redefined "drowning" to include any injury within 50 yards of a swimming pool, you'd be in big trouble.

Why ?

But even with that ridiculous definition of mass shootings, such events led to just over 500 deaths in total in 2019. That's about 3 weeks' worth of drunk driving deaths, or 6 weeks' worth of drowings.

Why is it "ridiculous ?
Do you have a better definition ?

And so what ?
You're just playing the "what-about-ism" game again.

 

[jonny5]

Can the pro gun folks help us prevent mass shootings in any way?

For example, mental health exams might've prevented both the Boulder super market shooting and the guy who killed all those Asian women. Both bought their guns shortly before they went on a rampage.

Longer waiting periods might've helped.

Is the pro gun crowd willing to do anything at all to reduce the problem?

Yes. Name me one thing I can do that isnt about guns. Im willing to do lots of things to reduce violence regardless of the tool they use. How do you want to identify the Atlanta shooter as needing a mental health exam and what do you want to do with him?

 

[RF667799]

So you need to make them safer.

Point is, they're designed for fun, not to kill with




I even gave you the year (2019):

There were more mass shootings than days in 2019

365 days. 417 mass shootings.

www.cbsnews.com

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take one attribute of gun design (the capability of killing), and then claim that "guns are designed to kill", implying that is their sole purpose.

Inherent to the design of cars is their capability of being driven into a tree at 100mph. Thus, cars are designed to be driven into trees at 100mph.

 

[Noodlegawd]

They might be, but they're not designed for fun (sporting target rifles/pistol excepted)

Sure they are. And why does what something is "designed for" even matter in this conversation? The overwhelming majority (>99%) of gun owners don't buy their guns because they want to kill people. You'd think that the intended end-use would be far more relevant than your made-up assertion about what they were "designed for."

Because how do you know the extent of the problem of mass shootings, without being able to define what one is ?

I didn't say we shouldn't define it. The definition we had for 2+ decades was more than adequate to serve as a framwork to address the problem. Apparently Mother Jones agrees.

Changing the definition so that nearly half of the incidents that fit the definition don't involve a single death, two thirds involve 0 or 1 death, and tons of the incidents are gang and drug-related, doesn't actually help anyone understand the problem in a useful way. Certainly not in the way that the overwhelming majority of people care about it, or the news actually chooses to report it.

If we're going to change the definitions we use, then let's make them more useful. I don't actually think it's terribly useful to define incidents based on the number of people shot or killed in a single incident. I think it would be more useful to categorize them in terms of the circumstances. Was it a random shooting of unrelated innocent bystanders just going about their business? Domestic issue? Crime-related? At a party attended by loads of gang members? Then people could get a sense of how at risk they are based on their own situation and behavior. Based on the news reporting, I think people are most concerned about the first category, and if you actually look at the states for that, and people understood them relative to other risks in their lives, we probably wouldn't be hearing so much about it.

Why ?

Because it would make your hypocrisy all the more striking.

 

[swing_voter]

A mass shooting should be over 6 dead.

Excluding gang violence because that's a whole different issue. We've had gang violence for over a hundred years and many things have been tried but none succeeded. If you come up with a solution, you'll be a national hero.


.

 

[bongsaway]

Can the pro gun folks help us prevent mass shootings in any way?

For example, mental health exams might've prevented both the Boulder super market shooting and the guy who killed all those Asian women. Both bought their guns shortly before they went on a rampage.

Longer waiting periods might've helped.

Is the pro gun crowd willing to do anything at all to reduce the problem?



.

Do you not understand by now that any and everything to do with gun control is a no no?

 

[Rich2018]

Sure they are.

No, they're not

Swimming pools are designed for fun, guns are not

...the overwhelming majority (>99%) of gun owners don't buy their guns because they want to kill people. You'd think that the intended end-use would be far more relevant than your made-up assertion about what they were "designed for."

Is that a figure you just pulled out of your ass or do you have a source for it ?

And even if it were true, so what ?
What percentage would be "critical mass" for you - 5%, 10%, 20% ?

It's like your saying that the enjoyment that most gun owners get from owning guns, is worth the pain and death of the victims of the minority. It's not.

...I didn't say we shouldn't define it. The definition we had for 2+ decades was more than adequate to serve as a framwork to address the problem. Apparently Mother Jones agrees.

Changing the definition so that nearly half of the incidents that fit the definition don't involve a single death, two thirds involve 0 or 1 death, and tons of the incidents are gang and drug-related, doesn't actually help anyone understand the problem in a useful way. Certainly not in the way that the overwhelming majority of people care about it, or the news actually chooses to report it.

If we're going to change the definitions we use, then let's make them more useful. I don't actually think it's terribly useful to define incidents based on the number of people shot or killed in a single incident. I think it would be more useful to categorize them in terms of the circumstances. Was it a random shooting of unrelated innocent bystanders just going about their business? Domestic issue? Crime-related? At a party attended by loads of gang members? Then people could get a sense of how at risk they are based on their own situation and behavior. Based on the news reporting, I think people are most concerned about the first category, and if you actually look at the states for that, and people understood them relative to other risks in their lives, we probably wouldn't be hearing so much about it.
other risks in their lives, we probably wouldn't be hearing so much about it.

So a random shooting becomes a "mass shooting" at what point ?

At what point does a school shooting become a "mass shooting" ?

You're saying it should have nothing to do with how many people are shot...which contradicts the term "mass"
So what would your criteria be ?

Because it would make your hypocrisy all the more striking.

Please demonstrate this "hypocrisy".

 

[Noodlegawd]

No, they're not

Swimming pools are designed for fun, guns are not

Is that a figure you just pulled out of your ass or do you have a source for it ?

Like you provided a source for your claim that "guns are designed to kill"?

10s of millions of guns are sold every year. Only about 10,000 to 15,000 murders are committed with them every year, and I would gather that a considerable portion of those were committed with guns that their lawful owners did not purchase for the purpose of killing a person. Do the math.

It's like your saying that the enjoyment that most gun owners get from owning guns, is worth the pain and death of the victims of the minority. It's not.

There's that hypocrisy again. Thousands of drowning deaths are just fine with you -- totally worth it -- but a few hundred deaths in mass shootings are the fault of 99+% of gun owners who buy their guns for sport or self-defense.

So a random shooting becomes a "mass shooting" at what point ?

At what point does a school shooting become a "mass shooting" ?

You're saying it should have nothing to do with how many people are shot...which contradicts the term "mass"
So what would your criteria be ?

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. Are you trolling me now?

Please demonstrate this "hypocrisy".

I already did, many times. You can choose to ignore that and pretend I didn't explain it, or you can respond to it with a rational argument.

 

[Rich2018]

Like you provided a source for your claim that "guns are designed to kill"?

You really need a source for that ?

10s of millions of guns are sold every year. Only about 10,000 to 15,000 murders are committed with them every year, and I would gather that a considerable portion of those were committed with guns that their lawful owners did not purchase for the purpose of killing a person. Do the math.

So what ?
They are easily outweighed by the guns that ARE misused

Do you agree with FAA regulations banning guns & metal knives on commercial airplanes Btw ?

There's that hypocrisy again. Thousands of drowning deaths are just fine with you...

No it's not. Clearly we need to do more to make swimming pools safer

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. Are you trolling me now?

You talked about making a definition of mass shooting "more useful"

So what might it be ?
What would be the criteria ?

I already did, many times. You can choose to ignore that and pretend I didn't explain it, or you can respond to it with a rational argument.

No, no you haven't

So please say exactly what this "hypocrisy" is.

 

[DebateChallenge]

No. They're too scared.

Too scared? Its the pro gun folks who are brave enough to stop mass shooters, unlike the liberals who are true cowards.

List of Mass Shootings Stopped by Armed Civilians - The Meme Policeman

This meme claims zero mass shootings were prevented by armed civilians. By any reasonable measure this is false. This list counts 24 examples that meet the criteria.

memepoliceman.com

 

[Rich2018]

Too scared? Its the pro gun folks who are brave enough to stop mass shooters, unlike the liberals who are true cowards.

List of Mass Shootings Stopped by Armed Civilians - The Meme Policeman

This meme claims zero mass shootings were prevented by armed civilians. By any reasonable measure this is false. This list counts 24 examples that meet the criteria.

memepoliceman.com

???

I suspect that shooters ARE pro-gun folks

Why are liberals cowards ?
Because we don't want to get shot by pro-gun folks ?

 

[MamboDervish]

Too scared? Its the pro gun folks who are brave enough to stop mass shooters, unlike the liberals who are true cowards.

List of Mass Shootings Stopped by Armed Civilians - The Meme Policeman

This meme claims zero mass shootings were prevented by armed civilians. By any reasonable measure this is false. This list counts 24 examples that meet the criteria.

memepoliceman.com

Completely meaningless. There's absolutely no way to tell how many gun carriers were present at every shooting. For all you know, at half those events there were a dozen armed heroes hiding in the corner under a chair with their weapons still in their pants.

I recall hearing about at least a couple who came forward after the theater shooting in Aurora Colorado in 2012, admitting they just kept their heads down and did nothing. The theater was a "gun free zone", and the concealed carry cowards said they were afraid they'd be charged with having a weapon at the cinema. My brother relayed the story he had heard from some locals. He lives in Aurora and was in the same theater less than 2 weeks before the shooting. Besides, the whole "good guys with guns" fallacy has been debunked more ways, and more times than is even worth mentioning.

Loading…

docs.rwu.edu

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.businessinsider.com

Breaking down the NRA-backed theory that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun

The idea is raised in the wake of many mass shootings.

abcnews.go.com

The “Good Guy with a Gun” Myth

The research is clear: owning a gun does not make you or the people around you safer.

giffords.org

How the ‘good guy with a gun’ became a deadly American fantasy

The archetype can be traced back to 1920s detective fiction, when gruff, gun-toting, cigarette-smoking mavericks became heroic figures.

www.pbs.org

The simple truth is: The single most common reason given for obtaining a handgun is "personal protection". And what does that mean? Most people want guns because they're afraid.

 

[TurtleDude]

Keep telling yourself that, seems to work for ya. Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to lower the death count caused by being a free to be armed to the teeth society by voting in people who give a sheet about lives lost and want to do something productive about it.

I just assume you fight for the right and whatever they say to fight for you do, even if it costs lives. Between Covid and gun rights, you guys rights kill a lot of people but it doesn't seem to bother you. I've asked.

I call nonsense. if you all really cared about lowering deaths, banning guns or harassing gun owners is a piss poor place to start

 

[Rich2018]

Completely meaningless. There's absolutely no way to tell how many gun carriers were present at every shooting. For all you know, at half those events there were a dozen armed heroes hiding in the corner under a chair with their weapons still in their pants.

Fair point, I mean the cop at Parkland hid outside as kids were being shot inside the school buildings.

 

[Noodlegawd]

No it's not. Clearly we need to do more to make swimming pools safer

Cool. Start a forum for it. In the meantime, be sure to drain all the water out.

 

[Rich2018]

Cool. Start a forum for it. In the meantime, be sure to drain all the water out.

Why, no-one's drowned in my pool.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why, no-one's drowned in my pool.

and no one has died from the guns of most lawful owners. Yet you want to ban them from being owned

 

[Noodlegawd]

Why, no-one's drowned in my pool.

And no one has been murdered with any of my guns, but you think I shouldn't have them. See, more proof of hypocrisy.