Jump to content

Check this anti gun bullshit out.


Guest

Recommended Posts

http://ktul.com/news/local/graphic-video-liquor-store-clerks-shoot-armed-robbery-suspect-fight-over-gun

 

Surveillance video shows the suspect behind the counter before walking out of the camera's view. The owner and her daughter both grab their guns, and when the suspect returns, the owner opens fire.

 

 

The owner suffered a gash to the head, which required staples. Both she and her daughter declined an interview but gave us permission to share the video. The owner's son said their guns saved their lives.

 

"We're not going to be victims," said Justin Christen.

How does one "incident" help anything? We need a good sample as bad as it sounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://ktul.com/news/local/graphic-video-liquor-store-clerks-shoot-armed-robbery-suspect-fight-over-gun

 

Surveillance video shows the suspect behind the counter before walking out of the camera's view. The owner and her daughter both grab their guns, and when the suspect returns, the owner opens fire.

 

 

The owner suffered a gash to the head, which required staples. Both she and her daughter declined an interview but gave us permission to share the video. The owner's son said their guns saved their lives.

 

"We're not going to be victims," said Justin Christen.

I could use the example of the cop who shit out(on the school grounds) when shots were fired at the shooting afew week ago to counter balance your example but it would be stupid to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could use the example of the cop who shit out(on the school grounds) when shots were fired at the shooting afew week ago to counter balance your example but it would be stupid to do so.

exactly why we as people cannot solely rely on police and choose to protect ourselves -- it's b/s be it either he didnt have the balls to enter or didnt enter because no back up and was protocol whatever -- we have to rely on ourselves for protection -- or should I say I choose to rely on myself

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly why we as people cannot solely rely on police and choose to protect ourselves -- it's b/s be it either he didnt have the balls to enter or didnt enter because no back up and was protocol whatever -- we have to rely on ourselves for protection -- or should I say I choose to rely on myself

Tell me again how many mass shootings end in a civilian being the hero? Yes it does happen but its very rare. You can say all you want i will protect myself but when the shit hits the fan people like you who want to be the hero are not the hero 999/1000 its the police who stop it not you So no i dont agree with your "argument" of i will protect myself because you never do. As as been said many times guns to stop guns isnt the answer. As someone has already said unless youve been in that position you cannot say so saying youd do this or youd do that means nothing. Ive never been in a avalanche but hey if i was id make sure i had a spade....... A total bollocks thing to say obvs

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly why we as people cannot solely rely on police and choose to protect ourselves -- it's b/s be it either he didnt have the balls to enter or didnt enter because no back up and was protocol whatever -- we have to rely on ourselves for protection -- or should I say I choose to rely on myself

What gun are you saying should protect you 24/7?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one "incident" help anything? We need a good sample as bad as it sounds

 

It helps because those two women are alive and safe and a thug is in the hospital. Great result in my opinion.

 

Tell me again how many mass shootings end in a civilian being the hero? Yes it does happen but its very rare. You can say all you want i will protect myself but when the shit hits the fan people like you who want to be the hero are not the hero 999/1000 its the police who stop it not you So no i dont agree with your "argument" of i will protect myself because you never do. As as been said many times guns to stop guns isnt the answer. As someone has already said unless youve been in that position you cannot say so saying youd do this or youd do that means nothing. Ive never been in a avalanche but hey if i was id make sure i had a spade....... A total bollocks thing to say obvs

This guy asks for information and then makes up an obviously wrong answer to his question. That's hilarious. The police do not stop 999/1000 mass shootings, it shows that you have no clue what you are talking about to even post that number. Suicide and surrender stop more mass shooters then policemen engaging them in a gunfight. The police rarely even attempt to engage an active shooter, they usually set up a perimeter and try to wait it out with as little risk as possible. Most Americans realize that you cant rely on the police to save you.

I could use the example of the cop who shit out(on the school grounds) when shots were fired at the shooting afew week ago to counter balance your example but it would be stupid to do so.

Yeah it would be pretty stupid to do so, but you did it anyway. Maybe you should just try and argue with humors.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yeah, you gonna defend yourself against an entire gang?

How about an actual relevent image

1-guncontrolin.png

 

Well of course if you ban guns there will be less murders with guns but whats the difference if you are stabbed or shot?

 

Look at statistics on the US violent crimes rates from 90 till now and the same numbers in US if you look at % how it has been falling you can see that its in major favor of US.

 

https://aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2011/chapter-1-recorded-crime

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

 

 

38% of all homicides are by knives in Australia why are they not banned?

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well of course if you ban guns there will be less murders with guns but whats the difference if you are stabbed or shot?

 

Look at statistics on the US violent crimes rates from 90 till now and the same numbers in US if you look at % how it has been falling you can see that its in major favor of US.

 

https://aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2011/chapter-1-recorded-crime

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

 

 

38% of all homicides are by knives in Australia why are they not banned?

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/

It also has the lowest homocide rate since 1990, bans the carrying of knifes without proper cause and does not allow knifes with the main purpose of assault, like switchblades. And once again, a knife is a multipurpose object, you can't ban a steakknife. I don't know anyone who tries to cut his meat with an AR

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also has the lowest homocide rate since 1990, bans the carrying of knifes without proper cause and does not allow knifes with the main purpose of assault, like switchblades. And once again, a knife is a multipurpose object, you can't ban a steakknife. I don't know anyone who tries to cut his meat with an AR

 

I'm sure I saw a Mythbusters ep one time..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also has the lowest homocide rate since 1990, bans the carrying of knifes without proper cause and does not allow knifes with the main purpose of assault, like switchblades. And once again, a knife is a multipurpose object, you can't ban a steakknife. I don't know anyone who tries to cut his meat with an AR

 

"It also has the lowest homocide rate since 1990"

 

Still using Australia as your metric? I guess you don't see the flaw in this?

 

Australia Population 2018 - 24,663,747- 2.9 million square miles.

 

California Population 2018- 39,776,830- 155,959 square miles

 

 

Just one state blows Australia's population away. Despite being 19X smaller than the entire country. If I throw 10 dogs in a small room, the rates of them attacking one another will be higher than if I throw them into a state park.

 

If you're talking Australia, I guess you would be in favor of a buyback plan and not a total ban. Australia bought back 640,000 firearms against the estimated 90 million the USA would buyback under the same policy. This cost might be in the billions if the US paid fair market value for the weapons. So who pays for that?

 

Legality is also an issue when trying to compare the two. Like or not Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. That makes gun ownership in the US an issue of civil rights, not merely public safety, as it is in countries such as Australia, which has no Second Amendment equal.

 

Even anti-gun super left leaning publication's have sated many times over that trying to compare Australia and the USA when it come to guns is pointless. Just google it and see for yourself. I know many gun owners that are open for debate, just not the same one that's been debunked so many times.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also has the lowest homocide rate since 1990, bans the carrying of knifes without proper cause and does not allow knifes with the main purpose of assault, like switchblades. And once again, a knife is a multipurpose object, you can't ban a steakknife. I don't know anyone who tries to cut his meat with an AR

 

Well guns are multipurpose objects as well its not like its created just to shoot up schools.

 

US also has lowest homicide rate since 1990 (not to even mention it has decreased twice when in Australia its lower but not close to low as twice) so we can just see that homicide rate is going down not because of banning of the guns or having guns but because of other reasons right?

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

xtoc3xr8wjj01.jpg

 

 

a study of global mass-shooting incidents from 2009 to 2015 by the Crime Prevention Research Center, headed by economist John Lott, shows the U.S. doesn't lead the world in mass shootings. In fact, it doesn't even make the top 10, when measured by death rate per million population from mass public shootings.

So who's tops? Surprisingly, Norway is, with an outlier mass shooting death rate of 1.888 per million (high no doubt because of the rifle assault by political extremist Anders Brevik that claimed 77 lives in 2011). No. 2 is Serbia, at just 0.381, followed by France at 0.347, Macedonia at 0.337, and Albania at 0.206. Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and Czech Republic all follow. Then comes the U.S., at No. 11, with a death rate of 0.089.

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well guns are multipurpose objects as well its not like its created just to shoot up schools.

 

US also has lowest homicide rate since 1990 (not to even mention it has decreased twice when in Australia its lower but not close to low as twice) so we can just see that homicide rate is going down not because of banning of the guns or having guns but because of other reasons right?

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

WTF statement is this??????????/

 

i give up lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you just read a blurb in the stanford news about a paper you havent read and thought it proved something?

 

Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years

 

 

Looks like garbage in, garbage out. A guy who is very anti gun came up with a secret formula to estimate what crime would have been had RTC not been enacted. No big surprise that of course RTC has caused a crime spike. It's funny that you even posted it, unless you didnt read it or didnt understand it.

A quick search of the author shows he also once fudged some number estimations to make the argument that abortions lead to lower crime rates. So I'll wouldnt put too much weight into his findings. Re-post it when it is removed from behind the paywall or when it is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

 

So you are saying even if guns are banned bad guy still can get them and use them right?

By going through immense trouble yes. That means dealing with hardcore criminals, and the moment they have them they are able to be arrested. But 99% of the people can't get in contact with hardcore criminals. So no one is going to rob you at gunpoint. Dylan Roof won't shoot up a church. Cruz won't shoot up a school. Columbine doesn't happen. And terrorist gun attacks happen way less often, cause even for them it's hard to get guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...