BAD SCHOOL SHOOTING IN NEVADA. MULTIPLE STUDENTS AND TEACHERS DEAD

Sorry dimwit, not surprisingly, YOU are the idiot actually. Since you are obviously slow, I will break this down for you nice and simple to show you why that is the case (in clear easy steps even a moronic troll can understand)-The poster you were responding to stated:

Yanks in denial re guns wrote:

Over here the number of shootings is a lot less as its much harder to get guns.

It's so obvious, less guns equals less gun crime.

You "brilliantly" came back with: "That's like saying less criminals equals less crime."

How on earth is what you said and what he said the same?? (Hint: they're not.) He said less guns = less gun crime. Now it might be on him to prove it, but this is obviously completely different than saying "less criminals = less crime". His claim (which was clear to anyone not as mentally challenged as you) was that availability of guns LEADS TO more violent crimes committed with guns, i.e., in fact creates more violent criminals or criminals who commit even more or more violent crimes than they would without easy availability of guns .( in reality, there is truth to this, but we can get to that in a moment).

Your terrible attempt at an analogy stated that "less criminals = less crime." A criminal is someone who has already committed crimes. Reducing violent gun crimes by reducing/eliminating easy availability to a weapon is completely different than lowering crime by eliminating anyone with a criminal record. I mean, even you can understand this, right?

In case you were not aware, suicides have greatly been reduced in some countries or states by eliminating or reducing the availability to the easiest and most popular modes of committing suicide (guns, certain bridges, coal gas fueled ovens in England, etc). Obviously reducing suicide in this manner (reducing the means/mode of the act) is completely different than reducing suicide by reducing depressed people, or people with some tendency to hurt themselves (which is similar your dumb "analogy").

So......drumroll, your analogy sucked and you know it. But, on the other hand, as I already pointed out, if you think that less guns = less criminals, then yes, less guns = less criminals = less gun crime, i.e., you DO agree with him.

And now that you've been made to look thoroughly foolish, are you going to admit it and say: ok, "I didn't type what I meant to", or some semi-reasonable excuse like that, or, are you going to be true to form and come back with some nonsense like: "uh, no man, you like are totally stupid and wrong. Guns are great dude" ? I suspect the latter rather than the former will be your pathetic response.

Have at it, troll.

Ban blacks not guns. (Quote)

How can you ban blacks or guns when you can't even ban illegals.

trollololol wrote:

Last time I checked, guns don't cause crime...

They may not "CAUSE" crime all by themselves, but easy availability to them DOES CAUSE crime. Maybe you need to "check" more often before opening your trap-

--------------------------------------

"More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Several Citations here:

"

---------------------------------

"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half"

-------------

States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators (And found)...... States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

"Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

----------

And this, from an extremely enlightening article on suicide. Remember, suicide is violent crime, a murder of oneself, so yes, I certainly count it as a "violent crime." Especially since many people who are suicidal (as the article makes extremely clear), act impulsively and later regret their attempt, if, of course, they live and have a chance to regret it.. They often don't try again. So...... having guns in a house is an EXTREME risk for suicide, just as it is for other violent crimes: people get angry, people act impulsively and stupidly, and if a gun is nearby, they very well might use it on another or themselves, i.e., MORE GUNS = MORE VIOLENCE/MURDER/DEATH:

"In a 2007 study that grouped the 15 states with the highest rate of gun ownership alongside the six states with the lowest (each group had a population of about 40 million), Hemenway and his associates found that when it came to all nonfirearm methods, the two populations committed suicide in nearly equal numbers. The more than three-times-greater prevalence of firearms in the “high gun” states, however, translated into a more than three-times-greater incidence of firearm suicides, which in turn translated into an annual suicide rate nearly double that of the “low gun” states. In the same vein, their 2004 study of seven Northeastern states found that the 3.5 times greater rate of gun suicides in Vermont than in New Jersey exactly matched the difference in gun ownership between the two states (42 percent of all households in Vermont opposed to 12 percent in New Jersey). From these and other such studies, the Injury Control Research Center has extrapolated that a 10 percent reduction in firearm ownership in the United States would translate into a 2.5 percent reduction in the overall suicide rate, or about 800 fewer deaths a year."

--------------------

You lose.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

They may not "CAUSE" crime all by themselves, but easy availability to them DOES CAUSE crime. Maybe you need to "check" more often before opening your trap-

You clearly don't understand the definition of CAUSE. I'll do this the same way I teach my 6th graders about causal relationships.

"I robbed that store BECAUSE ______"

"I murdered my wife BECAUSE ______"

"My son committed suicide BECAUSE ______"

Fill in the blank. I'll give you a hint, it will have absolutely nothing to do with guns or having access to them.

Just Wondering Again wrote:

Background checks need to include checks into medical history, depression, psychotropic meds, etc. The vast majority of these "kind" of shootings are done by people with a known history of mental illness (Va. Tech, Tucson, CT, Aurora, etc). It's a slippery slope, but I'm all for it.

"Sir, your background check failed, it appears you're a nut job"

That would go over well.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

They may not "CAUSE" crime all by themselves, but easy availability to them DOES CAUSE crime. Maybe you need to "check" more often before opening your trap-

JonnyBaker wrote:You clearly don't understand the definition of CAUSE. I'll do this the same way I teach my 6th graders about causal relationships.

Fill in the blank. I'll give you a hint, it will have absolutely nothing to do with guns or having access to them.

"I murdered my wife BECAUSE ----- I lost my temper, and in a moment of anger/passion grabbed my gun and shot her. If I did NOT have a gun, I probably would have just slugged her and kicked, and she'd be still alive and I would not have then killed myself with my gun after realizing the horror of what I had done. "

"My son committed suicide BECAUSE ----- he was angry over a break-up. He is immature and acts, like a lot of us, impulsively. In that moment, he wanted to, or thought he wanted to die. BECAUSE he had easy access to a gun, he grabbed it and pulled the trigger. Like many who survive suicide attempts, he may have never attempted this again if he had not pulled the trigger. If he had not a very quick and easy way to kill himself, he might have cooled down and not attempted suicide, or been saved/stopped if he had attempted it another way. Gun-shots, for the most part, are final. His death is directly BECAUSE of his easy access to a gun. "

Back to class for you Johnny!

(and please tell me you are trolling and don't actually teach kids of any grade. The chain of "casual relationships" are complicated. But I guess someone "dumbed it down" for you when they taught you, huh?)

oh, and by the way Johnny, if tomorrow the US and Israel say: hey, let's hand out nukes to every country, including Iran and Afghanistan, everyone should be allowed to have as many of them as they want, and to show our good will, we are GIVING 100 to Iran tomorrow, and THEN....Iran nukes Israel back to the stone ages killing millions, I will want you to repeat after me:

Israel got nuked to smithereens NOT, IN A LARGE PART, BECAUSE we gave them 100 nukes and stopped paying attention to them, but ONLY BECAUSE their leaders are evil.

Guess what, you lose again, Johnny.

Your last post made me laugh...we are not talking about giving guns to the bad guys, but allowing good guys to have them via the background check method (not perfect I know). So you example is quite frankly irrelevant. With regards to your other post...people with a history of domestic violence wouldn't get guns (see background method above0. We don't sell guns to people under the age of 18 (handguns 21), and you skipped why you robbed the bank. I assume you had no good answer. Now look at some data, compare crime rates in London vs Switzerland. After you do that you will find London has much higher crime rates. If you look at gun laws, you will also find they have more stringent gun laws. People don't want to get shot at, and thus crime goes down. I really encourage you to look at the data...logos arguments work much better than pathos arguments for predicting outcomes. Guess what, you lose again, Tyrannosaurus Rexing. have a good day.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

oh, and by the way Johnny, if tomorrow the US and Israel say: hey, let's hand out nukes to every country, including Iran and Afghanistan, everyone should be allowed to have as many of them as they want, and to show our good will, we are GIVING 100 to Iran tomorrow, and THEN....Iran nukes Israel back to the stone ages killing millions, I will want you to repeat after me:

Israel got nuked to smithereens NOT, IN A LARGE PART, BECAUSE we gave them 100 nukes and stopped paying attention to them, but ONLY BECAUSE their leaders are evil.

Guess what, you lose again, Johnny.

I have seen it happen. I was just buying a rifle last night and the establishment I was at refused sale based on a background check. The person was upset, but hey, while imperfect the system works.

seriously... wrote:

Just Wondering Again wrote:

Background checks need to include checks into medical history, depression, psychotropic meds, etc. The vast majority of these "kind" of shootings are done by people with a known history of mental illness (Va. Tech, Tucson, CT, Aurora, etc). It's a slippery slope, but I'm all for it.

"Sir, your background check failed, it appears you're a nut job"

That would go over well.

Oosk, I am still waiting a logical argument, assuming you have one :-)

wascallywobert wrote:

In context of my reply to the post I replied to and this thread please offer a logical reason why this point of view is wrong?

Recent Shootings?

Aurora Theater--guns aren't allowed

Naval Yard-guns and cammo kept seperate

Recent Nevada Shooting, Newton (and Columbine)--guns aren't allowed

These shooter came to kill not to fight. Why didn't they go down to the police station or some facility with armed guards?

oosk wrote:

The scary thing is that you probably really believe this.

wascallywobert wrote:

Oosk, I am still waiting a logical argument, assuming you have one :-)

The most obvious example is the recent naval yard shooting. It's a military place. There are guns. Everyone including the shooter knew this.

You didn't read my post or listening to the news report or both. The reason why the shooter shot as much as he did is the military people were unable to shoot back since per regulation guns and ammo were to be separated. Care to try again?

oosk wrote:

wascallywobert wrote:

Oosk, I am still waiting a logical argument, assuming you have one :-)

The most obvious example is the recent naval yard shooting. It's a military place. There are guns. Everyone including the shooter knew this.

wascallywobert wrote:

You didn't read my post or listening to the news report or both. The reason why the shooter shot as much as he did is the military people were unable to shoot back since per regulation guns and ammo were to be separated. Care to try again?

No, I read your post and you're still wrong. Military places have these things called 'military police'. And the fact that ammo is separated from the guns does not mean the shooter expected to not be fired back at. For someone who is begging for me to give them a logical argument, it is surprising that you would provide such an illogical one.

Except the husband stabbed his wife to death and the son hung himself.

School's out.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

oh, and by the way Johnny, if tomorrow the US and Israel say: hey, let's hand out nukes to every country, including Iran and Afghanistan, everyone should be allowed to have as many of them as they want, and to show our good will, we are GIVING 100 to Iran tomorrow, and THEN....Iran nukes Israel back to the stone ages killing millions, I will want you to repeat after me:

Israel got nuked to smithereens NOT, IN A LARGE PART, BECAUSE we gave them 100 nukes and stopped paying attention to them, but ONLY BECAUSE their leaders are evil.

Guess what, you lose again, Johnny.

So the US nuked Japan BECAUSE we had nuclear weapons....Absolutely NO other reason whatsoever?

I guess that explains why we also nuked Vietnam....oh wait.

Your example only helps to highlight your inability to understand causal relationships.

JonnyBaker wrote:

Except the husband stabbed his wife to death and the son hung himself.

School's out.

Really little Johnny (what did you say, you are in 6th grade? seems like it), you're embarrassing yourself now ("now" is me being kind).

As I've already told you AND cited, there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that when popular/easy tools to commit murder or suicide are less readily available, these crimes/incidents go down. PERIOD.

So yes, of course the husband COULD still commit the murder by stabbing, and the son COULD still commit suicide by hanging, I never denied that. However, the easy and ready access to guns in this country are an immediate CAUSE of our high murder and suicide rates, because without that easy access, there would almost certainly be lower incidences of both.

Get some tutoring....and hurry.

JonnyBaker wrote:

"I robbed that store BECAUSE ______"

"I murdered my wife BECAUSE ______"

"My son committed suicide BECAUSE ______"

Fill in the blank. I'll give you a hint, it will have absolutely nothing to do with guns or having access to them.

"I SUCCESSFULLY robbed that store BECAUSE ______"

"I SUCCESSFULLY murdered my wife BECAUSE ______"

"My son SUCCESSFULLY committed suicide BECAUSE ______"

"....a gun was available"

All of these task are much more difficult to accomplish w/ a baseball bat.

JonnyBaker wrote:

So the US nuked Japan BECAUSE we had nuclear weapons.

Yes, that was major factor in the nuking, us having nukes in the first place. In fact, it is absolutely true that without a nuke, we could not have nuked them. You are getting brighter by the moment.

JonnyBaker wrote:...Absolutely NO other reason whatsoever?

Who suggested that? You are the one who wants one reason for everything (this man did this for this reason!), not me.

JonnyBaker wrote:Your example only helps to highlight your inability to understand causal relationships.

Huh?? Seriously, HUH??? You are stating that the ready availability of a tool commonly and popularly used in violent crimes in no way increases the likelihood those crimes will occur. I came back with: Giving Iran a nuke makes it more likely that they will commit mega-massacre, since without that nuke, it much, much harder for them to kill that many people. And that's true. And it also true that giving the average joe ready and easy access to powerful guns, which are extremely easy and efficient killing tools, makes it certainly more likely that killings (of others or oneself) will occur.

These are all facts. But you don't believe it because......

"the 2nd amendment man!... and...and... um, switzerland man, and um......I teach 6th grade in east bumf--k Kentucky...and and.....Obama was not born here man...'

yes, excellent comebacks, all of them.

I am not wrong, looked up some policy.

Firearms regulations at military bases are sufficiently byzantine that the Quantico Shooting Club at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, cautions members and guests about them and maintains a listing of restrictions. In particular, U.S. Navy Regulation 1159 states:

Except as may be necessary to the proper performance of his or her duty or as may be authorised by proper authority, no person in the naval service shall:

a. have concealed about his or her person any dangerous weapon, instrument or device, or any highly explosive article or compound; or

b. have in his or her possession any dangerous weapon, instrument or device or any highly explosive article or compound on board any ship, craft, aircraft, or in any vehicle of the naval service or within any base or other place under naval jurisdiction.

The Quantico summary clarifies interpretation of the rules for the base, adding, "Under no circumstances will the transportation of loaded or concealed handguns, shotguns, or rifles be permitted on MCBQ except under those situations outlined in paragraph 7 of this Order." That's specific to Quantico, but there's little reason to think that's at wide variance from policy anywhere else.

Then-President Clinton issued an order in 1993 severely tightening gun restrictions at all Department of the Army installations. The directive said in part, "The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." The same rules seem to apply to the other branches of service, to go by the Navy regulations above.

That makes military bases much like other "gun-free zones." They're only as well protected as the willingness of would-be perpetrators to follow rules allows, along with the ability of a thin line of personnel authorized to carry arms to deter or stop criminals.

You still have yet to even attempt to address schools or theaters. :-) Try again?