Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 189
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    Post Like Stats

    Default American Mass Murders

    What's going on? There were no mass murders in America from 1776 to 1949. One in 1949. Then none again until 1966. Then none again until 1982. The majority have occurred from the late 1980's until the present.

    So, Americans have always had guns since the revolution but have not been committing mass murder. And there have always been mental health issues since the beginning of time. So what has changed in the social fabric of America starting in the eighties and continuing till the present? That is what we need to look at and find a correlation between mass murder in America and something else in America that is vastly different than any other time in our history.

    The ranting and ravings about gun control certainly do not allow for an uncovering of the answers to this question.

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Ornery
    Ideology
    Conservative
    Posts
    146,513
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by axelthefox View Post
    We probably need Jesus in America again. What part of "thou shalt not kill" don't people understand. I feel if Jesus came back,he would probably tell people that they are not behaving like how he told them to.
    "Shall not commit murder". Big difference.
    Don't Blame Me I voted for Cruz! Without the 1st & 2nd Amendments the rest of The Constitution is meaningless
    THE DEFICIT

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Back in the USSR !!!
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Naughty
    Ideology
    Filthy Liberal
    Posts
    17,325
    Rep Power
    16
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zantax View Post
    Quite a few differences between those two items. Nobody plans swimming pool accidents and there isn't a large well funded international group dedicated to causing them. Nor do they threaten the country as a whole economically like terrorism. Or threaten our international interests by overthrowing other countries by murdering people through accidental pool deaths.
    Maybe the country is threatened economically because people overreact ?

    As to whats causing them , it’s the same parallel you made between mass shootings and other preventable deaths. If you’re dead , you probably don’t care.


    You can only push people so far.

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Breaking an Urusov Gambit
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Devilish
    Ideology
    Neoconservative
    Posts
    4,637
    Rep Power
    3
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    Yet you know that handguns are used in the majority of mass shootings but continue blaming semi auto rifles.

    What happened to that honest adult discussion yo claimed to want to have on the subject?
    You're absolutely correct... the majority of active shooter incidents do involve handguns. Only about 20% of mass shootings involve semi-auto rifles. As you're aware, my issue is that the use of semi-auto rifles makes those 20% much more deadly then the other 80%.

    In the hands of a determined killer, victim fatalities per incident have been shown to be up to 60% higher in cases where a semi-auto rifle was used. Allowing easy access to these types of guns is costing us blood that doesn't have to be shed.

    Will banning semi-auto rifles end mass shootings? Of course not. But it will reduce the toll they inflict.

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in Amerexico
    Posts
    119,631
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W & C View Post
    Maybe the country is threatened economically because people overreact ?
    Sure, doesn't change the fact that it does pose an economic threat.

    As to whats causing them , it’s the same parallel you made between mass shootings and other preventable deaths. If you’re dead , you probably don’t care.
    Dead guys don't make policy, nobody cares what they think.
    Self appointed forum Mark Zuckerberg, feel free to ask me if any news story is real or fake.

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Ornery
    Ideology
    Conservative
    Posts
    146,513
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandelay View Post
    A significant portion of mass shooters are 20 something men. I don't mean that you can't talk about sex, but that they're not getting any, and their views on sex and sexuality are warped. Have you ever been to the reddit subforum r/incel? If not, prepare to put the cops on speed dial because there's your pool of future mass shooters.
    Have you ever met a 20 something male? Sex is most of what they talk about.
    Last edited by WildRose; October 13th, 2017 at 1:14 am.
    Don't Blame Me I voted for Cruz! Without the 1st & 2nd Amendments the rest of The Constitution is meaningless
    THE DEFICIT

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in Amerexico
    Posts
    119,631
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    You're absolutely correct... the majority of active shooter incidents do involve handguns. Only about 20% of mass shootings involve semi-auto rifles. As you're aware, my issue is that the use of semi-auto rifles makes those 20% much more deadly then the other 80%.

    In the hands of a determined killer, victim fatalities per incident have been shown to be up to 60% higher in cases where a semi-auto rifle was used. Allowing easy access to these types of guns is costing us blood that doesn't have to be shed.

    Will banning semi-auto rifles end mass shootings? Of course not. But it will reduce the toll they inflict.
    Only if you are dumb enough to think banning them somehow makes them disappear. And that's granting you the premise that they do up fatality numbers. There were 63 people killed in mass shooting last year, that number in no way justifies infringing on the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners. Just because it's a big press event every time it happens doesn't make it a serious problem. It's stupendously rare given there are 320 million people in this country. You may as well be saying I should be forced to wear a helmet at all times to prevent me from dying from falling out of a tree.
    Self appointed forum Mark Zuckerberg, feel free to ask me if any news story is real or fake.

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Breaking an Urusov Gambit
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Devilish
    Ideology
    Neoconservative
    Posts
    4,637
    Rep Power
    3
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zantax View Post
    Only if you are dumb enough to think banning them somehow makes them disappear. And that's granting you the premise that they do up fatality numbers. There were 63 people killed in mass shooting last year, that number in no way justifies infringing on the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners. Just because it's a big press event every time it happens doesn't make it a serious problem. It's stupendously rare given there are 320 million people in this country. You may as well be saying I should be forced to wear a helmet at all times to prevent me from dying from falling out of a tree.
    The more restrictions we put in place, the harder they will be to obtain and the harder they are obtain, the less often they will be used in mass shootings.

    Is my solution a perfect one? No, it's not....as I said in my last post, there's no such thing as a perfect solution to the problem.

    Obviously the approach we've been using so far - shrugging and doing nothing - isn't working. So isn't it about time we started doing something - anything - to start making these weapons harder to obtain?

    If you take my 60% increase in victim fatalities and you apply it to Las Vegas, that's about 23 out of the 58 people who were killed who might not have been if the shooter was using a bolt action hunting rifle. Those 23 lives not mean much to you. They might not mean much in the grand scheme of things. Probably more people were killed in auto accidents the same day. But they were 23 lives lost needlessly. Husbands and wives. Sons and daughters. For what?

    If you put those 23 lives on one end of a scale and all of the benefits we get from all of the semi-auto rifles held by civilians on the other end... can you really say it was worth it?

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Posts
    1,663
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    2
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stokedat70 View Post
    What's going on? There were no mass murders in America from 1776 to 1949. One in 1949. Then none again until 1966. Then none again until 1982. The majority have occurred from the late 1980's until the present.

    So, Americans have always had guns since the revolution but have not been committing mass murder. And there have always been mental health issues since the beginning of time. So what has changed in the social fabric of America starting in the eighties and continuing till the present? That is what we need to look at and find a correlation between mass murder in America and something else in America that is vastly different than any other time in our history.

    The ranting and ravings about gun control certainly do not allow for an uncovering of the answers to this question.
    On November 29, 1864 just one day after Black Kettle’s deal, the Colorado Volunteers attacked Sand Creek. Nearly all the Cheyenne men were out hunting, leaving the women, children, and elders with no one to protect them. Between 100 and 400 Native Americans were slaughtered.

    An island in Clear Lake, California, was renamed Bloody Island after the massacre of the indigenous Pomo tribe there in 1850. Thanks to severe mistreatment, including rape and murder, at the hands of white men who had taken various members of the tribe as slaves, the Pomo people attacked, killing two men and escaping to a nearby lake.
    Captain Nathaniel Lyon, a soldier in the US Cavalry, and other men set off into the woods to find the offending tribe. The men discovered the hidden camp a short time later.
    After failing to successfully reach the tribe, which had taken refuge on an island in the lake, the soldiers built a handful of boats, loaded them with cannons, and attacked. From 100 to 400 Native Americans were killed.


    Perhaps the deadliest massacre of Native Americans in US history, the Bear River Massacre has remained in obscurity largely because it occurred during the Civil War. The Northern Shoshone called present-day southeastern Idaho home, and it was there that they were attacked.
    Mormon settlers had been progressively taking more land from the Native Americans, appropriating nearly all of the arable territory. Striking back at those stealing their land, the Shoshone soon saw themselves in the crosshairs of Colonel Patrick Connor and 200 California Volunteers, who vowed to take no prisoners.
    At daybreak on January 29, 1863, the soldiers attacked, brutally killing nearly 250 Native Americans. They raped any women who hadn’t been killed, used axes to crush the skulls of the wounded, and set fire to all the lodges.

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in Amerexico
    Posts
    119,631
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    The more restrictions we put in place, the harder they will be to obtain and the harder they are obtain, the less often they will be used in mass shootings.

    Is my solution a perfect one? No, it's not....as I said in my last post, there's no such thing as a perfect solution to the problem.

    Obviously the approach we've been using so far - shrugging and doing nothing - isn't working. So isn't it about time we started doing something - anything - to start making these weapons harder to obtain?

    If you take my 60% increase in victim fatalities and you apply it to Las Vegas, that's about 23 out of the 58 people who were killed who might not have been if the shooter was using a bolt action hunting rifle. Those 23 lives not mean much to you. They might not mean much in the grand scheme of things. Probably more people were killed in auto accidents the same day. But they were 23 lives lost needlessly. Husbands and wives. Sons and daughters. For what?

    If you put those 23 lives on one end of a scale and all of the benefits we get from all of the semi-auto rifles held by civilians on the other end... can you really say it was worth it?
    So, let's be consistent here, should we ban anything and everything if doing so would save 23 lives annually? Want to start making a list of things we don't really need that would save that number of lives if banned? It's going to be a very long one.

    I'll get you started, does anyone really need a motorcycle?
    Self appointed forum Mark Zuckerberg, feel free to ask me if any news story is real or fake.

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Breaking an Urusov Gambit
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Devilish
    Ideology
    Neoconservative
    Posts
    4,637
    Rep Power
    3
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zantax View Post
    So, let's be consistent here, should we ban anything and everything if doing so would save 23 lives annually? Want to start making a list of things we don't really need that would save that number of lives if banned? It's going to be a very long one.
    That's not what I'm saying.... people die from lots of reasons. They die in auto accidents. They die by drowning in their pools. You name it. That doesn't mean we ought to ban cars or swimming pools.

    Do you want to know what the difference is between drowning in a swimming pool and being gunned down by some nutcase with a semi-auto? The pool wasn't built for the purpose of drowning people. When that semi-auto rifle kills a bunch of people, it's being used for precisely the purpose it was designed to do. They're not designed to hunt the way a bolt-action hunting rifle is. They're designed for self-protection the way a handgun is. They're designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. The shooter in Vegas wasn't abusing his weapons.... he was using them for the purpose they were intended.

    That's the difference.

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Ornery
    Ideology
    Conservative
    Posts
    146,513
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    You're absolutely correct... the majority of active shooter incidents do involve handguns. Only about 20% of mass shootings involve semi-auto rifles. As you're aware, my issue is that the use of semi-auto rifles makes those 20% much more deadly then the other 80%.

    In the hands of a determined killer, victim fatalities per incident have been shown to be up to 60% higher in cases where a semi-auto rifle was used. Allowing easy access to these types of guns is costing us blood that doesn't have to be shed.

    Will banning semi-auto rifles end mass shootings? Of course not. But it will reduce the toll they inflict.
    And again that's provably false, handguns are the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings period.

    As for the higher casualty rate that has been shredded already. You have not and cannot show it to be true that a semi auto is responsible for higher numbers or more serious casualties as a result of their use.

    Quit lying and making claims you can't possibly be shown to be true and which have been shown to be provably false.
    Don't Blame Me I voted for Cruz! Without the 1st & 2nd Amendments the rest of The Constitution is meaningless
    THE DEFICIT

  24. Sponsored Links


  25. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Ornery
    Ideology
    Conservative
    Posts
    146,513
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    The more restrictions we put in place, the harder they will be to obtain and the harder they are obtain, the less often they will be used in mass shootings.

    Is my solution a perfect one? No, it's not....as I said in my last post, there's no such thing as a perfect solution to the problem.

    Obviously the approach we've been using so far - shrugging and doing nothing - isn't working. So isn't it about time we started doing something - anything - to start making these weapons harder to obtain?

    If you take my 60% increase in victim fatalities and you apply it to Las Vegas, that's about 23 out of the 58 people who were killed who might not have been if the shooter was using a bolt action hunting rifle. Those 23 lives not mean much to you. They might not mean much in the grand scheme of things. Probably more people were killed in auto accidents the same day. But they were 23 lives lost needlessly. Husbands and wives. Sons and daughters. For what?

    If you put those 23 lives on one end of a scale and all of the benefits we get from all of the semi-auto rifles held by civilians on the other end... can you really say it was worth it?
    Your 60% increase is provably false so quit repeating it.
    Don't Blame Me I voted for Cruz! Without the 1st & 2nd Amendments the rest of The Constitution is meaningless
    THE DEFICIT

  26. Sponsored Links


  27. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Breaking an Urusov Gambit
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Devilish
    Ideology
    Neoconservative
    Posts
    4,637
    Rep Power
    3
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    And again that's provably false, handguns are the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings period.

    As for the higher casualty rate that has been shredded already. You have not and cannot show it to be true that a semi auto is responsible for higher numbers or more serious casualties as a result of their use.

    Quit lying and making claims you can't possibly be shown to be true and which have been shown to be provably false.
    Like I said, I'm interested in having an adult conversation on this subject...not to get into a pissing match with a skunk.

    Why don't you get back to me when you can hold up your end of the conversation without throwing around insults?

  28. Sponsored Links


  29. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in Amerexico
    Posts
    119,631
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    That's not what I'm saying.... people die from lots of reasons. They die in auto accidents. They die by drowning in their pools. You name it. That doesn't mean we ought to ban cars or swimming pools.

    Do you want to know what the difference is between drowning in a swimming pool and being gunned down by some nutcase with a semi-auto? The pool wasn't built for the purpose of drowning people. When that semi-auto rifle kills a bunch of people, it's being used for precisely the purpose it was designed to do. They're not designed to hunt the way a bolt-action hunting rifle is. They're designed for self-protection the way a handgun is. They're designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. The shooter in Vegas wasn't abusing his weapons.... he was using them for the purpose they were intended.

    That's the difference.
    I thought saving lives was the issue, that is the argument you were making a minute ago, now it's what the thing was intended to do. As i have pointed out before, if semi automatic rifles were designed to kill large numbers of innocent people in a short amount of time, virtually everyone is using them wrong. That a miniscule fraction of crazy people think that is their intended use is no reason to ban them. I have to wonder why you agree with the crazy people that it is their intended use.

    Yes, they were designed to kill people, bad people, who are trying to kill you or your family, not innocent people attending a concert.

    Some tiny fraction of psycho's no doubt think the proper use of a spoon is to scoop out peoples eyes, that doesn't mean the fault lies with the spoon or that I should be forced to eat my cornflakes with a fork.
    Last edited by zantax; October 13th, 2017 at 1:32 am.
    Self appointed forum Mark Zuckerberg, feel free to ask me if any news story is real or fake.

  30. Sponsored Links


  31. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kissing Hank's ass
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Filthy Liberal
    Posts
    70,889
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stokedat70 View Post
    What's going on? There were no mass murders in America from 1776 to 1949.
    Who told you that?

  32. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •