Conquer Club

Say it were true 25% of American citizens carried firearms. That's 1 in 4. Plug those hypothetical numbers into a recent shooting such as in California, or really any tragic event where a mass murderer has shot and killed 17 people and wounded another 8 people. Where 25 people were kill or wounded, the odds are that 6 of those 25 people had a gun on them. How does the number get up to 25? I think it's easy to say a mass murderer would be stopped by one of the people in the crowd far before the number got to 25. Not to mention, the likelihood that everyone in the area was killed or wounded is extremely low, suggesting that such a crowd could be 50 people, which would mean that 12-13 people who were not the psycho killer were carrying a firearm. Maybe the crowd is 100 people.

Of course the caveat here is that this situation concerning location would not apply in places such as schools or court houses, but we can also assume that if it were true 25% of Americans carried firearms on them it would be likely the culture would reflect this reality, such as school principals and certain teachers and definitely resource officers would be carrying guns, along with the assumption gun-free zones could totally be abandoned. This isn't far fetched when we accept the fact the 92% of mass shooting happen in gun-free zones. Psycho killers prefer gun-free zones. Making more gun-free zones and gun restrictions isn't the answer.

Now, extrapolate the possibilities of an America where 38% carried firearms with them, virtually all of them doing so for all the right reasons: safety and defense. How would this impact the concept of a mass shooting?

Discuss.

How many times in a year does it happen in the US that 25 people are wounded in a shooting? Like once on average, right, at most? Don't use those extreme outliers for setting gun policy. The vast majority of gun deaths come from suicides and much smaller incidents, and that's where the gains are to be made if we are going to change gun restrictions.

Metsfanmax wrote:How many times in a year does it happen in the US that 25 people are wounded in a shooting? Like once on average, right, at most? Don't use those extreme outliers for setting gun policy. The vast majority of gun deaths come from suicides and much smaller incidents, and that's where the gains are to be made if we are going to change gun restrictions.

Okay, good point, but the main issue here is crowd size. I meant to say 25 killed and wounded, emphasis on the 'mass' part of mass shooting. Could such an event really get to 25 when some many of them are carrying guns of their own?

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:How many times in a year does it happen in the US that 25 people are wounded in a shooting? Like once on average, right, at most? Don't use those extreme outliers for setting gun policy. The vast majority of gun deaths come from suicides and much smaller incidents, and that's where the gains are to be made if we are going to change gun restrictions.

Okay, good point, but the main issue here is crowd size. I meant to say 25 killed and wounded, emphasis on the 'mass' part of mass shooting. Could such an event really get to 25 when some many of them are carrying guns of their own?

lol. Way to just flat out ignore Mets.

mrswdk wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:How many times in a year does it happen in the US that 25 people are wounded in a shooting? Like once on average, right, at most? Don't use those extreme outliers for setting gun policy. The vast majority of gun deaths come from suicides and much smaller incidents, and that's where the gains are to be made if we are going to change gun restrictions.

Okay, good point, but the main issue here is crowd size. I meant to say 25 killed and wounded, emphasis on the 'mass' part of mass shooting. Could such an event really get to 25 when some many of them are carrying guns of their own?

lol. Way to just flat out ignore Mets.

suicides and smaller incidents have nothing to do with the topic of mass shootings. It's the topic that ignores Mets. See the title? Oh, get it now?

...lol

Wasn't his point that mass shootings are a sideline issue and your time would be better spent focusing on something else?

mrswdk wrote:Wasn't his point that mass shootings are a sideline issue and your time would be better spent focusing on something else?

While Mets is correct, the discussion on gun control in the United States revolves almost entirely around mass shootings. I have not heard in the last two or three years any discussion about gun violence having to do with anything other than mass shootings. I bet someone could make up a nice chart showing how many more other gun related deaths occurred on the same day as a mass shooting to point out how ridiculous the "solving for mass shooting" conversation is.

The more I get educated about this stuff, the more I realize unless the United States outlaws all guns, we're not going to solve any problems by imposing more restrictions (the caveat to that is that there are probably intelligent restrictions we can use). Like I indicated in another thread, there is already a law, applicable nationwide, that prohibits felons from owning guns. That does not seem to work all that well, so what is the purpose of imposing additional restrictions, other than to increase the size and cost of federal and state governments, thereby increasing the number of people (and power of those people) in federal and state employees unions? Sorry, that last sentence got a little out of control.

thegreekdog wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Wasn't his point that mass shootings are a sideline issue and your time would be better spent focusing on something else?

While Mets is correct, the discussion on gun control in the United States revolves almost entirely around mass shootings. I have not heard in the last two or three years any discussion about gun violence having to do with anything other than mass shootings. I bet someone could make up a nice chart showing how many more other gun related deaths occurred on the same day as a mass shooting to point out how ridiculous the "solving for mass shooting" conversation is.

The more I get educated about this stuff, the more I realize unless the United States outlaws all guns, we're not going to solve any problems by imposing more restrictions (the caveat to that is that there are probably intelligent restrictions we can use). Like I indicated in another thread, there is already a law, applicable nationwide, that prohibits felons from owning guns. That does not seem to work all that well, so what is the purpose of imposing additional restrictions, other than to increase the size and cost of federal and state governments, thereby increasing the number of people (and power of those people) in federal and state employees unions? Sorry, that last sentence got a little out of control.

Those charts have been made. The first picture on the chart I remember being is how more people got killed by other people's hands and feet than were killed by gun shot.

RE: the extra capacity mags (from another thread?)...G-Dog....even if only hunting-legal clips were all that was available (4 or 5 rounds), you know how quick and easy it is to change clips? I can do it in 3 seconds....and that's not hurrying. That's in my remington woodsmaster deer rifle, ought-six that is SO much more devastating than the 5.56 or the 7.62...just sayin. Compare the hitting power of the M1 Garand to an AR...the goal in going to the .223 (5.56) in the 60's from the 30-06 was decreased ammo weight for the soldiers plus the fact that it wounded more and killed less; the thot, so I have read, was that in war, wounding an enemy may take 1 or 2 more of the enemy to care for that person, effectively decreasing their manpower. What horrid logic to have to generate...gods.

Phatty, you see this?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... n-chicago/

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Wasn't his point that mass shootings are a sideline issue and your time would be better spent focusing on something else?

While Mets is correct, the discussion on gun control in the United States revolves almost entirely around mass shootings. I have not heard in the last two or three years any discussion about gun violence having to do with anything other than mass shootings. I bet someone could make up a nice chart showing how many more other gun related deaths occurred on the same day as a mass shooting to point out how ridiculous the "solving for mass shooting" conversation is.

The more I get educated about this stuff, the more I realize unless the United States outlaws all guns, we're not going to solve any problems by imposing more restrictions (the caveat to that is that there are probably intelligent restrictions we can use). Like I indicated in another thread, there is already a law, applicable nationwide, that prohibits felons from owning guns. That does not seem to work all that well, so what is the purpose of imposing additional restrictions, other than to increase the size and cost of federal and state governments, thereby increasing the number of people (and power of those people) in federal and state employees unions? Sorry, that last sentence got a little out of control.

Those charts have been made. The first picture on the chart I remember being is how more people got killed by other people's hands and feet than were killed by gun shot.

People can use their fists and feet to kill, therefore there is no reason to consider controlling guns?

thegreekdog wrote:Sorry, that last sentence got a little out of control.

You're unaware of the Edit function? You have no backspace button or arrow keys on your keyboard?

With intelligent restrictions and eternal vigilance, runaway sentences can be brought to heel!

First for the pedophile, as usual you don't even have dog in this hunt stfu, your troll crap on a subject you can't relate to is ignorant.

For everyone else a reminder it is a constitutional right I wouldn't recommend setting a precedent like changing that one. What I don't side with are weapons that are designed specifically not for hunting but for human killing on the streets inside the continental US, there is no legitimate reason for them,except to kill other humans. If that is what turns you on them when you die in a hail of lead neither your family or anyone else should complain,

Remember guns don't use themselves, people use them. People with intent.

You know what else don't use themselves? Nuclear weapons. Yet it's not legal for me to try and build an atomic bomb. I believe that my Second Amendment rights are being infringed.

Metsfanmax wrote:You know what else don't use themselves? Nuclear weapons. Yet it's not legal for me to try and build an atomic bomb. I believe that my Second Amendment rights are being infringed.

Mets if you think that try using the correct way of making it legal for you to do so.
If you accomplish this think of the ramifications hmmm do you really want everyone to be able to build them.
Think about what you say before you speak.it helps with you seeming rational, instead of a nutter venting.

It's really not possible for everyone to build a nuclear weapon. Most people would have no idea where to even begin. I have advanced training in physics and it would still take me many years to figure out how to build even a crude one.

But once I do it, you can trust me, I'm not one of those mentally unstable atomic bomb owners. Don't restrict my rights to build an a-bomb for defensive purposes just because some crazy guy wants to use one to kill a bunch of people in a city.

Metsfanmax wrote:It's really not possible for everyone to build a nuclear weapon. Most people would have no idea where to even begin. I have advanced training in physics and it would still take me many years to figure out how to build even a crude one.

But once I do it, you can trust me, I'm not one of those mentally unstable atomic bomb owners. Don't restrict my rights to build an a-bomb for defensive purposes just because some crazy guy wants to use one to kill a bunch of people in a city.

If we only had longer waiting periods for atomic weapons and made them illegal for purchase by felons, that would solve all of our problems.

@Phatscotty - I'm not going to quote your post because you completely missed my point. I'm not comparing "gun violence" to "other violence." I'm comparing "mass shooting deaths" to "all other gun related deaths." I would be willing to bet that on the day the San Bernandino "massacre" occurred, more people were killed by gun violence in other parts of the United States in unrelated incidents than at San Bernandino. Yet, when we talk about gun control, we only talk about mass shootings.

And the response from those that want gun control is not "ban all guns" it's "make guns harder for criminals to purchase." Okay, how do we do that? It's already illegal for a felon to own, have in his possession, and buy a firearm. We have laws punishing people that make strawman purchases for felons. What else do gun control supporters want Congress to do? Ban "assault rifles?" We already tried that and there was no discernable difference in gun-related crimes; but, hey, let's bring back a completely ineffective law!

I guess my entire point here is that unless someone (and by "someone" I mean someone in Congress or the executive branch) is seriously putting forward a 100% gun ban, there is no point in arguing about gun control.

Metsfanmax wrote:It's really not possible for everyone to build a nuclear weapon. Most people would have no idea where to even begin. I have advanced training in physics and it would still take me many years to figure out how to build even a crude one.

But once I do it, you can trust me, I'm not one of those mentally unstable atomic bomb owners. Don't restrict my rights to build an a-bomb for defensive purposes just because some crazy guy wants to use one to kill a bunch of people in a city.

Lmao, Mets seriously, for what reason would you build one then? If not to use as a MASS casualty scenario, I invite you once again to think about what you say before you speak.

thegreekdog wrote:I guess my entire point here is that unless someone (and by "someone" I mean someone in Congress or the executive branch) is seriously putting forward a 100% gun ban, there is no point in arguing about gun control.

I don't agree that we should be thinking about this in black and white terms. We must be utilitarian.

Imagine that we could come up with a law that didn't ban all guns but, say, 50% of them. Now, this would have some effect on the criminals being able to purchase the guns in question; it might not make it impossible but it would be significantly harder. In some cases, but not all, this would deter violence. Maybe you could reduce the number of gun deaths by 20% (completely for the sake of argument). I don't think it's rational to say that this is a bad policy simply because some criminals can still get the banned guns.

Lmao, Mets seriously, for what reason would you build one then? If not to use as a MASS casualty scenario, I invite you once again to think about what you say before you speak.

I would build it to keep my home and my family safe. Criminals will know that they risk dying in a massive fireball if they try to harm us or rob our home.

I'll put one of these signs up, it will work I'm sure.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I guess my entire point here is that unless someone (and by "someone" I mean someone in Congress or the executive branch) is seriously putting forward a 100% gun ban, there is no point in arguing about gun control.

I don't agree that we should be thinking about this in black and white terms. We must be utilitarian.

Imagine that we could come up with a law that didn't ban all guns but, say, 50% of them. Now, this would have some effect on the criminals being able to purchase the guns in question; it might not make it impossible but it would be significantly harder. In some cases, but not all, this would deter violence. Maybe you could reduce the number of gun deaths by 20% (completely for the sake of argument). I don't think it's rational to say that this is a bad policy simply because some criminals can still get the banned guns.

Lmao, Mets seriously, for what reason would you build one then? If not to use as a MASS casualty scenario, I invite you once again to think about what you say before you speak.

I would build it to keep my home and my family safe. Criminals will know that they risk dying in a massive fireball if they try to harm us or rob our home.

I'll put one of these signs up, it will work I'm sure.

So Mets you are willing to kill not only yourself and family to(protect) your home but possibly hundreds if not thousands of innocent people who neither knew or had intention of harming you, I applaude you on a well thought out plan AND RESPONSE, next?

jgordon1111 wrote:So Mets you are willing to kill not only yourself and family to(protect) your home but possibly hundreds if not thousands of innocent people who neither knew or had intention of harming you, I applaude you on a well thought out plan AND RESPONSE, next?

Yes. Just like the people who buy a gun for home defense and are much more likely to have them or a family member get killed by that gun rather than successfully use it in self-defense, and who insist that their right to keep a gun in their home outweighs the thousands of violent gun deaths that occur every year in the US. If the Second Amendment protects them, it protects me too.

Metsfanmax wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:So Mets you are willing to kill not only yourself and family to(protect) your home but possibly hundreds if not thousands of innocent people who neither knew or had intention of harming you, I applaude you on a well thought out plan AND RESPONSE, next?

Yes. Just like the people who buy a gun for home defense and are much more likely to have them or a family member get killed by that gun rather than successfully use it in self-defense, and who insist that their right to keep a gun in their home outweighs the thousands of violent gun deaths that occur every year in the US. If the Second Amendment protects them, it protects me too.

Again Mets lmao, you are talking building a bomb for your own personal defense, not a hand gun or rifle, your arguement is out of context entirely, yes hand guns and rifles can kill by accident and do, that is not the topic here Try to stay focused,again guns don't kill people with bad intent do. And just on premise, I am willing to go out on a limb and say YOUR THOUGHTS AND PISS PLANNING ARE A TESTAMENT TO WHY IT IS NOT LEGAL TO DO WHAT YOU SUGGESTED

jgordon1111 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:So Mets you are willing to kill not only yourself and family to(protect) your home but possibly hundreds if not thousands of innocent people who neither knew or had intention of harming you, I applaude you on a well thought out plan AND RESPONSE, next?

Yes. Just like the people who buy a gun for home defense and are much more likely to have them or a family member get killed by that gun rather than successfully use it in self-defense, and who insist that their right to keep a gun in their home outweighs the thousands of violent gun deaths that occur every year in the US. If the Second Amendment protects them, it protects me too.

Again Mets lmao, you are talking building a bomb for your own personal defense, not a hand gun or rifle, your arguement is out of context entirely,

I don't think so. If the Founders had wanted me not to have bombs, they would have said so. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that this right depends on whether jgordon1111 think those arms are dangerous. If we start going down that slope, pretty soon you'll be saying I shouldn't be able to own fully automatic weapons either.

yes hand guns and rifles can kill by accident and do, that is not the topic here

Try to stay focused,again guns don't kill people with bad intent do.

So when someone is killed by a gun in an accident, who did it? The person holding it or the gun?

And just on premise, I am willing to go out on a limb and say YOUR THOUGHTS AND PISS PLANNING ARE A TESTAMENT TO WHY IT IS NOT LEGAL TO DO WHAT YOU SUGGESTED

Nah, I'm pretty sure the reason it's not legal is because this Obama government doesn't want me to be able to fight back against its tyrannical take-over of the country. And I for one will not stand for that. We need well-armed citizens with nuclear weapons to be ready to take a stand against fascism. You'll thank me someday.

Metsfanmax wrote:You know what else don't use themselves? Nuclear weapons. Yet it's not legal for me to try and build an atomic bomb. I believe that my Second Amendment rights are being infringed.

Ironically the same principle applies with nukes. The best way to defend yourself from a nuke is to have a nuke of your own.

If Saddam had nukes, we would have never attacked Iraq and millions of innocent Iraqi's would still be alive today.

Metsfanmax wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:So Mets you are willing to kill not only yourself and family to(protect) your home but possibly hundreds if not thousands of innocent people who neither knew or had intention of harming you, I applaude you on a well thought out plan AND RESPONSE, next?

Yes. Just like the people who buy a gun for home defense and are much more likely to have them or a family member get killed by that gun rather than successfully use it in self-defense, and who insist that their right to keep a gun in their home outweighs the thousands of violent gun deaths that occur every year in the US. If the Second Amendment protects them, it protects me too.

Again Mets lmao, you are talking building a bomb for your own personal defense, not a hand gun or rifle, your arguement is out of context entirely,

I don't think so. If the Founders had wanted me not to have bombs, they would have said so. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that this right depends on whether jgordon1111 think those arms are dangerous. If we start going down that slope, pretty soon you'll be saying I shouldn't be able to own fully automatic weapons either.

yes hand guns and rifles can kill by accident and do, that is not the topic here

Try to stay focused,again guns don't kill people with bad intent do.

So when someone is killed by a gun in an accident, who did it? The person holding it or the gun?

And just on premise, I am willing to go out on a limb and say YOUR THOUGHTS AND PISS PLANNING ARE A TESTAMENT TO WHY IT IS NOT LEGAL TO DO WHAT YOU SUGGESTED

Nah, I'm pretty sure the reason it's not legal is because this Obama government doesn't want me to be able to fight back against its tyrannical take-over of the country. And I for one will not stand for that. We need well-armed citizens with nuclear weapons to be ready to take a stand against fascism. You'll thank me someday.

Ok Mets, it seems either you are unaware or just blindly choose not to pay attention. But something you said stood out clearly, but I digress, first when has it ever been legal to build the type of bomb you suggest?
Now back to what stood out, the way you phrased your description of the govt, lmao bad move dipstick. Tyrannical, you can run but you can't hide only certain groups phrase that way. Tried to tell you several times think about what you said and like a tempermental child you couldn't, wouldn't or just to stupid to care.

jgordon1111 wrote:Ok Mets, it seems either you are unaware or just blindly choose not to pay attention. But something you said stood out clearly, but I digress, first when has it ever been legal to build the type of bomb you suggest?

Well, since nuclear weapons didn't exist before the 1940s, it couldn't have been specifically illegal to build them before then! So in fact for most of the country's history it was legal. I think that laws prohibiting the ownership of weapons of mass destruction are also pretty new in historical terms. But it doesn't matter how old the law is if it's unconstitutional.

Now back to what stood out, the way you phrased your description of the govt, lmao bad move dipstick. Tyrannical, you can run but you can't hide only certain groups phrase that way. Tried to tell you several times think about what you said and like a tempermental child you couldn't, wouldn't or just to stupid to care.

I'm sorry that I just to stupid to care. I'll try to do better next time.