Show of Hands

The “no” option isn’t great, I’ll admit.

What good has inaction on gun violence done us?

If I was murdered and society managed to put a new law in place to prevent a similar murder from occurring before my body was even cold, my dead self would be quite pleased with lawmakers.

Why push your agenda when you don’t even know how this guy got his gun? And even if he got it legally, it’s not hard to get one illegally. You pay a premium on the black market but it’s not a crazy one. If you want a gun, you’re gonna get a gun

👆🏼 you can’t know why. Hypothetical. The guns were illegally obtained. What legislation should we enact?

So if a Muslim killed you, would you be in favor of banning Muslims? To prevent Muslim related deaths.

sd doesn’t have logical consistency. Look at his poll history. It’s all agenda-based bullshit

Come on Radon, if you have ever seen me on this app you should know I’m strongly against Trump’s Muslim ban. Religious freedom is a right that is actually important, unlike gun ownership.

I’m gonna throw in a *facepalm* and a *wooooosh*

So when a Muslim kills someone, not all Muslims are to blame and we shouldn't take action against them. But, when a gun is used, all guns are to blame and should be legislated away. Square this circle for me, bitte.

But then what validates the 1st amendment without the arms to back it. What is the one reason people can express their speech freely without a statist institution shutting it down if they deem so? Guns are what protect the individual from the government in cases where without them the people are prey to whatever tyranny the government pleases and the first and any other amendment can be tread upon for a lack of fear of repercussions. If you value the first which covers religious freedoms then you should value the second to protect those religious freedoms from unconstitutional attacks.

Radon, to be clear, are you for the Muslim ban? Just curious. You don’t think there’s an issue with the way guns are regulated currently? Even though public mass murders are occurring at a steady rate? Square that circle for me, genius.

The second amendment doesn’t protect shit. That’s such a bullshit argument.

The whole concept that citizens should keep guns to protect themselves from the government is some sociopathic nonsense. You don’t need to prepare for a fucking revolution, and you’re not going to stave off the Marines with a one man army.

“Hey I need my guns just in case I have to overthrow the government”

I mean seriously... does that not sound fucking insane to you?

“The second amendment doesn’t protect s**t”

It protects people from statists like yourself

Some gun regulation is good, but you quickly reach the point of diminishing marginal returns and just end up hurting responsible gun owners. That gets lost in the “zomg a shooting let’s pass more laws ahhhhhhh”

.

I don't think you understand how arguments work. You don't get to just avoid my question and ask your own, you sophist. I'm not for a Muslim ban because I don't follow your line of thinking. You are for a Muslim ban because of your way of thinking. If you are for gun control, how about Muslim control. We will make them register with the government, plant chips in their brains, and regulate their children's education. We can stop the Islamic terror with your great idea of regulation and laws!

Funny that you’re more concerned about gun owners than murder victims. Back to the selfishness again.

SD should also be for prohibition of alcohol. That kills a lot more people than guns.

Muslims have nothing to do with the topic, but thanks for showing your true colors and letting everyone see you are in favor of the Muslim ban.

“Funny that you’re more concerned about gun owners than murder victims. Back to the selfishness agai”

Is this a non sequitur or a red herring? I always get those confused

Coffee now, when someone finds out how to kill 60 people in a concert crowd with some bottles of Jim Beam from the 30-something floor of the Mandalay, we’ll discuss that.

Fuck my right, and your right to own a gun. I’m not concerned about it right now. Anyone who’s more concerned with their right to own a gun at this time is a selfish prick.

So it doesn’t matter how many people die? Just how they die? What?

“F**k my right, and your right to own a gun.”

- sd123

Paddock could have easily blown up gas tanks, used fertilizer, hell, he could have used a sling shot with rocks coated in biological agents. Get rid of guns and you’ll begin to see how creative the depraved mind is. I point to Tim McVeigh.

Haha, can't handle the logic can you. Just deflect without any substance and claim I hate Muslims, when I'm simply using your "logic" to try and deal with terrorist acts that kill people. You are playing chess with a checkers skill level. You don't answer anything because you can't. You can only name call and swear.

Coffee, you see no difference between a murder or a suicide? Of course we should consider HOW they died. And what’s the point of quoting me here? Put it on a billboard for all I care.

CrayonWax, just because paddock and the other shooters had alternatives doesn’t mean we should ignore how they actually committed their killings.

Radon, just the fact that you started making this about Muslims says enough...

And like I said previously, I respect religious freedom as am important right. Not gun ownership. You decided to ignore that and straw man me as someone who favors religious discrimination like Trump.

It also doesn’t mean that we should ban something completely.

Without understanding the ramifications. So if these guns turn out to be illegal from this church shooter, what legislation will help to prevent future attacks.

Proving my point even more SD. It's not bad to cross examine an argument with another relevant topic. That's called critical thinking. I know you think that means going to google and reading the first link, but it's not. We have gone this entire time with me answering you, posing a good point for you to respond to, only to have you ask another question or label me hateful. You are an idiot. A true ideologue. Unable to recognize when you're wrong because it would hurt your feelings. Good luck in life

Like I was explaining to CoffeeNow, making things illegal has the effect of making them more expensive and hard to come by on the black market. Finding a gun and ammo is easy. LSD or peyote? Not so much. Curbing criminal supply would involve effort from everyone though, which is unlikely to happen.

“Coffee, you see no difference between a murder or a suicide? “

...what? If someone gets hit by a drunk driver, that’s not a suicide.

“Proving my point even more SD”

Yeah he does that

Radon, if I’m anti gun and pro religious freedom, how do you figure I’d rather ban the religion rather than the weapon? You make no sense.

Coffee explain why you think I’m for alcohol prohibition. When was the last mass murder spree where alcohol was used as a weapon? You’re funny

One minute I tell you I’m pro-decriminalization of drugs, and the next minute you’re saying I’d be in favor of drug prohibition. Idk what to make of you.

Just because you say it, doesn't mean you mean it. I asked you to square the circle already. You responded by not answering and asking your own questions. It's not my fault nor duty to explain why you are for the ban of Muslims. You just are because I made an argument that you ignored because you are too stupid to answer. If you ignore it, I have no choice but to assume it's correct. You want Muslim control.

And that’s what we call a straw man.

Also, I’ve answered your question probably a few times already with my comments about religious freedom. Make an inference, genius.

“Yeah your pro-religious freedom, but would you ban the Muslims? Hur durr”

Face, meet palm

Sd- if you’re concerned about lost lives and you think banning things helps, you’d want to ban alcohol.

...I mean if you were logically consistent

Then answer this right now. If a gun is responsible for the killing of people, it should be banned/regulated. If a Muslim responsible for killing people, should not be banned/regulated. This is not logic. Show me where I'm going wrong in this argument. Don't deflect, don't ask a question, don't name call, simply show how this in your mind is an ok way of thinking. Do any of those and you are conceding this argument.

That's exactly right, Coffee. It's good to see others understand how logic works.

CoffeeNow, we are talking about mass murders. Cute, but, you still haven’t explained how alcohol is used as a mass murder weapon.

Radon, one is an object, the other is a group of human beings. See the difference? Ban the weapons, not the people. That shouldn’t be hard to follow.

I could probably spin this in some way to make it look like you objectify and dehumanize muslims...

So an object that has no way to reason or act on its own is responsible for its actions, which is met with a ban. A Muslim however, who is able to reason and take responsibility, should not be held to the same standards as an object.

I bet you could spin it. That's all you're good at. Can't make a stance any other way.

Sd can you have a conversation without strawman arguments? We’re talking about body counts and your logical inconsistency to think guns kill people and banning them is good, yet alcohol kills more people and banning it is bad

You are driven by partisan politics. Not logic

Did you just figure out that inanimate objects don’t have free will? Jesus Christ what a dumb argument.

Coffee, I’m not changing the subject to talk about body counts. This has been about mass murders. Talk about logical inconsistency, geez. You’re lucky I’m so patient haha.

I'm done with this idiot coffee, you are on your own. I'm actually ashamed I wasted as much energy as I have on someone so intellectually restrained. SD you know you are wrong here. You have an agenda and you are trying to push it through. Everyone sees you for who you really are. No amount of arguing is going to change you. I know deep down you see how logic has and will always prevail over feelings and words.

sd show me on the doll where the gun touched you

No inanimate object has ever been banned because people feared what it will do on its own. Maybe with robots we will see something like that. But, laws have always (obviously 🙄🙄) been designed to influence human actions.

CoffeeNow, tell me how many more mass murders have to occur until you give a shit.

sd stop deflecting. Explain to me why you’re not for banning alcohol

Lol, you don’t have to answer that, I already know you’re a sociopath who doesn’t care when people commit mass murders.

Oh coffee you’re trying so hard 😂👌

I do give a shit. I just recognize that solutions have to be viable

Do you give a shit about the millions that die from alcohol?

Not as much as I care about mass murders. Mass murder is much more relevant right now.

Do you care at all about alcohol deaths? Why don’t you want to ban alcohol?

6 minutes ago you were telling me to stop deflecting, and now you want to talk about alcohol prohibition instead the mass murder problem. Oh boy you’re a piece of work 😂

sD I’ve been answering all your batshiat insane questions. You refuse to answer my questions. This is not a discussion. This is you throwing out strawman and then avoiding my questions. I’m not answering any more of your strawman until you start answering questions

@radon
I found your insistence on an answer and rejection of it when you received it interesting. I would say your "circle" is more of a series of parallel lines with no relation whatsoever.

It is not appropriate to ban all Muslims because a) they are individuals b) they are people and they are not all the same in motivations or living within their faith, just as all Christians are people and individuals. I do not see you advocating for the banning of all Christians when one (or more) do a bad thing.

Now I have to preface this by saying I do not support the banning of all guns, for several reasons BUT banning guns is not remotely similar to banning people. Guns are a tool, the sole purpose of which is to kill. Regardless of whose hands it is in, it is a deadly weapon and nothing more. Yes, who or what it kills is dependent upon the intent and motivation of the user, but that does not change its purpose.

...

Drift nets, used in fishing, have been banned in certain parts of the world because of the likelihood that they will snag, injure, and kill creatures that have been categorized as animals not to be killed. The intent of the users, which is to catch approved fish species, is irrelevant to the purpose and effect of the tool, which is the drift net.

Get it?
...

⬆️⬆️⬆️ this ⬆️⬆️⬆️

Thank you!

I’m happy to inform you that we do regulate gun ownership. There, now you can sleep better.

Responding to a series of tragedies by examining our gun laws is simply common sense. No?

Have some sympathy.

I have no sympathy for people who wish to keep sweeping the gun problem under the rug. Nonsensical selfishness is all it is.

You're an idiot.

No one is sweeping it under the rug. Some people just choose not to sweep our constitutional rights under the rug due to fear mongering by people taking advantage of a tragedy for political purposes

Honestly, acting like now ISN’T the time to implement gun control is showing a lack of sympathy to the victims. I get it, you don’t give a shit that people are murdered en masse on a regular basis.

Again, with the whole “oh but my rights” selfishness. I don’t need a gun to protect myself. Gun ownership is an unnecessary right for citizens. Everyone needs to grow a fucking pair and get over the gun obsession. But everyone is too concerned about themselves to care about what would make society safer.

You have literally no evidence that gun control would have prevented this

You realize drugs are illegal too right? How’s that working out for keeping drugs off the streets? You people are blinded by your own batshiat insane agenda that logic just goes out the window

Stop pumping your agenda 5 minutes after people just died. Greasy vultures like yourself just try to play on people’s emotions. Disgusting

Working pretty well actually, I have no idea where to find meth, LSD, mushrooms, etc. Sure, the really dedicated among us will get their hands on the stuff but the drug war (while I’m against it) does seem to keep drugs from easily circulating around.

My god your hypocrisy doesn’t even extend beyond a single comment

You think it’s going well keeping drugs away, yet you’re against it

This is what happens when someone becomes so partisan it completely overwhelms and semblance of logic

You're turning this into a political matter less than 24 hours after the tragedy. Sickening.

Drugs are illegal, but you can find them. But imagine if every Walmart was selling acid... would be much easier to find in that case. Shit, I’ve seen ammunition sitting unattended in Walmart’s before, I know for a fucking fact some people walked out with it.

By the way it’s not going well. Just because you’re too dumb to find drugs doesn’t mean everyone is. Drugs are ridiculously easy to get

It does keep the drugs away, but they shouldn’t be illegal. Just heavily regulated.

It’s way easier for the average joe to get guns than their choice of recreational drugs. Again, have you seen the security inside a Walmart?

And no, drugs are inconvenient to come by and expensive.

Tightening gun control will do NOTHING to prevent events like this.

“It’s way easier for the average joe to get guns than their choice of recreational drugs”

First of all, no it’s not 😂 I could get drugs delivered to my house with a phone call.

Second of all, guns are legal. Drugs aren’t.

Keep making my point for me

You’re full of shit and you know it, unless you know El Chapo. I’m talking about the drugs equivalent of what Paddock had, not a fucking 1/8 of pot.

And you should know that drugs being illegal forces you to buy them through inconvenient and expensive means, compared to if they were legal.

You clearly are talking out your ass. I’m not talking about pot. Like I said, just because you have no friends doesn’t mean no one else does. Drugs are easy to get

You’re*

We are talking about comparative ease of access when illegal versus legal. It’s common sense that legal things that you have a constitutional right to access will be easier to find than illegal goods.

But, I guess since at least one criminal will find out a way to get around the law, we should just forget laws entirely and devolve into anarchy. What’s the point of laws right? 🙄

You’re comparing your own incompetence to acquiring drugs to legally obtaining guns. Not sure if you’re intellectually dishonest or legit retarded

Ok dude, everyone is cool with the dope dealers just like you. You’re a totally cool person who has all the inside connections. Illegal drugs are totally harder to find than legal guns. Happy now? 🙄😂

*Easier to find* oops lol

Seriously though, where do you live? Drugs aren’t cheap anywhere...

How does your brain not explode from the cognitive dissonance?

You don’t like the drug war, but you don’t want to admit I’m right either. You’re holding two opposing positions simply out of spite, or ignorance. Or maybe both

I’m saying that drugs shouldn’t be criminalized, but that the criminalization of them still makes them harder to find.

You’re wrong on both accounts

They should be legalized and you’re an idiot

“Shouldn’t be criminalized” and “should be legalized” are the same thing, genius.

Many moons. It’s been many moons since I’ve seen a train wreck as big as you. They are NOT the same thing.

www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-10

Read this and educate yourself

Really, splitting the hair between decriminalization and legalization has nothing to do with the mass shooting problem. But yeah I see your point... what does it have to do with guns?

It’s not a point. It’s a fact. You were factually wrong

So you’re saying that you comment random facts without trying to make a point?

Also, we are still talking about 2 sides of the same coin. I don’t really care. I’ll continue the discussion on guns if you’d like, there is nothing to discuss about drugs really.

No I’m saying you didn’t know there was a difference between legalization and decriminalization

Fake news. That is simply not true unless you define mass shootings to include those affecting 1 or 2 people. Mass shootings in other countries are typically defined as affecting 5 or more people. Yes, I’ve been to the web site so you can save your time giving me the link.

Incorrect. That statistic is based on 4 or more people killed (excluding the shooter). Please provide your link.

That’s not the case. Provide your link.

You said above to save my time providing a link. You should really make up your mind. I’m still waiting for a link saying you only get a mass shooting per day if you only count the 1-2 victim incidents as a mass shooting.

I’m still waiting for the link that says we have a mass killing a day. LOL I didn’t say I had the link readily available, I said that I had visited the fake news site before. It was provided by someone else on this app in another poll question. If you have a link to prove your statement please provide it. But I know you can’t so you might want to just admit you are mistaken.

..

Since you don’t know where you got your statistics or what they include I have done your work for you.

Here is the link to which you are referring ,

www.massshootingtracker.org

Note they define mass shootings as 4 or more killed or injured, INCLUDING THE SHOOTER. Most countries that track mass shootings define them as 5 or more excluding the shooter. This means that the group in the link had to lower the number to 3 or more (including the shooter) to make their point. So I guess you can just define the term “mass shootings” as low as you want to get whatever statistic you want. They readily admit to being biased and that in the past their stats have included BB gun shootings though they claim they no longer include them.
So while both of us were wrong in some aspects. The stats certainly don’t support your claim.

...

Sorry, no. Please stop telling people to not cite their own statistics so you can make them up for them. Made up statistics just aren’t as accurate.
"four or more [are] shot and/or killed in a single event, at the same general time and location not including the shooter."
www.newsweek.com/mass-shooting-almost-every-day-us-675334

Now back to my original statement. We value low regulation of guns over human life in this country. The numbers would suggest that, but I’m not convinced a majority of Americans would agree...and polls suggest at least some more gun regulations are wanted.

Again your reference doesn’t support your claim. In fact, my reference supports it better than your own. Your reference does NOT say that we have a mass shooting every day. You might want to read your links in the future before you make claims not supported by them.

Its okay to be wrong. Just admit it and move on and try harder next time. Hopefully you will check your facts more closely in the future.

...

Straight from the linked article:
“Mass shootings are a near daily occurrence in America, but what happened in Las Vegas stands out: It was the deadliest such incident in U.S. history, with more than 50 killed and 200 injured.”

I think we’re done here. If we can’t agree on simple comprehension of an article, we’ll never actually get back to my real assertion about our country’s values.

Straight from your comment,

“We actually have an average of one mass shooting per day in this country”

Your source does not support that statement.

Try again.

I’m not really seeing a difference, but since you are determined to not discuss what my original statement was really about, I’ll just leave this here & say “have a nice day.”

semantics.urbanup.com/755371

The difference is that not only is your statement not true but your source doesn’t support it. Please work on your reading comprehension before posting in the future.
As far as your original question, if you don’t know what it is how would I?

Good day. ...

You think that’s a good idea?

2 part response, aren’t you also a selfish jackass if you’re only concerned about your own safety after multiple mass shootings?

Is it selfish to put the liberty rights of ALL mankind as the highest virtue, even knowing that some will abuse it? We have laws to protect against those abuses, but in the end sacrificing the rights of the many to cease the abuses of the few is a step on the march to tyranny and eventually far more death.

Surprise! We have gun control. Sorry you weren’t aware of it.

Which gun law specifically would have prevented this tragedy? The only thing I can think of is to require concealed carry of citizens.

Mandatory buyback of the large majority of guns. Maybe let people own guns but it should be a massive headache like in Japan. Every bullet case gets returned to the store if you want to buy more.

So you’re not a fan of constitutional rights? I propose we make it easier for citizens to conceal or open carry.

I’m a fan of constitutional amendments, we are supposed to update the document as necessary.

And really, what good would come from people carrying guns more easily?

They would have a chance of preventing such shootings.

Why do you think random people would do anything besides make the situation more dangerous?

They’re not random people. They’re people who have been through the gun control laws we already have to be able to carry.

I see what you mean, I’m not as trusting towards the general public as you are though. No reason to expect average people with guns wouldn’t freak out and escalate the problem.

It’s not certain but there are reports that the shooter was engaged by a citizen with a shotgun as he left the church and may have died from wounds inflicted by that armed citizen.