Op-Ed IF ONLY POLICE HAD GUNS, this never would have happened...

[Kulindahr]

What you are citing was not really a study, but a review of current military base policies in combination with information available from other sources. The review appears to have been inspired by the attack on a recruiting station in Chattanooga last summer.

They looked at data and reached a conclusion -- that's more than a review.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh well if the AIR FORCE said so...

TX is right - we shouldn't have to be armed if we don't want to. Europe isn't and they're happier, more advanced and safer than us. If we don't want to own or carry tools of murder, we shouldn't be forced to. You're conveniently ignoring this every time you make one of your delusional gunsturbation points.

"We shouldn't have to be armed if we don't want to."

That's exactly the NRA's position. It's called "freedom": no one should be forced to be armed.

Personally, I (here's one of my opinions, for once) think that should come with a trade-off: if you're not willing to learn to use, own, and train with the instruments that keep a free country free, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[Kulindahr]

Notice how in your indignation at having words put in your mouth, you thoroughly didn't address the actual question.

There wasn't actually a question, there was a straw man argument. I don't answer accusations about things I've never said.

 

[Kulindahr]

If there was widespread disarmament across the population, no particular groups would need to have guns.
The comparatively low gun death rates among white Americans are still higher than the average for all citizens within other developed countries.

So all the hype about "We don't want to take away your guns" is exposed for the lie it is: disarmament is the goal.

And it's an unobtainable one, as is being seen in California, where not only are criminals making their own guns, but the police lose hundreds a year -- and we're supposed to trust them to be the theoretical only ones with guns?

 

[xbuzzerx]

There wasn't actually a question, there was a straw man argument. I don't answer accusations about things I've never said.

Everything you've declared "doesn't work", works in other countries.

Why won't it work here?

If you're going to play offended diva instead of answering the question, I'll just take that as a concession.

 

[Kulindahr]

Everything you've declared "doesn't work", works in other countries. Why won't it work here? If you're going to play offended diva instead of answering the question, I'll just take that as a concession. View attachment 1168694

So there are no mass shootings in, say, Britain? Australia? Sweden? France? The only accomplishment of all the restrictions on individual liberty in those countries is that citizens are guaranteed victims when a killer strikes. It's an approach that treats people as statistics, not as individuals. America was intended to be about individual liberty and severely limited government authority. I stand on the side of individual liberty, to which the liberty to arm and defend myself as I see fit is critical. It isn't possible to eliminate guns from a country; Europe and California both show that. So what "gun control" really accomplishes is 31 dead in a restroom because they had been deprived of the means to fight back. "Lay there and take it" is no less offensive when it's a shooter after you than when it's a rapist. BTW, thanks for the illustration of how the anti-gun forces rely on lies -- it's either that, or the Dallas police chief is ignorant of what happened in his own city.

 

[Kabluey]

So there are no mass shootings in, say, Britain? Australia? Sweden? France? The only accomplishment of all the restrictions on individual liberty in those countries is that citizens are guaranteed victims when a killer strikes. It's an approach that treats people as statistics, not as individuals. America was intended to be about individual liberty and severely limited government authority. I stand on the side of individual liberty, to which the liberty to arm and defend myself as I see fit is critical. It isn't possible to eliminate guns from a country; Europe and California both show that. So what "gun control" really accomplishes is 31 dead in a restroom because they had been deprived of the means to fight back. "Lay there and take it" is no less offensive when it's a shooter after you than when it's a rapist. BTW, thanks for the illustration of how the anti-gun forces rely on lies -- it's either that, or the Dallas police chief is ignorant of what happened in his own city.

Statistically, all of those countries have a tiny fraction the number of mass shooting deaths as the USA.
And gun deaths are between sixty to ninety percent lower.

When you're wrong, you're completely wrong.

 

[Kabluey]

So all the hype about "We don't want to take away your guns" is exposed for the lie it is: disarmament is the goal.

Only people like you have a problem with that.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So there are no mass shootings in, say, Britain? Australia? Sweden? France? The only accomplishment of all the restrictions on individual liberty in those countries is that citizens are guaranteed victims when a killer strikes.

The difference in the U.S. is that there are way more guns, resulting in way more mass shootings.

Guns do not stop mass shootings, period. They happen on military bases and at public events where police are present.

 

[rareboy]

It is interesting that when the Dallas shootings occurred....having 'good guys' turn up armed to the teeth only confused everything as police and the media thought there were multiple shooter at large.

To be honest, it would have been a teachable moment if the police had pulled down a few of the vigilantes.

As it was...the efficacy of guns was irrevocably undermined when the good guys had to send in a robotic bomber to do the job.

 

[TX-Beau]

I go armed because of reality: I choose not to be like the 31 slaughtered in a restroom in Orlando, who liberals required to be unarmed and thus defenseless. Or are you going to tell me they didn't really die, so there's nothing to be concerned about?

No one but emotion-based liberals talk about "all people armed all the time", primarily because those who support the basic human right of choosing their own means of self-defense are not advocates of coercion -- it's our opponents who advocate coercion of law-abiding citizens in some vague hope that criminals will suddenly decide to reform and start obeying laws.

LIBURALS AND COERCION AND HOPE AND CRIMINALS AND VICTIMS!!!

Oh fucking spare the rest of us your gun sharia. You are far more likely to be shot by a fellow 2cnd amendment fetishist than a foreign terrorist.

Oh yeah, and we've been over that Air Force STATEMENT lots and lots before and still massive fail, no data, no analysis, no study, no nothing other than what you desperately want to hear.

 

[Kulindahr]

Statistically, all of those countries have a tiny fraction the number of mass shooting deaths as the USA.
And gun deaths are between sixty to ninety percent lower.

When you're wrong, you're completely wrong.

"Less." In other words, IT DOESN'T WORK. What it does is sentence people to be victims.

 

[Kulindahr]

Only people like you have a problem with that.

Anyone in touch with reality has a problem with that.

Europe and California (among other places) are proof that gun control does not work, that the government cannot protect people. That reverts the right of self-protection to the people, where it comes from in the first place -- the government only has authority to protect people because it is granted some of that authority by the people. Since the government plainly cannot do the job fully, every individual must be either allowed to choose his or her own means of defense or be acknowledged as a slave.

 

[Kulindahr]

The difference in the U.S. is that there are way more guns, resulting in way more mass shootings.

Guns do not stop mass shootings, period. They happen on military bases and at public events where police are present.

In the U.S. there are far fewer mass shootings per armed person and definitely per gun. Thus, the U.S. is a more civilized place.

Military bases are gun-free zones until recently when the Air Force has led the way to change that.

And guns have stopped mass shootings. Anyone who wants people to be disarmed at mass shootings has no respect at all for human life.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is interesting that when the Dallas shootings occurred....having 'good guys' turn up armed to the teeth only confused everything as police and the media thought there were multiple shooter at large.

To be honest, it would have been a teachable moment if the police had pulled down a few of the vigilantes.

As it was...the efficacy of guns was irrevocably undermined when the good guys had to send in a robotic bomber to do the job.

According to the reports, the presence of armed law abiding citizens didn't confuse anything. Only one even had any interaction with the police, and he cooperated fully; it took only a few seconds to determine he was not involved. Other than him, the rest kept their long guns on their shoulders -- and any cop that thinks a gun on a shoulder is being used to shoot with should never have passed first grade.

More lies: there were no "vigilantes" present. And all that pulling down the law-abiding citizens would have done is signal that the police were thoroughly incompetent -- it would have been akin to loading bystanders at an accident into ambulances instead of looking for injured people.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are far more likely to be shot by a fellow 2cnd amendment fetishist than a foreign terrorist.

Statistically, that is questionable. What is certain is that I am far more likely to be attacked and need a gun to defend myself than to be shot by anyone.

Oh yeah, and we've been over that Air Force STATEMENT lots and lots before and still massive fail, no data, no analysis, no study, no nothing other than what you desperately want to hear.

It's revealing that you only listen to those parts of the government you want to hear. The Air Force did their analysis and came to a conclusion.

 

[Kabluey]

"Less." In other words, IT DOESN'T WORK. What it does is sentence people to be victims.

More correctly, more guns equals more death.
If there were no guns, there'd be even fewer deaths. The maths is very simple.

 

[Kabluey]

Statistically, that is questionable. What is certain is that I am far more likely to be attacked and need a gun to defend myself than to be shot by anyone.

Americans killed by guns in the USA 2001-2013: 400,000
Americans killed by terrorists in the world since 2001: 3,440 (includes 9/11).

edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence

It's revealing that you only listen to those parts of the government you want to hear. The Air Force did their analysis and came to a conclusion.

Not all parts of the government provide equally useful insight on any given topic.

 

[Kabluey]

Anyone in touch with reality has a problem with that.

Europe and California (among other places) are proof that gun control does not work, that the government cannot protect people. That reverts the right of self-protection to the people, where it comes from in the first place -- the government only has authority to protect people because it is granted some of that authority by the people. Since the government plainly cannot do the job fully, every individual must be either allowed to choose his or her own means of defense or be acknowledged as a slave.

I'd prefer freedom from being killed rather than the freedom to kill.
Stats over the 2000s:
Homicide rate in Western Europe: between 0.7 and 1.4 per 100,000
(Excluding Italy, home of the mafia with 2.5)
Homicide rate in USA: 6.1 per 100,000 people

https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/546379ed6bb3f7fc44a12570-960/screen shot 2014-11-12 at 10.14.53 am.png?_ga=1.149783030.1728581758.1468750664

 

[TX-Beau]

Statistically, that is questionable. What is certain is that I am far more likely to be attacked and need a gun to defend myself than to be shot by anyone.

No. It's not. The rest of that is just pointless b.s.

It's revealing that you only listen to those parts of the government you want to hear. The Air Force did their analysis and came to a conclusion.

Don't even bother, I'm uninterested in arguing this again only to discover again, that the Air Force statement you cherish so is without sourcing or methodology and is just a species of opinion, AGAIN.