1 1
kallend

BAN GARLIC

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I will have to look at more deeply than I have time now.  Of course if I am wrong I will admit it.  

You have the document you linked to. You have the two documents I linked to. It shouldn't take much time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to republican John McCollister for speaking out against white supremacy and the GOP's support of it. 

=================

The Republican Party is enabling white supremacy in our country.  As a lifelong Republican, it pains me to say this, but it’s the truth.  I of course am not suggesting that all Republicans are white supremacists nor am I saying that the average Republican is even racist.

What I am saying though is that the Republican Party is COMPLICIT to obvious racist and immoral activity inside our party.  We have a Republican president who continually stokes racist fears in his base.  He calls certain countries “sh*tholes,” tells women of color to “go back” to where they came from and lies more than he tells the truth.  We have Republican senators and representatives who look the other way and say nothing for fear that it will negatively affect their elections.

No more.  When the history books are written, I refuse to be someone who said nothing.

The time is now for us Republicans to be honest with what is happening inside our party. We are better than this and I implore my Republican colleagues to stand up and do the right thing.

===================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I'm curious about what exactly you think those people in El Paso and Dayton should have done to "be prepared".  

Don

According to Dayton Chief Biehl, "based on recovered shell casings Betts fired at least 41 rounds before police officers responded".

Chief Biehl also said that Betts was "neutralized" within 30 seconds of opening fire. 

So within 30 seconds Betts hit 36 people, killing 9 of them.  

It defies imagination what the mythical  "good guy with a gun" would have done in that 30 seconds against a guy with a drum magazine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, kallend said:

It defies imagination what the mythical  "good guy with a gun" would have done in that 30 seconds against a guy with a drum magazine.

I am sure some combination of heroism, expensive rapid-draw holsters, large caliber handguns, dramatic music and creative imaginings could have prevented this.  I'm pretty sure I saw that in a movie once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jakee said:

You have the document you linked to. You have the two documents I linked to. It shouldn't take much time.

You are right, I am wrong.  Gang violence has little to no impact on the murder rate in the US.  Banning “assault style” weapons and high capacity magazines will make the United States much safer than eliminating gang related murders.  I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

You are right, I am wrong.  Gang violence has little to no impact on the murder rate in the US.  Banning “assault style” weapons and high capacity magazines will make the United States much safer than eliminating gang related murders.  I stand corrected.

Then are you now supportive of banning assault style weapons and high capacity magazines or is it still an it sucks to be them sort of thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Then are you now supportive of banning assault style weapons and high capacity magazines or is it still an it sucks to be them sort of thing?

Can you point to an example of how such bans have lowered gun violence rates in the past?  I’m sure that gun violence dropped precipitously after the assault weapons ban implemented in the 90s.

You are clearly a rational man, I look forward to your data.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya right, the only time blacks can get special funding from the feds to improve their communities is after a natural disaster.  Maybe Lake Michigan's "record deepness" will flood Chicago and wash away their guns.  It might very well be the only hope given the level of obstinance displayed by both republican and democrat politicians (along with people like Kallend) that refuse to implement sensible gun laws AND prevention programs aimed at actually reducing the gun homicide rate.  

Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if the state of our inner cities remained exactly the same for another 50 years.

For some odd reason, I am still continually surprised, disappointed, and saddened at the number of racists in my world.

To me that is a sad disappointment in humans, humanity, mankind, just fucking life in general.

I'll never understand the hatred attacks on people simply because they were born.

At this point in my life, I've all but given up on mankind.

We're fucking blithering idiots as a mass.

Silly of me to even think we have progressed when we are clearly moving backwards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Can you point to an example of how such bans have lowered gun violence rates in the past?  I’m sure that gun violence dropped precipitously after the assault weapons ban implemented in the 90s.

You are clearly a rational man, I look forward to your data.

 

Removing your ability to kill tens to hundreds of people within mere seconds.

No way that could possibly reduce the number of innocent lives stolen because machismo.

Fucking idiocy.

Seriously. Humans have failed.

We should simply kill each other. What's the point of even being here if the mass of humans want everyone dead anyway?

 

For fucks sake I thought I passed kindergarten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

I am sure some combination of heroism, expensive rapid-draw holsters, large caliber handguns, dramatic music and creative imaginings could have prevented this.  I'm pretty sure I saw that in a movie once.

No, no, you cannot counter a gun problem with more guns, you're missing John's message.:o Better to bludgeon the armed assailant with a bulb of garlic, until it's banned.

I greatly enjoyed firearms for recreational target shooting and I probably still would if I had the opportunity. In South Africa I had a concealed carry pistol for 15 years. I empathize with the gun community and I get where their interests lie. 

With that being said...   In 15 years I never had occasion to draw my pistol in response to a threat and I have since emigrated to Australia. FYI on Australia's NFA; one such study here , a pertinent summary note includes; 

Their research also showed that while there had been 13 mass shootings (using the definition of five or more people killed) in the 18 years before the law changes, there had been only one (Margaret River in May 2018) in the 22 years following. Modelling suggested that if shootings had continued at a similar rate as that prior to the NFA, then approximately 16 incidents would have been expected by February 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Can you point to an example of how such bans have lowered gun violence rates in the past?  I’m sure that gun violence dropped precipitously after the assault weapons ban implemented in the 90s.

You are clearly a rational man, I look forward to your data.

 

Sorry for the delay, I was absorbed by my favorite restaurants wine list. To be honest most of my thinking about assault type weapons has always been a bit emotional. As in what the fuck do you say to a room full of mothers of dead children if your true belief is that you, and the fuck who killed their kids, shouldn't be hindered in any way if your hearts desire is to purchase another such ridiculous gun because: second amendment.

Nonetheless, there is data. To my eye what stands out is the numbers of victims per massacre. When it's assault weapons or high capacity pistols the numbers are usually high. Hence my view that banning those tools of massacre are low hanging fruit. I'll look at it more diligently tomorrow.

 

Mother Jones - Mass Shootings Database, 1982 - 2019.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You are right, I am wrong.  Gang violence has little to no impact on the murder rate in the US.  Banning “assault style” weapons and high capacity magazines will make the United States much safer than eliminating gang related murders.  I stand corrected.

Clearly the above statement is entirely facetious - so you're really not going to revisit any of your opinions about the US having unique problems even though you know the data you used to form those opnions is false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2019 at 7:01 AM, kallend said:

Funny that other developed countries that are part of this world don't seem to have anything like so many homicides, mass shootings, or children shooting and maiming themselves or others. 

Maybe it's American Exceptionalism - we are just nastier than other western nations.

MAGA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, normiss said:

Removing your ability to kill tens to hundreds of people within mere seconds.

No way that could possibly reduce the number of innocent lives stolen because machismo.

Fucking idiocy.

Seriously. Humans have failed.

We should simply kill each other. What's the point of even being here if the mass of humans want everyone dead anyway?

 

For fucks sake I thought I passed kindergarten.

I’ll take that as a “no”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

are you now supportive of banning assault style weapons and high capacity magazines

18 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Can you point to an example of how such bans have lowered gun violence rates in the past? 

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

 To be honest most of my thinking about assault type weapons has always been a bit emotional.

And that's fine, it's an emotional issue.  Emotions are probably the main reason I'm even entertaining the idea of a possible (tho unlikely) assault weapons ban.  The additional lives lost are significant to the families of the deceased.  Emotionally it IS significant, statistically however, when it comes to overall gun violence/homicide rates, it's not.
 

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Nonetheless, there is data. To my eye what stands out is the numbers of victims per massacre. When it's assault weapons or high capacity pistols the numbers are usually high.

Handguns have been used in more mass shootings and have killed/injured significantly more people overall than assault rifles:

  • 340 mass shootings with 1,141 deaths in 50 years from 1966-2016
  • 271 of those 340 mass shootings DID NOT involve an assault rifle - 787 Killed, 869 Injured
  • 67 of those 340 mass shootings DID involve an assault rifle - 351 Killed, 511 injured

However,  when assault rifles are used, significantly more people are killed on average per mass shooting:

  • Assault Rifles  -  5.7 Deaths and 7.6 Injuries
  • Handguns/other  -  2.9 deaths and 3.2 injuries

Given the increase in both the number of mass shootings and the use of assault rifles, this is obviously a growing concern, but still not statistically significant when talking about gun homicide rates overall, at least not yet anyway.

https://rockinst.org/issue-area/assault-weapons-mass-shootings-and-options-for-lawmakers/

 

(BTW, feel free to round those numbers up to the next whole person.  I know saying things like "no statistical significance" in this type of context and using fractions of dead people may sound a bit insensitive and maybe even offensive to some, but I assure you, it's just the objective nature of numbers.)

 

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Hence my view that banning those tools of massacre are low hanging fruit.

Tho the 1994 assault weapons ban had little effect on gun violence/homicide rates, it did result in a 25% reduction in the number of assault weapons used in mass shootings.  I'm not sure what that number would translate to in terms of of lives saved if a similar ban was implemented today - and we'd also have to consider the significant increase in the number of assault weapons since 2004 and the effect it would have on that 25% reduction.

Again, I get why people would support a ban on these types of guns, but it seems more of an emotional decision based on principle and personal opinion, and most likely wouldn't yield the results many might expect.   Tho we'd  likely see some sort of reduction in would-be deaths, It's doubtful that this type of ban would change the dynamics surrounding mass shootings, let alone gun homicides in general.  We'd certainly need to do a hell of a lot more. . .

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/05/el-paso-shooting-dayton-gun-control-laws-should-not-be-weapons-bans/39317131/

"The study analyzed 10 different state firearms laws over a 26-year period and found three that, when enforced in conjunction with one another, reduced the rate of homicides and suicides by more than a third.

Neither banning assault weapons nor banning high-capacity magazines shows any statistical significance in reducing firearm-related homicide rates, according to the study."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

And that's fine, it's an emotional issue.  Emotions are probably the main reason I'm even entertaining the idea of a possible (tho unlikely) assault weapons ban.  The additional lives lost are significant to the families of the deceased.  Emotionally it IS significant, statistically however, when it comes to overall gun violence/homicide rates, it's not.
 

Handguns have been used in more mass shootings and have killed/injured significantly more people overall than assault rifles:

  • 340 mass shootings with 1,141 deaths in 50 years from 1966-2016
  • 271 of those 340 mass shootings DID NOT involve an assault rifle - 787 Killed, 869 Injured
  • 67 of those 340 mass shootings DID involve an assault rifle - 351 Killed, 511 injured

However,  when assault rifles are used, significantly more people are killed on average per mass shooting:

  • Assault Rifles  -  5.7 Deaths and 7.6 Injuries
  • Handguns/other  -  2.9 deaths and 3.2 injuries

Given the increase in both the number of mass shootings and the use of assault rifles, this is obviously a growing concern, but still not statistically significant when talking about gun homicide rates overall, at least not yet anyway.

https://rockinst.org/issue-area/assault-weapons-mass-shootings-and-options-for-lawmakers/

 

(BTW, feel free to round those numbers up to the next whole person.  I know saying things like "no statistical significance" in this type of context and using fractions of dead people may sound a bit insensitive and maybe even offensive to some, but I assure you, it's just the objective nature of numbers.)

 

Tho the 1994 assault weapons ban had little effect on gun violence/homicide rates, it did result in a 25% reduction in the number of assault weapons used in mass shootings.  I'm not sure what that number would translate to in terms of of lives saved if a similar ban was implemented today - and we'd also have to consider the significant increase in the number of assault weapons since 2004 and the effect it would have on that 25% reduction.

Again, I get why people would support a ban on these types of guns, but it seems more of an emotional decision based on principle and personal opinion, and most likely wouldn't yield the results many might expect.   Tho we'd  likely see some sort of reduction in would-be deaths, It's doubtful that this type of ban would change the dynamics surrounding mass shootings, let alone gun homicides in general.  We'd certainly need to do a hell of a lot more. . .

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/05/el-paso-shooting-dayton-gun-control-laws-should-not-be-weapons-bans/39317131/

"The study analyzed 10 different state firearms laws over a 26-year period and found three that, when enforced in conjunction with one another, reduced the rate of homicides and suicides by more than a third.

Neither banning assault weapons nor banning high-capacity magazines shows any statistical significance in reducing firearm-related homicide rates, according to the study."

Basically, the more mass shootings there are the better assault weapons look. Maybe it's just me being pollyannish, but I just can not imagine explaining to a room full of grieving parents that the increased number of first graders killed because the murderer used an assault weapon is statistically insignificant.

What is insignificant, to my mind, is the cultural loss we'll incur if assault weapons are no longer sold. I'm a gun person and I believe in defending my home with firearms. Before skydiving I hunted constantly for Deer, Elk, Pheasants, Duck etc. etc. I get that part of it. But through any or all of it I could never see the use of an AR-15 for hunting or for home defense. It is simply an almost worse choice for either. Same with hand guns, in most hands. So yes, for me they are low hanging fruit and quite possibly the best place to start if we are ever going to say enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Basically, the more mass shootings there are the better assault weapons look. Maybe it's just me being pollyannish, but I just can not imagine explaining to a room full of grieving parents that the increased number of first graders killed because the murderer used an assault weapon is statistically insignificant.

What is insignificant, to my mind, is the cultural loss we'll incur if assault weapons are no longer sold. I'm a gun person and I believe in defending my home with firearms. Before skydiving I hunted constantly for Deer, Elk, Pheasants, Duck etc. etc. I get that part of it. But through any or all of it I could never see the use of an AR-15 for hunting or for home defense. It is simply an almost worse choice for either. Same with hand guns, in most hands. So yes, for me they are low hanging fruit and quite possibly the best place to start if we are ever going to say enough.

But what about 30-50 feral Hogs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1