• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Today in mass shootings

Troglodyte said:
Assuming the were all legal, 64,999,950 legal gun owners didn't shoot anybody.

For perspective: If a different bunch of 50 legal gun owners shot someone everyday, it would take 3,500 years for all of them to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

and there you have it.
50 people killed by 65 million guns.
looks like there are some seriously awful shots out there or the entire issue is being blown up into more than it really is.

makes you wonder.
 
If there are 300+ million firearms in the US, that means an average gun owner owns 4-5 guns each? Or there are a shitload of illegal guns floating around.
 
Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable for shootings

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled new gun control laws.

She proposes abolishing legislation that protects gun makers and dealers from being sued by shooting victims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239

------------------


Better yet...

If your child commits a crime, you should be charged with a felony.


It's time to get tough on crime.

This means if you make the child, you are responsible for the child.

If your child commits a crime:

$1000 = first offense.
$5000 = second offense

third offense - you lose the right to make new children. Forever.

yeah - that's the ticket
 
Tibs said:
If there are 300+ million firearms in the US, that means an average gun owner owns 4-5 guns each? Or there are a shitload of illegal guns floating around.
Click to expand...

4 would be about average, most gun owners I know have more than that. It takes a minimum of that many to protect the property I live on.

7.62 sniper rifle...150 to 1000 yards

.22 rifle, scoped...25 to 100 yards

12 ga pump ...0 to 50 yards (outdoors)

.38 S&W 0 to 50 yards ( indoors )

plus a pellet gun for varmints

At about 350 M people, that would mean that there a whole lotta people that don't have any guns at all....yet. Unless of course they find all them guns we lost in the storms.

Spike..does that mean I can sue the silverware companies for makin' me fat, brother Jack Daniels for makin' me drunk, Chevrolet for makin' me drive drunk and Titleist for me sucking at golf ?
 
Last edited:
deljzc said:
I disagree with your position that there is no correlation/causation between the number of firearms in a society and the amount of crime using a gun in that society.
Click to expand...

Once again - for at least the 3rd time in this discussion - you propose that correlation shows causation. Specifically, you point to the number of guns in the United States as compared to other nations, and then compare homicide rates. That is the very definition of correlation.

Let me answer your stance with a few more demonstrations, showing conclusively that correlation ≠ causation:

3030529-slide-xqot9mp.png


3030529-slide-prjk5ql.png


3030529-slide-zzq9wsp.png
 
Tibs said:
If there are 300+ million firearms in the US, that means an average gun owner owns 4-5 guns each? Or there are a shitload of illegal guns floating around.
Click to expand...

and if there are 300+ million firearms, then there is an extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemely small percentage of those that are being used for gun-related crimes.
math and all
 
Chip needs to upgrade the ammo on that scoped .22 mine is good to 200-300yds.
 
Hysterical media aside, in 2013 there were 8,454 homicides committed with a firearm. Of those law enforcement estimates 80% of those are gang and/or drug related, and most of which occur in large urban environments like Chicago and Detroit. (See: War on Drugs) That means for every day people like you and me -- who aren't defending our drug corners in today's inner cities -- we have a (1,690 non-gang/drug related homicides / 318,900,000 US population = 0.000530% chance) of being killed with a firearm. That's a 1:188,700 chance; so over any given year you statistically have a greater chance of meeting your demise at the foot of a flight of stairs (1:180,000) or on the seat of a bicycle (1:140,000) than you do the business end of a firearm.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Economics#sthash.DSHG6vkq.eKQzr1hp.dpbs
http://www.riskcomm.com/visualaids/riskscale/datasources.php
http://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/
 
Spike said:
Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable for shootings

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled new gun control laws.

She proposes abolishing legislation that protects gun makers and dealers from being sued by shooting victims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239

------------------


Better yet...

If your child commits a crime, you should be charged with a felony.


It's time to get tough on crime.

This means if you make the child, you are responsible for the child.

If your child commits a crime:

$1000 = first offense.
$5000 = second offense

third offense - you lose the right to make new children. Forever.

yeah - that's the ticket
Click to expand...

And another angle on that same retarded liberal thought process, if I see Tibs in a Smart Car and decide to steamroll him in my Explorer, his family would sue Ford, not me. Game on!
 
Inevitably, this country will split into 3 or 4 countries over regional politics in matters like this. we keep getting more and more segmented and from my local experience in the northeast, south and Midwest people are very very intolerant of the opposing viewpoint to an absurd level. I do think that when the west coast and northeast both do have high level gun controls they will see absolutely no difference in violence or death. It will be exactly the same as every other area that has tried this or other weapons bans in history. Idealism in these matters is simply wishful thinking...
 
I see Elfie has trotted out the Umpqua CC not being a gun free zone lie again. Even though I myself pointed out the catch 22 where you can bring your weapon on campus but you can't bring it into the buildings.

I would like to point out that I don't own any guns but Most of the gun owners I know have at least 4. Serious hunters will have two or three rifles and two or three shotguns for different game on top of their target and CCW/Home Defense pieces.
 
IndySteel said:
...if I see Tibs in a Smart Car and decide to steamroll him in my Explorer, his family would sue Ford, not me. Game on!
Click to expand...
Stay classy Indy! What's next? You're going to threaten me in what way?
 
EdReed4Prez said:
Chip needs to upgrade the ammo on that scoped .22 mine is good to 200-300yds.
Click to expand...

Chip's ammo is just fine, it's the loose nut behind the scope that limits it's range, besides that, I don't trust a .22 to do much damage past my eyesight limits. Ya know. That's what that Mosin's for.

By the way, every time these Libtards start their gun limitation rants, sales go thru the roof.

September Sees Record Gun Sales

The FBI’s National Instant Background Check System processed 1,795,102 applications to buy a firearm in September. That represents a new record: 335,739 more checks than the previous September high set in 2012, or a 23 percent increase.

The number of checks done in a particular month is considered a reliable gauge of how many gun sales have occurred since background checks are required on all sales made through licensed firearms dealers. The actual number of sales is likely higher since multiple firearms can be sold to the same person by a dealer under a single background check. The numbers also do not account for sales between private parties that do not require a background check.

The Second Amendment Foundation said Democratic efforts to impose new gun control measures were fueling the sales increases. “We are seeing new record highs in gun sales due to the increased anti-gun rhetoric from Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton,” said Alan Gottlieb, the group’s founder. “Their push for new restrictions on gun ownership is fueling gun sales.”

“If they really want less guns in private hands they should consider what happens every time they open their mouths.”......True Dat !
http://freebeacon.us4.list-manage.c...1bb9bfafcbd472bee2&id=906ab83bc0&e=1b60289474
 
Last edited:
DBS1970 said:
I see Elfie has trotted out the Umpqua CC not being a gun free zone lie again. Even though I myself pointed out the catch 22 where you can bring your weapon on campus but you can't bring it into the buildings.

I would like to point out that I don't own any guns but Most of the gun owners I know have at least 4. Serious hunters will have two or three rifles and two or three shotguns for different game on top of their target and CCW/Home Defense pieces.
Click to expand...

I doubt most liberals understand that you might want to use a different gun for deer than you do for rabbits or squirrels. Easy to get up to 4 guns when you realize they have different purposes other than killing people.
 
ark steel said:
I doubt most liberals understand that you might want to use a different gun for deer than you do for rabbits or squirrels. Easy to get up to 4 guns when you realize they have different purposes other than killing people.
Click to expand...

you're a ******* liar. the ONLY reason guns exist is to blow people up.
mika.jpg
 
deljzc said:
I disagree with your position that there is no correlation/causation between the number of firearms in a society and the amount of crime using a gun in that society.

I'm not saying that because I didn't take the time to research whether it's true or not....although my suspicion is that it is an untrue assumption and Steeltime has refuted that point rather well.

You can look at the outliers of the graph (like Honduras), but as that article CONCLUDES (if you would have read down to the bottom), I read the entire article......thus my comment that the #'s are 'massaged' that when it comes to similar societies to ours (i.e. you take out countries in civil war conflicts or lack or centralized government) then there is a clear causation AND correlation to countries that have a large number of guns per capita and how often guns are then used during crimes.

I think your argument against this is kind of worthless to argue with, because I can't believe you actually believe otherwise. I think you're just arguing to argue. Nope.....I'm arguing because I actually believe the Constitution and the amendments are very clear and important.The argument that Chicago is somehow an example that strong anti-gun legislation doesn't work is also misleading. There is no proof Chicago now has less guns per capita. EXACTLY! I think the guns are still there. And when guns are confiscated in Chicago during crimes they are coming from outside the city (which has relative lax laws in buying guns). That is so convoluted I don't know where to start. So you're admitting that strong gun legislation does NOT lead to less guns. That would be because criminals......wait for it........don't obey laws! Guns coming from "outside the city" huh? Maybe they've been stolen or something?
Again, I'm not advocating (yet) the inability to purchase or own a firearm.

But I strongly believe in the causation AND correlation of firearm events during a crime and the number of firearms per capita in that society.

It just seems logical to me that if a society loosely accepts the ownership and use of firearms in non-criminal activities that it also accepts the the use of firearms in criminal activities. The two go hand-in-hand. That most definitely does not have to be the case.....strong enforcement of existing laws would go a long way toward curbing misuse. People don't just turn off the comfort of having access to a gun when/if they want to perform a crime. And in crimes of passion, the availability of a gun certainly increases it's possibility of use during that crime of passion.

These are kind of self apparent facts, no?
Click to expand...

Thanks for at least answering.
 
Tibs said:
Stay classy Indy! What's next? You're going to threaten me in what way?
Click to expand...


Pssst, Tibs, guess what? I'm not really going to plow into you and your Smart car. You can relax.
 
DBS1970 said:
I see Elfie has trotted out the Umpqua CC not being a gun free zone lie again. Even though I myself pointed out the catch 22 where you can bring your weapon on campus but you can't bring it into the buildings.

I would like to point out that I don't own any guns but Most of the gun owners I know have at least 4. Serious hunters will have two or three rifles and two or three shotguns for different game on top of their target and CCW/Home Defense pieces.
Click to expand...

I see your brain is addled from reading right wing blogs like 99% of the CONservative posters here.

In Oregon if you are holding a ccw permit you can carry ANYWHERE except for maybe a private residence.

There were several ccw holders packing that day IN BUILDINGS. That's because any school policy does not trump state law.

http://www.oregonlive.com/education...ommunity_college_not_a.html#incart_river_home

From the article:
Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting Thursday, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.

That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.


John Parker, a 36-year-old Army veteran studying to become a drug and alcohol counselor, is among the UCC students who hold weapons permits and bring guns to campus. He had his gun and his license with him on campus Thursday when the shooting took place.

He was in the college's veterans center, just a few buildings away from Synder Hall, with some other students who were similarly permitted and armed, he told The Oregonian/OregonLive

So they were armed, in a building, and it didn't do a damn bit of good.

Again understand that I am a gun owner and not anti gun but the idea that the answer to too many guns out there is..,,.more guns in the wrong hands! could only come from the up is down and down is up mind of a typical CONservative.
 
Last edited:
ark steel said:
I doubt most liberals understand that you might want to use a different gun for deer than you do for rabbits or squirrels. Easy to get up to 4 guns when you realize they have different purposes other than killing people.
Click to expand...

Before I became an utter pacifist and divested myself of all weaponry, and had places to hunt while residing in Texas I had three rifles for deer. .3030 Lever gun for brush, .30-06 for our to 300 yards and a 7mm Mag for out to 500. You can bet one thing though, gun bans won't stop at self loading magazine fed weapons. Just like the Ruger 1022 and Mini 14 became "Assault Rifles" that scoped, single shot, bolt action Mauser 7mm Mag would be called a "Sniper Rifle" and be next on the ban list.
 
DBS1970 said:
Before I became an utter pacifist and divested myself of all weaponry, and had places to hunt while residing in Texas I had three rifles for deer. .3030 Lever gun for brush, .30-06 for our to 300 yards and a 7mm Mag for out to 500. You can bet one thing though, gun bans won't stop at self loading magazine fed weapons. Just like the Ruger 1022 and Mini 14 became "Assault Rifles" that scoped, single shot, bolt action Mauser 7mm Mag would be called a "Sniper Rifle" and be next on the ban list.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with most liberal anti gun nuts. They really know nothing about guns. So they speak from ignorance not knowledge. I've been around them my entire life and can disassemble and put most of them back together within minutes. I could kill more people with a bolt action Carcano (just in case someone knows a little gun history) than these nuts with a semi auto. Even mag. size doesn't matter. It takes 3 seconds to load another mag in most semis. So instead of carrying a 30 round clip you can carry 3, 10 round mags.... OR 6, 5 round clips. People just don't know WTF they are talking about when it comes to guns.
 
Elfiero said:
I see your brain is addled from reading right wing blogs like 99% of the CONservative posters here.

In Oregon if you are holding a ccw permit you can carry ANYWHERE except for maybe a private residence.

There were several ccw holders packing that day IN BUILDINGS. That's because any school policy does not trump state law.

http://www.oregonlive.com/education...ommunity_college_not_a.html#incart_river_home

From the article:
Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting Thursday, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.

That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.


John Parker, a 36-year-old Army veteran studying to become a drug and alcohol counselor, is among the UCC students who hold weapons permits and bring guns to campus. He had his gun and his license with him on campus Thursday when the shooting took place.

He was in the college's veterans center, just a few buildings away from Synder Hall, with some other students who were similarly permitted and armed, he told The Oregonian/OregonLive

So they were armed, in a building, and it didn't do a damn bit of good.

Again understand that I am a gun owner and not anti gun but the idea that the answer to too many guns out there is..,,.more guns in the wrong hands! could only come from the up is down and down is up mind of a typical CONservative.
Click to expand...

and do you know WHY they didn't do anything? or are you just bitching?
 
Elfie,

It seems state law and the Colleges policy were at odds. My assertion still stands, the college by its policy was a de facto gun free zone. My guess is the gentleman mentioned in the article risked being expelled and losing any academic credits had any faculty or campus security discovered he was packing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top