|
antiga posted:Part of this is that they're not trying to convince the NRA types. The politicians message is designed to rally their own supporters and convince the undecided portion of the public that their opposition is inherently evil or otherwise bad. It very well could already be law, I'm honestly not sure, just kind of throwing things out. I'm trying to see where there could be common ground to tackle this issue that seems to be more prevalent in the U.S. than other places. Switzerland, for example, is second to the U.S. in terms of guns per 100 people, yet they are nowhere close to us in terms of mass shootings.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The no-fly list thing specifically is a bad idea because the no-fly list is a secret government shitlist with no known consistent selection method and a track record of red-flagging everyone from dissident journalists to Senators, and once you're on it unless you're a celebrity you have no recourse to ever get off or find out why. It's bullshit when applied to travel and it's intolerable when used to strip away peoples' actual rights as citizens. Anyone pushing for this is a fascist trying to spook you into unthinking obendience with the T-word, plain and simple. I want to emptyquote this because it is pure and true. Omne posted:I get his point on the Patriot Act and it's definitely a slippery slope. I actually hadn't thought of gun control that way before, but I see where it comes from. My point is that rights aren't always "all or nothing, any infringement is wrong" because certain rights do have those caveats or restrictions. Gun ownership seems to be "any single restriction whatsoever is a massive infringement on my rights." Would, say, waiting three days be an unspeakable infringement? The bit you're missing is that there already are substantial restrictions surrounding the sale, use, and carrying of arms. It's not that any single restriction is a massive infringement, it's that the folks who want total disarmament have come out and said that that's their goal, and they will incrementally push for it until it happens, so the only recourse is to say 'gently caress you, no' because their agenda is open and plain. To give you an idea of why most of us keep saying that poo poo doesn't work, look at the very shooting that spawned this discussion. California has all the laws you're suggesting, from waiting periods to restrictions on types of guns allowed, to standard capacity magazine and scary black rifle bans. None of them did poo poo, because they aren't about stopping gun violence, they're about exerting control over people the gun control advocates don't like. If they had any intellectual honesty, they'd be campaigning to ban handguns (used in ~9000 homicides a year) rather than 'assault weapons' (rifles of all types used in ~400 homicides per year), but they know that'll go over with the public and the SCOTUS like a wet fart in church. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
The first amendment and the second amendment aren't comparable. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are paramount to a free society; freedom of guns is paramount to people who really, really like guns. Like, in a weird way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
The main thing I feel is under dispute about the second amendment is what the word 'gun' means. Not just the definition, or the definition at the time, but its functional role in the Bill. We have attack helicopters and rocket-propelled grenades, means of slaughter that the framers couldn't have dreamed of. The right to set sail is not included in the second amendment even though a well-regulated Navy has been invaluable for our Imperial interests, but boats are for rich people so they weren't going to rely on the common man rolling out with all their improvised warships (say, didn't we use France's navy?), but guns could be churned out in factories and taken up by the militia to go and run up against or ambush some enemy battalion in what was more or less a numbers game. It speaks to the intense individualism found throughout American lore, and indeed there are plenty of Americans who see nothing fishy about the founding fathers' (note our quasi-religious title for them) motivation for revolution, but instead celebrate our nation's birth by gun. Hell, plenty of them celebrate a war that their ancestors lost, a war that was against their own ancestors' interests from the start, but they couldn't tell because there weren't good schools yet. I think there's a certain part in all of us, deep down, that likes a high ceiling on the craziness of poo poo that could go down at some point, because let's face it 9 deaths due to violence per 100,000 people per year is not too bad. The political capital would be better spent on hypertension prevention and prophylactic education to cull the spread of STIs. But I'm just a simple Anarcho-Statist. Smash the Individual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:The first amendment and the second amendment aren't comparable. The First and second amendments kind of compliment each other at this point. Try to restrict 1st amendment rights, and you can expect a cavalcade of people exercising their second amendment rights. Right now there are approximately 300 millions guns in the U.S., or about one gun per person in the U.S. There is no practical way to collect all the guns in the US without violating the 4th amendment. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:lmao yes well you see if you pick exactly the right definitions of "mass", "shooting", "ever", "other countries", whether 3 or 4 victims makes a killing count as worthy of consideration, and well you have one study but I've got another unpublished unreviewed study that Teaches the Controversy, then the US is unique in the exact way I say it is and my favored policies are the only ones that will impact the kind of violence I've decided counts as real. Haha, oh man, I would love for you to find any statistic comparing the US with another similarly developed country where the US comes out favourably with regards to the rate of mass shootings. As far as I could tell from that article, you were outgunned by Lebanon, go you  Are you seriously not seeing that your country has a weird-rear end problem with mass shootings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:The First and second amendments kind of compliment each other at this point. You don't need to collect every gun in the U.S. to reduce gun violence. You just have to collect a lot of them. And you don't have to do it all at once; presumably, the U.S. government is going to be around for awhile; it can afford to play the long game. And there are fucktons of countries out there with free speech, and free press, and freedom of religion, and no loving guns. Hell, there are several countries out there with lots of guns, and none of those freedoms. There's no complement there, and in fact, people shooting back is something that's most likely to make it easier for someone to get the U.S. military to turn on the people; and that's really the only thing that matters when it comes to a tyrannical dictator who isn't backed by the general populace, whether or not he can get the military to fire on civilians. Because you and your 30.06 aren't going to be able to do poo poo about a B-2 dropping a bunker-buster on your backyard, or an Abrams pulling up to your door.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:You don't need to collect every gun in the U.S. to reduce gun violence. You just have to collect a lot of them. And you don't have to do it all at once; presumably, the U.S. government is going to be around for awhile; it can afford to play the long game. Please name those other countries who all about free speech, and have stronger free speech protections than the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:There's no complement there, and in fact, people shooting back is something that's most likely to make it easier for someone to get the U.S. military to turn on the people; and that's really the only thing that matters when it comes to a tyrannical dictator who isn't backed by the general populace, whether or not he can get the military to fire on civilians. Because you and your 30.06 aren't going to be able to do poo poo about a B-2 dropping a bunker-buster on your backyard, or an Abrams pulling up to your door. i can't tell if I'm reading satire or a post from a 20 year old liberal arts major
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Please name those other countries who all about free speech, and have stronger free speech protections than the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Most of Western Europe has similar levels of free speech, and far less gun ownership/more gun regulation. So the Pope is protected by the Swiss Guard who wield MP15s. The rest of us who aren't popes can get hosed. We don't have the Swiss Guard protecting us. I would like to have a gun to protect myself. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:So the Pope is protected by the Swiss Guard who wield MP14s. The rest of us who aren't popes can get get hosed. We don't have the Swiss Guard protecting us. I would like to have a gun to protect myself. I'd really love to know where it is you people are living where you're having to dodge War Boys and Bullet Farmers on your commute every morning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Most of Western Europe has similar levels of free speech, and far less gun ownership/more gun regulation. k http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/13/nazi-grandma-jailed-for-denying-the-holocaust-ever-happened/ http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/arrest-over-anti-islamic-facebook-post-by-uk-beauty-salon/ar-BBn4kfT http://www.atlanticbb.net/news/read...on_online_ha-ap but hey, those people were being shitlords! Who cares about their freedom of speech if it's offensive to me, right? Thanatosian posted:You know, it's really weird, in 33 years of life, I have never once been in a situation where having a gun on me would have improved things, or made me safer. Not once. cool me too! but these people were kinda sorta helped by having a gun so i dunno http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Police-Woman-beheaded-at-Oklahoma-workplace-277215581.html http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0725/Doctor-shoots-armed-patient-in-Philly-hospital-A-gun-rights-case-is-born-video http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/11/13-year-old-boy-home-alone-shoots-and-kills-burglar/ http://krqe.com/2015/05/08/albuquerque-police-to-release-new-info-in-skate-park-shooting/ that was just the past year or so and im too lazy to look up more for you but w/e, it doesn't matter since we've never been in a situation where we needed a gun so gently caress those guys That Jerk Steve fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
That Jerk Steve posted:k That Jerk Steve posted:cool me too! but these people were kinda sorta helped by having a gun so i dunno I mean, helped in shooting a whole shitload of other people because they could? But you're right, what we really need is more thirteen-year-olds spraying bullets randomly in neighborhood streets. That will certainly solve our shooting problems!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:The First and second amendments kind of compliment each other at this point. Just because they choose not to exercise their rights does not mean they are not valuable. Also, that 'not valuable' line of discussion is exactly why my usual response to freshman polysci arguments like this is 'gently caress off and get it amended, then, if you don't feel it is valuable'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
OP, our nation was founded on the principal of "gently caress you Dad, I don't have to follow your rules, I'm moving out". This still applies to a lot of immigration today. The idea of leaving a bad situation to come somewhere where you can live with some autonomy and make a better life for one's self. Our country was founded in armed insurrection and then armed violent expansion. We don't trust our government and we don't trust each other. Almost everyone in this country can find a relative, maybe it will take a generation or two, who has has been hosed hard by a government. We came here because we were being hosed and some people got hosed again when they got here. My family is from West Virginia and this happened in my Grandfather's lifetime. quote:The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and one of the largest, organized, and well-armed uprisings since the American Civil War.[1] For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders,[2] who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired,[3] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order. So yea, gently caress you dad, I would feel a little better if I owned a gun. I don't ever ever expect to need it but even as a big gay symbol I don't want to give it up.   Woody was a little optimistic imho. bongwizzard fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade The only thing I'm seeing here is that the amount of guns a country has doesn't really correlate to the amount of violence going on there, or even the motivations of the violence happening. We have America at the top of gun ownership by leaps and bounds, yet it's a pretty safe place to live. Probably because America isn't actually drone striking itself, yet. If there was any correlation between gun ownership and violence America should be the most dangerous place to live on the planet, or the safest. Depending on your bias. Meanwhile you have a place like Honduras that is middle of the pack gun ownership wise, but leading the world in murders. Which if there was any correlation, it should be a dangerous place to live, but not the most dangerous. Or Canada that is also middle of the pack gun ownership wise, but incredibly safe. Then there are literal war zones like Syria and Iraq with strict gun control and low gun ownership. Correlation would mean they should be either a nearly violence free utopia or a war zone. Those places have played both roles multiple times over the millenia, but were like that long before guns were ever invented. . Of course there are also places with nearly no gun ownership, and nearly no violence, like Japan. The numbers are garbage though. Those ones specifically are from Wikipedia, which is questionable at best. The biggest problem is that these numbers are averages. America has really dangerous places comparable to third world countries in the middle of an ongoing civil war, and places as safe or safer than pristine European socialist utopias. The other problem is how do you get accurate numbers in a place like Mexico that is very near a failed narco state on the brink of civil war? Or a place like Japan where the criminal justice system looks like it's out of an Onion article, and who knows what metric they are using to measure the statistics they publish. Or America where an objective study is impossible because any one capable of funding a good one is completely biased to the outcome. We can't really make a rational informed decision because the data just isn't there. You could probably spend as much money and effort trying to get the information to make a decision as just picking a decision at random and going whole hog with it. The bottom line is that guns are a core part of American culture. Americans loving love guns. They stockpile them, maintain them, carry them every where, name them and sleep with them. Americans love guns just as much as they love Jesus. Guns are not a part of Japanese culture, they have anime instead. Guns aren't a part of British culture either. They like curry, tea, and avoiding the dentist at all costs. Muslims don't like Jesus at all, they prefer Allah, throwing gays off tall buildings, and owning women as property. Some of them really like guns, and some of them don't. Americans only recently decided that women aren't really property and maybe throwing gays off roofs isn't cool. But even then it really wasn't so much throwing gays off roofs as dragging them behind your truck or imprisoning them until they died. If Sandy Hook didn't get Americans to give up guns, even a little, nothing will. In a lot of other countries a Sandy Hook would have been enough, and in some cases a similar event was the catalyst to go all the way with gun control. You want to fix gun violence in America, you're going to have to get at it through alternative means. Gun violence isn't even the disease. It's a symptom. In fact it's more of a sub component of the symptom that is violence. If you take the guns out of a violent persons hands, you still have a violent person, he just won't shoot anyone. Violence isn't even the most pressing issue facing Americans. People are dying more from just being to loving fat, driving poorly, and drinking so loving much their organs start failing, or they start driving poorly, or they become violent. Violence in America is less of an issue today than at nearly any other point in time, and the trend is that it's going to keep going that way. Harrower fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:You don't need to use the black market or gang connections to acquire firearms illicitly, although of course, you don't really need connections to use the black market either. I'm admittedly naive when it comes to anything related to the black market... It makes sense that various types of rifles have been in use in the military. If the rifle can only shoot once and then must have another load of ammo chambered, this would still effective when people are fighting en masse. Some of the group could be reloading while the others are firing. If a single person tried to shoot up a room full of co-workers with such a weapon, he or she would have much worse luck. So whether or not the weapon has ever been used in a military setting isn't really a concern, but whether it's easy for one or two people to go on a shooting spree with it. This may be kind of a pipe dream, but I think it's still a worthwhile goal to take weapons that quickly up the body count on a murderous rampage off the market. Self defense, hunting, and other sport - these are fair enough applications of firearm ownership. Mass murder, no. Does anyone know if it's legal to give a gun as a gift? Because if it is, that just about renders any background check concept nonsensical. For that matter, how about inheriting firearms?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:War on drugs and systematic racism for 500, Alex. How does the war on drugs and systemic racism lead to something like the Isla Vista shootings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:How does the war on drugs and systemic racism lead to something like the Isla Vista shootings? I dunno, how would the experience of being a Muslim in modern America radicalize someone into terrorism? :v That said, mass shootings get news attention specifically because they are outliers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
green chicken feet posted:It makes sense that various types of rifles have been in use in the military. If the rifle can only shoot once and then must have another load of ammo chambered, this would still effective when people are fighting en masse. Some of the group could be reloading while the others are firing. If a single person tried to shoot up a room full of co-workers with such a weapon, he or she would have much worse luck. So whether or not the weapon has ever been used in a military setting isn't really a concern, but whether it's easy for one or two people to go on a shooting spree with it. The problem is that if a gun is good at MURDEROUS RAMPAGES it's also good at defending yourself. As discussed earlier in the thread, there are plenty of good reasons why you'd want a firearm that had high capacity and semi-automatic (or even automatic) fire depending on the circumstances. At the same time, bolt actions or shotguns don't really slow people down too much, they just change the shooter's tactics. green chicken feet posted:Does anyone know if it's legal to give a gun as a gift? Because if it is, that just about renders any background check concept nonsensical. For that matter, how about inheriting firearms? It's legal, but depending on which state you live in, a background check or licensed dealer transfer is required. Similar with inheriting. However, it's of course, always illegal to transfer a firearm to someone who is not legally allowed to own or purchase one: http://www.nssfblog.com/giving-a-firearm-as-a-gift-some-reminders-from-nssf/|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
One of the big things that both sides of the Argent can probably agree on is that it is a travesty that the BATFE and DoJ refuse to prosecute straw purchasers despite having legal grounds to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I dunno, how would the experience of being a Muslim in modern America radicalize someone into terrorism? :v Elliot Rodgers wasn't a Muslim though 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:One of the big things that both sides of the Argent can probably agree on is that it is a travesty that the BATFE and DoJ refuse to prosecute straw purchasers despite having legal grounds to do so. christ yes ashgromnies posted:Elliot Rodgers wasn't a Muslim though as far as we know
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
if you're really into gun control you should probably be advocating for all spree shooters to be retroactively declared Muslim, because if there's one thing the last decade and a half has taught us it's that angry Mohammedans are the one thing that'll bring the parties together to start going at civil liberties with a fucken chainsaw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
There totally were 355 mass shootings this year
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
* pellet gun shootings A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Yeah this is a good read. I was going through the shootingtracker site (or whatever the Reddit map is), and was really skeptical about how they were reporting the events. A lot of them were murder-suicides or crime-related. That still sucks, but doesn't really fall under the crazed gunman/political terrorist umbrella that most people think of when they hear "mass shooting". I was looking at Philly, and I saw they had a 10-victim shooting listed back in July. Seeing as how I live in the area and heard jack-all about that, I was intrigued. Turns out someone took pot shots at block party with a shotgun loaded with birdshot. People got peppered with pellets from some distance, nobody killed or seriously injured. But if you just go by the numbers, it looks like a rampage. That's not exactly useful data when trying to figure out roots causes for events like San Bernadino, Newtown, or Aurora. EDIT: vvvv Yeah I kinda hoped that was implied, but maybe I should have said it directly. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Yeah this is a good read. I was going through the shootingtracker site (or whatever the Reddit map is), and was really skeptical about how they were reporting the events. A lot of them were murder-suicides or crime-related. That still sucks, but doesn't really fall under the crazed gunman/political terrorist umbrella that most people think of when they hear "mass shooting". I was looking at Philly, and I saw they had a 10-victim shooting listed back in July. Seeing as how I live in the area and heard jack-all about that, I was intrigued. Turns out someone took pot shots at block party with a shotgun loaded with birdshot. People got peppered with pellets from some distance, nobody killed or seriously injured. But if you just go by the numbers, it looks like a rampage. That's not exactly useful data when trying to figure out roots causes for events like San Bernadino, Newtown, or Aurora. that's still pretty hosed up, mind Omne posted:I get his point on the Patriot Act and it's definitely a slippery slope. I actually hadn't thought of gun control that way before, but I see where it comes from. My point is that rights aren't always "all or nothing, any infringement is wrong" because certain rights do have those caveats or restrictions. Gun ownership seems to be "any single restriction whatsoever is a massive infringement on my rights." Would, say, waiting three days be an unspeakable infringement? skipped over this before but while this'd be an improvement I'm really not cool with people being arbitrarily declared guilty until they prove themselves innocent. I'd probably be okay with adding some more criteria to the NICS check/4473 if you could find something that's missing from there that'd trip up jihadists and incel warriors, but I don't think there really is such a thing that'd pass muster. Are you addicted to or an unlawful user of wahabbism? while guys who snap and try to kamikaze as many random people as possible are sort of definitionally unstable I'm not sure what you're seeing in this that'd make it into any kind of system to DQ Holmes and not every other vaguely goony dude. Like, if you want to use shootings as an excuse to improve our mental health programs and actually do some good for some people then that's fine by me and I won't question it too much, but there's pretty scant evidence that increased funding will lead to someone finding the hidden red flag that differentiates a latent mass murderer from any other unhappy introvert, or come with a pill for being bitter and alienated. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
According to Mother Jones, once you exclude the noise of gang bangers doing a drive by, and look for crazy assholes shooting up the place there has been a grand total of 4 mass shootings in the U.S in the past year. Personally, I'd prefer to be armed with something stronger than harsh language. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
i believe that every law-abiding citizen the world over should have the right to their very own The Rook™, not just police and military 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Given that Rook is just a Bobcat loader with some steel plate welded to it? Yeah, sure, go nuts. If you've got the money, you can buy Cold War era Russian tanks or MiGs now as a private citizen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Wait. I have a bulldozer at home. What do I need to make it a tactical bulldozer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Wait. I have a bulldozer at home. What do I need to make it a tactical bulldozer? Branding, for one
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:* pellet gun shootings The source for the 355 mass shootings does not include a single incident involving pellet/BB guns. It includes 355 incidents where at least 4 people were shot (with bullets, truly a rare occurrence in America, I know), which is the most widely used definition for "mass shooting". Apparently in the past, they accidentally included a single BB gun incident, which they removed when they realized it involved BB guns. So you and other people who smugly bring that poo poo up whenever the 350+ number is mentioned, should probably stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Breaking down the mass shootings in the USA can be interesting. FYI here's the mass shootings in Illinois, a mid population state with the third biggest city , this year Draw your own conclusions (hint: chicago and rockford are the two cities with the most canadians due to their hockey teams) mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Gun advocates apparently all live in that city from Deathwish 3 where armed thugs are breaking into their apartments every single day
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:gently caress you. That's why. We don't NEED guns. We also don't NEED free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to worship how we choose, or any of a number of other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. LOL that you're comparing having guns to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. Keldoclock posted:There's no need for an automatic transmission in your car either. Ever. Just keep doing it manually, right? You don't really NEED a 20 gallon gas tank, right? There's plenty of gas stations here, and where would you be going that's so far anyways? The purpose of an automatic transmission is not to make your car a more effective killing instrument you loving idiot. Subyng fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Rah! posted:The source for the 355 mass shootings does not include a single incident involving pellet/BB guns. It includes 355 incidents where at least 4 people were shot (with bullets, truly a rare occurrence in America, I know), which is the most widely used definition for "mass shooting". We can still be totally smug, mostly because the 350+ number was called bullshit by an author from the ultra conservative mother jones news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
should I smugly bring up the scraped knees instead Reddit guy's an rear end in a top hat and so are you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:08
|
|