AFhusker Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 So quick question to those who think that by civilians carrying guns we lesson the chance of attacks (because when a gunman tries to rob, or attack there would be a bystander with concealed carry who could stop the event). In Texas, where gun ownership is high (I think the last official stat I saw, and it was 2 or 3 years old said 37% of people in the state owned a gun, and I'm assuming based on politics, the color of the state overall and our current debates that this number has gone up significantly). How can one explain how Dallas happened? Statistically there were a significant number in the crowd who were carrying. This is not a trolling question, I'm sincerely interested in how this argument makes sense to some. The trouble with the Dallas shooting is I don't think anyone knew where this guy was shooting from initially. The sound of the gunfire was bouncing off of all the buildings and nevermind facing a rifle with a pistol is a real bad situation to be in, but it can obviously be done. People also reported that he was initially fighting from the position of advantage, elevation. Rifle, elevation, unknown location, means find cover or run your a$$ off real quick and get out of there. Talk about a GIANT **** sandwich to take a bite out of if you're responding to that. My main guess is the people that showed up to protest aren't the type to carry firearms based on their beliefs and feelings so there probably wasn't a huge number there that even had a weapon on them IMO. Some were carrying firearms and smartly gave their weapons to the police when it started. That was very smart not only to take any suspicion from them and prevented any confusion that could have led to more incidents. The way people reacted to that evil person, that is the country is all about. Police and protesters (who were protesting the police, get the irony of that) working hand in hand to limit the damage by that evil POS. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Several posts moved to the Dallas Dispatch Tape thread to continue that discussion there. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Here's a pretty interesting interactive graphic about gun deaths. FiveThirtyEight does some really amazing work. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Here's a pretty interesting interactive graphic about gun deaths. FiveThirtyEight does some really amazing work. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ That is very interesting and puts a lot of these "statistics" that are thrown around into perspective. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Are you f'ing kidding me? Sonny boy is aligned to the NRA (no surprise), but to be advocating for silencers? This is yet another example of the kids getting involved in areas that are inappropriate for them to be tied to with their new roles. And on a side note - why in the world do we need this change? Selling it as a "health" issue is ridiculous. What benefit do the 2nd amendment folks see this in providing? Why is it a right? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_silencers-715pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2c9bc5b94bdf Link to comment
ZRod Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Are you f'ing kidding me? Sonny boy is aligned to the NRA (no surprise), but to be advocating for silencers? This is yet another example of the kids getting involved in areas that are inappropriate for them to be tied to with their new roles. And on a side note - why in the world do we need this change? Selling it as a "health" issue is ridiculous. What benefit do the 2nd amendment folks see this in providing? Why is it a right? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_silencers-715pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2c9bc5b94bdf I don't really get what the big deal with suppressors are anymore. They don't actually silence the weapon. If a criminal wants to use one, nothing is stopping them from making one anyway (pop bottles or pillows can work in a pinch), It's no more difficult than a 200 dollar tax and 9 month wait. You can probably buy them from over seas anyways. 2 Link to comment
Enhance Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I think the gun lobby's argument that they aren't used very often in crimes and therefore have a negative stigma attached to them is somewhat of a fallacy. One of the biggest reasons they aren't used in crimes is because of how difficult it is to get them. If you significantly increase the supply and ease of purchase then their use in crimes will also likely increase by a significant margin. I know a few guys who run a gun/suppressor retailer in Nebraska. They're some very cool guys - most of them are vets - and they really know what they're talking about. They're naturally big proponents of the suppression effect and the impact it has on their hearing and the hearing of their clients. But, even they think the laws in place are probably a good idea. You need to be 21, a U.S. citizen, produce passport photos, pay $200 and wait 4-6 months (among other requirements) to get one. And if you want another one you have to go through the whole same process again. Link to comment
Saunders Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Are you f'ing kidding me? Sonny boy is aligned to the NRA (no surprise), but to be advocating for silencers? This is yet another example of the kids getting involved in areas that are inappropriate for them to be tied to with their new roles. And on a side note - why in the world do we need this change? Selling it as a "health" issue is ridiculous. What benefit do the 2nd amendment folks see this in providing? Why is it a right? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_silencers-715pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2c9bc5b94bdf Even countries that have more strict gun laws than the U.S. don't regulate suppressors like we do. They don't work like the movies, and the only reason they were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of ignorance. The $200 "tax stamp" was established in the 30's as a workaround in attempt to effectively ban them. Many states now allow you to hunt with them, because they realized the benefits, and how silly the NFA classification is. I know people who use them just for target shooting on their own property, simply to not annoy the neighbors. It's akin to banning mufflers on cars. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Even countries that have more strict gun laws than the U.S. don't regulate suppressors like we do. They don't work like the movies, and the only reason they were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of ignorance. The $200 "tax stamp" was established in the 30's as a workaround in attempt to effectively ban them. My whole life is a lie. Next you're going to tell me TIE fighters wouldn't make that noise in space because sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. 1 Link to comment
Saunders Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Even countries that have more strict gun laws than the U.S. don't regulate suppressors like we do. They don't work like the movies, and the only reason they were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of ignorance. The $200 "tax stamp" was established in the 30's as a workaround in attempt to effectively ban them. My whole life is a lie. Next you're going to tell me TIE fighters wouldn't make that noise in space because sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. Link to comment
Enhance Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Even countries that have more strict gun laws than the U.S. don't regulate suppressors like we do. They don't work like the movies, and the only reason they were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of ignorance. The $200 "tax stamp" was established in the 30's as a workaround in attempt to effectively ban them. My whole life is a lie. Next you're going to tell me TIE fighters wouldn't make that noise in space because sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. Yeah they wouldn't make the noise but they can do banking turns in space. #fact 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Bump. https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/827305921613328384 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 How could anyone have been against keeping the severely mentally ill from buying guns? Link to comment
teachercd Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 How could anyone have been against keeping the severely mentally ill from buying guns? Becuase a lot of people are f'ing morons. Link to comment
Recommended Posts