Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]If they ask were the pink guns are that should be a big clue. [/B]
You don't have to be gay to join one of the "pink" clubs; story goes on to note that one of the clubs was started by a heterosexual.
Originally posted by Surtur
We've spent 18 trillion dollars on high tech gaydar.
Best answer
Originally posted by Robtard
You don't have to be gay to join one of the "pink" clubs; story goes on to note that one of the clubs was started by a heterosexual.
Girls buy guns to Clyde. Don't be sexists. And are you saying a Club for Homosexuals can only be owned by a Homosexual?
Are you HetroPhobic Robby?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
1) I do not know how this scenario is any better. It is still a total shit show. Except now, instead of people trying to identify where the shots are coming from and trying to find cover or exits, everyone is shooting at each other. I fail to see how that results in fewer people shot.2) Except it is not: only 13% of mass shootings take place in gun free zones.
1) Well, if you think ppl would behave like 80's movie thugs and just stand there and open fire at random in a panic with their limited ammo and zero situational awareness, sure.
I happen to believe ppl will likely panic and stampede but be smart enough to try and look for cover/an exit first and try to preserve their own lives (firing only when they are sure they have decent cover, are trapped without an exit but have some sort of situational awareness) rather than just simply inflicting random casualties.
I guess we won't really know for sure until a random shooter enters a bar full of armed patrons. But I'm willing to be my scenario is more likely.
Edit. Misread the comment, editing to fix:
2) So do ppl who mass shoot in non-gunfree zones with some opposition manage to rack up a high casualty count?
Edit2. I think you're talking about the Bloomberg report that included non-mass shootings that occur in private homes, etc.?
Here is an article (w/ sources and citing individual shootings) that focuses more on the more-relevant-to-recent-events mass shootings.
Claims that 98.8% of mass public shootings happened in gun free zones since 1950.
Duuno how accurate it is tho, but go ahead and scrutinize.
Originally posted by jaden101
Picture the scene...a nightclub...flashing lights...loud music...someone comes in and starts shooting...due to the lights and music hardly anyone can tell where the shots come from...several people draw their guns. One of them sees someone else who isn't the shooter with their gun drawn and fires on them...more shots and more people draw guns...more people killed and still no one can tell who the original shooter is...then the famously trigger happy Cops show up and see lots of people with Guns drawn.Yeah I'm sure it'll be fine. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
But this has literally never happened. Ever. Why pander to an extremely unlikely scenario when another extremely unlikely scenario (but is far more likely to happen compared to the other) can prevent a greater loss of life?
It is similar to removing airbags from cars because some children were killed by them. More people will definitely be saved by keeping the airbags, in cars, rather than trying to save the much smaller number of children killed by airbags.
Originally posted by Raisen
I'm pro gun and this sounds great. Anything to increase knowledge and safety.
But the question is would legislation to enforce it be considered as "DA GUBMINT AR TAKEN OWR GUNZZZZ"
Say for example the cost of the mandatory training are added to the gun cost price and the gun isn't given to the owner until they get their training certificate.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But this has literally never happened. Ever. Why pander to an extremely unlikely scenario when another extremely unlikely scenario (but is far more likely to happen compared to the other) can prevent a greater loss of life?It is similar to removing airbags from cars because some children were killed by them. More people will definitely be saved by keeping the airbags, in cars, rather than trying to save the much smaller number of children killed by airbags.
But what has happened, and I've seen this for myself, is a fight starting in a bar that within 10 seconds erupted into almost everyone in the bar fighting.
Let's not forget than in a nightclub you would have many intoxicated people as well. What if they're armed?
Can't see it ending well.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Do we have real world examples where an increase in gun availability lead to less fun violence?
I don't know what constitutes as "fun" violence but once again, we have examples of Switzerland and Israel. You can make whatever rationalization you want but those are examples of more guns=less violence as a result of responsible gun owners and lack of gun culture.