Mandalay Bay Shooting; 50+ dead-200+ injured

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it is a false equivalency to compare manufacturer compliance with safety feature regulations to citizen compliance with public safety laws, which is what you are trying to do.

Oh really? Where?

Because I seem to remember my post stating this:

[...good thing you mentioned the limits. He used either an illegally modified automatic weapon or an illegal firearm. Let's regulate it even more. Maybe we don't have enough laws that talk about penalties and prison time associated with automatic weapons. Yeah, that will prevent this problem in the future. The next time a criminal wants to commit a crime with an illegally obtained and illegal-grade firearm, he or she will think twice about using that illegal gun, illegally. "Well, these laws are on the books. Perhaps I shouldn't do this illegal thing. Whew. Good thing those regulations and laws existed! ANOTHER CRIME PREVENTED!!! WEEEEEE!]

In case you missed it, putting stronger regulations on guns is not going to magically make criminals just not use the illicit guns they already have, can get access to, or can modify to use illegally. Gun prohibition will also not magically get people to stop using firearms.

Comparing car safety regulations to prevent accidental deaths with gun regulations to prevent criminal homicides is also a very poor argument. One is accidental. One is criminal homicide.

Additionally, a new car, with those safety regulations costs....wait a minute! I'm on to you! Trying to trick me into arguing against your fallacious comparison. Nice try. You made a shit argument. It's a clear cut false equivalency. Come back to the table with a better argument.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Utilizing emergent technologies to implement common sense firearm safety features will significantly reduce gun violence, and give law enforcement useful tools in solving gun-related crimes.

Hold on, there...citation needed.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are effectively arguing that because these safety features are not a proverbial magic bullet, and will not solve all gun violence, that they should not be implemented at all.

When you come up with ideas that will specifically target criminals doing criminal things with guns, sure, we can talk about that. So you really think suggesting more regulations and more bureaucratic hoops for law abiding citizens is magically going to get the criminals to voluntarily stop using illegal guns, illegally?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
As if reducing harm is a zero sum game, and if we cannot save every life, we should not try to save any lives.

Yeah, limited money. You can't force more regulations onto people. You can try to enforce car regulations and gun regulations that prevents 90%+ of the deaths from both categories because that's not just financially possible. I have still yet to read a single example from you on how a much stricter USA gun regulation can prevent the 90%+ gun related deaths.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The entire premise of your argument is that criminals will find a way to circumvent the safety features, so they should not be implemented.

You're mistaken. The premise is that they won't volunteer or actively participate in the new regulations because they are already using illegal firearms, illegally.

And you're right about my argument if you state the following: forcing expensive technological gun regulations onto law abiding citizens is a very huge waste of money and time if your goal is to reduce gun-related homicides.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Well, criminals will find a way to circumvent any law, so by that reasoning, we should not have laws.

Since your intentions are to prevent gun deaths, then you need to come up with legitimate ways to prevent gun deaths instead of throwing your arms in the air and saying, "well fine! Let's just not have any laws since my idea sucks! Harumph!"

You can do better than a "Shitty, ineffective, and expensive gun regulations that in no way target the already illegal firearms being used illegally" idea.

Instead of trying to make people spend more money on stupid ideas that won't solve the problems they are intended to solve...how about...

Tackle the issue of why people are committing homicide? Solve it from that angle. Don't regulate the tools even more. Try to fix the meat that is using the tools. Are you liberal? I thought you were. Why do you not care about the human and care more about guns?

Usually it's because they don't like guns and therefore believe that people either shouldn't have them or shouldn't be allowed to carry them in public.

There is something more going on here. I'm sure we never will get to the bottom of it as it's likely been covered up already. But a well off guy, with a gf, lots o money, multiple homes, airplanes and a multi millionaire living the good life in comped hotel rooms in the mandalay bay does not decide to just go kill 59 people. This is starting to stink👆

And the insanity of the media continues:

I’m a doctor. I want you to live and thrive. So I want semiautomatic guns banned.

I also like how he dismisses people who correctly point out in the difference in semi-automatic weapons, etc. F*ck your silly facts, he's a doctor.

If true, the guy is a moron.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If true, the guy is a moron.

It is the Washington Post so hard to say, but it seems legit.

Did you know FBI data indicates that in 2011, more people were killed with "clubs and hammers" than with any type of rifle? Do you remember people pushing for legislation to ban those things or make them harder to get? People love to use the "should we ban cars if they are used as weapons" but cars are heavily regulated etc. I do not think hammers and clubs are.

If this doctor cares about us surely he will come out against hammers and clubs next. After all: he wants us to thrive and survive.

People also miss the point as gun ownership has been going up gun violence is going down at the same time.

Remember whenever I said crime was going up under Obama people were quick to point out crime was going down.

Originally posted by Surtur
It is the Washington Post so hard to say, but it seems legit.

Did you know FBI data indicates that in 2011, more people were killed with "clubs and hammers" than with any type of rifle?

Oh really?

Show me the data.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh really?

Show me the data.

Here you go, and remember: I said rifles. Specifically rifles.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/30/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-says-according-fbi-more-people-are-kil/

Oh and you will notice more death at the hands of...hands, feet, and fist than rifles. Weird. Ban fists.

Oh Jimmy:

YouTube video

Jimmy is just pathetic at this point, I have a la carte satellite tv, I got rid of local channels so I dont have to pay for this crap anymore.

Originally posted by Robtard
Other than to possibly spread terror and fear?

Had over 30 weapons (home and hotel), thousands of rounds of ammo and explosives. Nope, doesn't sound like the actions of a terrorist at all.

This is a pretty good tearing apart of Jimmy Kimmel's speech on Gun Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJWVWXOHPA&t=16m8s

Yeah, Jimmy hit all the notes when it came to myths. The "Trump signed a bill making it easier for the mentally ill to get access to firearms" myth(The bill was supported by the ACLU), the gun show loophole myth, and he just generally demonstrates if you see a leftist on tv making talking points about guns you should more than likely google what he is saying because they are probably misinformed.

Oh and some might find this interesting:

A Statistician Reconsiders Her Support For Gun Control After Looking At The Data

Originally posted by Kurk
You know, Robby, there are mentally unstable people out there who experience long-term delusions telling them to do sh1t like this. Premeditated /= terrorism.

Just remember that reasoning the next time some brown person with an unsafe name like "Omar" murders a bunch of people. Kay, thx.

what if it really turns out that this guy was a ter rorist sympathizer? what group would hold the ultimate blame, domestic ter orist or is is?

Originally posted by Raisen
what if it really turns out that this guy was a ter rorist sympathizer? what group would hold the ultimate blame, domestic ter orist or is is?

The sad truth is, if it turns out the guy is a nazi or something that will be focused on. If it turns out he was some hardcore leftist that aspect will not really be focused on.

There are of course other things it could turn out to be.

Remember, whenever there is an Islam related terrorist attack and people on the right start talking about walls or travel bans people are quick to pounce on them. Don't punish the many for the deeds of a few, is what you will see said. Yet those in the left immediately seize on gun control talking points when stuff like this happens. Then suddenly they are all "oh well you're for bans if its a muslim!" even though they themselves do not actually support those things, but of course the things they want banned/restricted matter more.

I really don't understand how people can side with the feels over American safety.

Originally posted by Raisen
I really don't understand how people can side with the feels over American safety.

Because people are easy to trigger and they are depending on the fact that you won't actually look up the claims they are making(which tend to be false).

This is why if you see a leftist discussing gun control just research the claims, they will mislead you. The thing about silencers is especially disturbing, they are basing their statements off of James Bond movies. It would be funnier if some of these people didn't have millions upon millions of people watching them. It is legitimately scary to think people out there believe what Jimmy Kimmel says.

In fact, we should just label it what it truly is: propaganda. Late night talk show hosts are now peddling actual propaganda to us.

Surt's just trying to confuse the issue as usual with his wild rants. Last I checked, waves of illegal immigrants aren't coming over from Mexico and mass shooting people. So there goes his comparison with the Trump's stupid wall idea

As far as the travel ban, it might begin to make sense if the ban included countries like Saudi Arabia, the biggest sponsor of Islamic Extremist terrorism in the US

But sure, let's focus on a skewed travel ban and wall, while 59 people were killed by an an American born American who had close to 50 guns, thousands of rounds and explosives