Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Breaking News Shooting At Barrow County, Georgia High School. Suspect in Custody.

IUTpt2 said:
Well you got

Lucifer
Satan
Moloch/Molech
Vishnu (right up KH's alley)
Baphomet
and so on and so forth.


Which one was KH referring to??
Click to expand...


Again… most irrelevant question, seeing as how throughout history there has been more death/killing/atrocities/enslavement in the name of the God of Abraham (of which I AM a believer in by the way) than any other so called “god” in the history of mankind.

And that’s not counting when God literally destroyed the world and nearly all the creatures in it, with a flood, himself, at one point.

Literally no point in raising that question in this circumstance, whatsoever…

What fucking difference does it make if she was into Vishnu, or whatever?
 
konceptjones said:
We also defunded mental health rehabilitation in this country. Every one of these mass shooters would have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution until they were deemed to no longer be a threat to themselves or anyone else back inna day. And, because that's actually a restriction for a gun purchase, anyone that had been committed would be permanently banned from ever purchasing or owning a firearm of any type.
Click to expand...

If you drive up MLK in Southeast DC you could see the old mental health institution and you could legit see all the folks who used to be housed there now up and down all of MLK and Malcom X now sitting at the park smoking dippers the last decade plus.
 
konceptjones said:
Doesn't matter if they do or don't. We have a legal right to purchase and possess guns, generally speaking they don't. So naturally their numbers will be significantly lower. But in all honesty it should be closer to zero because, after all, they don't have a legal right to own them except under very strict circumstances and those individual would be the only ones capable of killing anyone, not some roadman named Big Nasty from the north end.
Click to expand...
It does matter because you mentioned it as the poster child that ABW loves to use as the poster child when comparing deaths related to guns.

If you don't see the the point is England, despite it being illegal to own a gun has far significant deaths compared to a country that has legalized owning a gun, then you will never be able to be objective about this conversation

You said despite guns being illegal, people still die from them. Ok, point conceded.

I rather no one get killed outside of actually defending your home/family, but if you could have (I'm pulling numbers out of the air) 10k deaths from legalized guns per capita or 1k from illegally obtained ones per capita... Which one is more fixable

I'm just trying to understand why you are refusing to see the flaws in your logic
 
konceptjones said:
Doesn't matter if they do or don't. We have a legal right to purchase and possess guns, generally speaking they don't. So naturally their numbers will be significantly lower. But in all honesty it should be closer to zero because, after all, they don't have a legal right to own them except under very strict circumstances and those individual would be the only ones capable of killing anyone, not some roadman named Big Nasty from the north end.
Click to expand...
So basically it works and could reduce lives lost, including children in schools, but you don’t care because you want the guns you want.

Got it. 🤝🏾
 
konceptjones said:
Which gun laws did that???

And gun violence took a huuuuge upswing during the pandemic and still hasn't leveled off, so, yeah... I gotta know which laws reduced gun violence?
Click to expand...
Talking about the laws passed in other countries.

And when the assault weapons ban was in place here in the US gun violence was down.
 
AP3.0 said:
It does matter because you mentioned it as the poster child that ABW loves to use as the poster child when comparing deaths related to guns.

If you don't see the the point is England, despite it being illegal to own a gun has far significant deaths compared to a country that has legalized owning a gun, then you will never be able to be objective about this conversation

You said despite guns being illegal, people still die from them. Ok, point conceded.

I rather no one get killed outside of actually defending your home/family, but if you could have (I'm pulling numbers out of the air) 10k deaths from legalized guns per capita or 1k from illegally obtained ones per capita... Which one is more fixable

I'm just trying to understand why you are refusing to see the flaws in your logic
Click to expand...

OF COURSE IT'S GONNA BE LOWER!!!

By the way, it should be mentioned that there were a total of 14789 murders by guns in 2022 (last year I could find data on). Not gonna do the math on per capita but... yeah.

The only way to get close to what you're looking for is to ban handguns 100%, which are overwhelmingly the choice of firearm for murders, including mass shooters, school or otherwise. You ready to do that?
 
TheNightKing said:
Talking about the laws passed in other countries.

And when the assault weapons ban was in place here in the US gun violence was down.
Click to expand...

It was already trending downward from it's peak in 1993 to just before the ban was passed in August of '94 and was also on a downward trend after it ended. 2014 was the least violent year since 1994 and that's 10 years after the ban expired.

Care to explain that???

And since we're looking at such stats... Please explain why there wasn't a huge number of school/mass shootings prior to '86 ban or the '94 ban. I mean... we had full-on automatic weapons one could go buy from any gun shop in the country until 1986. Whether brand new or military surplus, you could get it faaaaar easier then than you can now (the Brady Bill requiring background checks wasn't passed until '93)... and yet only a tiny number of mass shootings, none of which involved a full-auto rifle. In fact, only the McDonalds shooting in San Diego back in '84 stands out as a mass shooting that used a full auto gun of any type (an Uzi)
 
konceptjones said:
It was already trending downward from it's peak in 1993 to just before the ban was passed in August of '94 and was also on a downward trend after it ended. 2014 was the least violent year since 1994 and that's 10 years after the ban expired.

Care to explain that???

And since we're looking at such stats... Please explain why there wasn't a huge number of school/mass shootings prior to '86 ban or the '94 ban. I mean... we had full-on automatic weapons one could go buy from any gun shop in the country until 1986. Whether brand new or military surplus, you could get it faaaaar easier then than you can now (the Brady Bill requiring background checks wasn't passed until '93)... and yet only a tiny number of mass shootings, none of which involved a full-auto rifle. In fact, only the McDonalds shooting in San Diego back in '84 stands out as a mass shooting that used a full auto gun of any type (an Uzi)
Click to expand...
Take that analysis one step further to see the numbers after the ban was lifted. Don’t just speak on the part of the trend that supports your argument.

Also, times are different now which you’ve actually pointed out yourself. Less mental health support, more social media, etc.

As I said in another post, how can you acknowledge the driver behind the behavior and not acknowledge that access to their weapons of choice shouldn’t be further restricted? Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.

Yes we can do more for mental health, but the quicker and easier route is access restrictions and we’ve seen proof it works as you indirectly acknowledge by admitting gun violence is lower in those countries.

You think mental health issues is a uniquely US problem or something?
 
TheNightKing said:
Take that analysis one step further to see the numbers after the ban was lifted. Don’t just speak on the part of the trend that supports your argument.

Also, times are different now which you’ve actually pointed out yourself. Less mental health support, more social media, etc.

As I said in another post, how can you acknowledge the driver behind the behavior and not acknowledge that access to their weapons of choice shouldn’t be further restricted? Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.

Yes we can do more for mental health, but the quicker and easier route is access restrictions and we’ve seen proof it works as you indirectly acknowledge by admitting gun violence is lower in those countries.

You think mental health issues is a uniquely US problem or something?
Click to expand...
What exactly are you suggesting?
 
mike030270 said:
What exactly are you suggesting?
Click to expand...
Ban assault style rifles (since we like semantics in here), limit the number of guns that can be owned, limit mag capacity and more.

As has been mentioned in the Gun thread, you’d be crazy to use an assault style rifle in your house if others are present. So they aren’t typically used for home defense.

So what else would you need one for? Target practice, to show it off, collectible, organized crime, fear of a militia or government attack? I don’t know but the reasom isn’t greater than saving lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top