Mass shooting reported in Odessa, TX: At least 30 injured, two suspects in vehicles firing randomly

[Orange]

23 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

That's the thing, we are not.  Every time somebody like me tries to focus the discussion on that others bring up gun violence as a whole, because the numbers are bigger.  Because when you weigh costs and effects of the 100-300 people a year killed by rifle to the consequences of things like mandatory buy backs, an Idea that is now mainstream, you look stupid.  If weapons like the AR 15 are banned people will use semi automatic shotguns are likely do waaaay worse damage.  The AR is not a hyper effective killing tool compared to other weapons on the market, the only difference is those weapons have wood stocks so they look less scary.

Rifle deaths are incredibly rare, so it depends on what you want to give up.  These assholes who want to shoot up a place like a school would do far more damage with weapons other than AR.  The big black scary gun with glorified .22 round.

There is SOOOOOOOOOO much misinformation in this dumpster fire of a post, I don't know where to start.  (Perhaps you'd be better arguing that the Libyan "invasion" was worse than Iraq)

First, rifles kill about 400 Americans annually, which is about 8x the number of people killed in the UK by ALL GUNS.  It hasn't been below 300 since 2015.  Suggesting a semi-automatic shotgun will do "waaaaay worse damage" is total speculation.  The simple fact is, people DON'T choose that rifle for mass shootings because it's not as practical for killing the greatest number of people in a small amount of time.  Most rifle blasts don't kill beyond 30-50 feet or so, and AR-15s do.  They also do far more damage per round (as we've established in prior discussions).  If a shotgun is really the secret weapon, why does nobody use it?  Please explain that to me, if you're an unassailable genius on guns.

420 deaths annually is "incredibly rare"?  If that's the kind of language we use in the U.S. to describe people killed by one particular product, then we've got a cultural problem, and it starts with people holding your mindset.

"Glorified .22" round?  Are you +++++ing serious?

If you want to go after handguns, I'm fine with that.  It was a handgun law that ultimately got that "originalist", Scalia, to complete conjure up a right to home defense in the Constitution.  We should overturn that shit by repealing 2A, IMO.  Guns should not be any more protected than golf clubs.

[Orange]

12 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Because of the fear factor.  Democrats and the media have "sexed" up the big black gun.  If these shooters started using other more lethal weapons because the AR 15 is banned, there would be no decrease in the death toll of mass shootings.  You may see a few right wing crazies get into shoot outs with local police leaving corpses everywhere.  To me the optic of the government vs the people being the new mass killing trend is terrifying.  Maybe you agree.

The huge focus on rifles and semi automatics when 1/3 of owned guns are semi automatic is ridiculous.

Do you have data to back this up?  Interviews with perpetrators?  If not, you're pulling this completely out of your ass.

And we did ban those assault rifles from 94 - 04, and mass shootings plummeted.  So your thesis is wrong.

[Orange]

12 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Lol — Go ahead and keep making little quips about the <10 second screen shot and commentary I made while trolling and triggering your delicate ass, that’s all ya got. I’m looking forward to triggering another meltdown from you soon.

In the meanwhile, we’ll continue to laugh at your desperate attempt to sell the weak gun homicide epidemic narrative by padding statistics with suicides and accidental deaths. You’re weak son, essentially the radical authoritarian left’s version of @Nevada Convert. 

"Padding"?

How am I "padding"?  These people are dying, and guns are why.  No, the 25,000 who kill themselves with guns now will not ALL decide that hanging or drowning is a better choice.

[happycamper]

1 minute ago, Orange said:

There is SOOOOOOOOOO much misinformation in this dumpster fire of a post, I don't know where to start.  (Perhaps you'd be better arguing that the Libyan "invasion" was worse than Iraq)

First, rifles kill about 400 Americans annually, which is about 8x the number of people killed in the UK by ALL GUNS.  It hasn't been below 300 since 2015.  Suggesting a semi-automatic shotgun will do "waaaaay worse damage" is total speculation.  The simple fact is, people DON'T choose that rifle for mass shootings because it's not as practical for killing the greatest number of people in a small amount of time.  Most rifle blasts don't kill beyond 30-50 feet or so, and AR-15s do.  They also do far more damage per round (as we've established in prior discussions).  If a shotgun is really the secret weapon, why does nobody use it?  Please explain that to me, if you're an unassailable genius on guns.

420 deaths annually is "incredibly rare"?  If that's the kind of language we use in the U.S. to describe people killed by one particular product, then we've got a cultural problem, and it starts with people holding your mindset.

If you want to go after handguns, I'm fine with that.  It was a handgun law that ultimately got that "originalist", Scalia, to complete conjure up a right to home defense in the Constitution.  We should overturn that shit by repealing 2A, IMO.  Guns should not be any more protected than golf clubs.

Wait, what? The previous discussions where you got annihilated for not knowing what muzzle energy is?

[NorCalCoug]

7 minutes ago, toonkee said:

1. Rifle deaths are not extremely rare when we're talking about terrorist mass shooting event though.  It is meaningless to lump those deaths in with "all gun deaths". If other people are doing that to skew the argument than that's what they're doing.  I'm not. 

2. You have no idea if that's true or not. That might depends on what the remaining guns look like.  Like you said, the aesthetics seem to play some part.  These dudes aren't operating on some methodical level in most cases. Lot of them are playing dress-up.

I didn't say nuthin about no buybacks or any "solution".  I put some food for thought out there.

Fine, the majority of the 100 or so mass shooting homicides each year in the US are committed using rifles.  Do you really not understand why this is so immaterial in a country of ~330M people?

[Joe from WY]

3 minutes ago, Orange said:

 Most rifle blasts don't kill beyond 30-50 feet or so, and AR-15s do. 

LMAO. Stop.

[Orange]

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

Fine, the majority of the 100 or so mass shooting homicides each year in the US are committed using rifles.  Do you really not understand why this is so immaterial in a country of >300M people?

We sent 2 million soldiers to war and gutted our treasury over a few hijacked planes.  We're still doing that 20 years later.

Do you really not understand why that is so immaterial?  Oh wait, those were brown people, and honky white rednecks love guns, so......

[NorCalCoug]

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

We sent 2 million soldiers to war and gutted our treasury over a few hijacked planes.  We're still doing that 20 years later.

Do you really not understand why that is so immaterial?  Oh wait, those were brown people, and honky white rednecks love guns, so......

More people were killed on 9/11 than all the mass shooting deaths combined over the last few decades.  Apples to Cucumbers. Now you’re just being dense. 

[Orange]

3 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Wait, what? The previous discussions where you got annihilated for not knowing what muzzle energy is?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171

AR-15s inflict much more damage to human tissue than the typical handgun, which is used in most shootings. That's largely because of the speed at which projectiles leave the weapons; they are much faster out of the muzzle of an AR-15, or similar rifle, and deliver a more devastating blow to bones and organs. Those projectiles are also more likely to break apart as they pass through the body, inflicting more damage.

“The higher muzzle-velocity projectiles, if they strike an organ, you’re more likely to have severe injury and bleeding and dying than with lower muzzle-velocity munitions,” said Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the owner of several guns, including an AR-15.

[Orange]

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

More people were killed on 9/11 than all the mass shooting deaths combined over the last few decades.  Now you’re just being dense.

And more people were killed by guns last month than on 9/11, you stupid +++++.

[NorCalCoug]

13 minutes ago, Orange said:

And more people were killed by guns last month than on 9/11, you stupid +++++.

LOL...  You get slapped around so much with your ignorance on most topics.  Keep trying and moving the goalposts.  The facts don’t agree with you here.

[edluvar]

As someone who doesn’t feel the need to carry to feel secure in my manhood how do I go about identifying people with guns as either good or bad guys?

[happycamper]

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171

AR-15s inflict much more damage to human tissue than the typical handgun, which is used in most shootings. That's largely because of the speed at which projectiles leave the weapons; they are much faster out of the muzzle of an AR-15, or similar rifle, and deliver a more devastating blow to bones and organs. Those projectiles are also more likely to break apart as they pass through the body, inflicting more damage.

“The higher muzzle-velocity projectiles, if they strike an organ, you’re more likely to have severe injury and bleeding and dying than with lower muzzle-velocity munitions,” said Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the owner of several guns, including an AR-15.

Yes, than handguns, which you brought up over and over as if you thought that a deer rifle was a handgun. A .30-06 or a .270 not only has higher muzzle velocity than a .223, it also has far heavier bullet. 

Seriously, man, you know so little I could just make shit up that agreed with you, post it in an argumentative fashion, and you wouldn't know the difference.

[sactowndog]

17 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I simply provided data and numbers in response to what others posted.  That we are living in a "war zone" and then responded to a post that brought up rifles.  I did not offer any comentary on keeping the status quo and my position on that is well documented on how to reduce gun homicide.  In this thread all I did was provide data, data with which you decided to be enraged by because it directly contracted your thoughts that things are somehow how "worse" today and something must be done to stop the carnage.  Carnage which does not exist.

 

"You can do one a few things that will make a statistically significant difference in gun homicide. 1.) Mandatory buy back and a complete replace/repeal of the second amendment.  2.) Repair our inner city communities.  This means building wealth (reparations?) and ending the war on drugs.  3.) de-stigmatize mental health.  Maybe a campaign lead by pop culture icons similar to #metoo?  As well as investing in it at a federal level.

Now if we want to combat these non felony mass shootings I am open to other "common sense" such as mental health checks, waiting periods and would even consider national registration.  

I think the damage from mass shootings is the same as any other type of terrorism.  While you and your family are statistically safe, stats don't matter that much.  It is the damage it does to entire communities where the take place and psychological damage inflicted on the nation as well."

 

The simple fact is you can not handle the stats provided, that we are living in a gilded age of peace, because it flies in the face your crazy radicalism.

But the numbers are numbers and they do not lie.  Stop trying to ascribe beliefs to the numbers I present, when I present them as matter of verifiable fact, without commentary on policy.  You are out of your depth, sackless.

 

The stats are all relative aren’t they.  You may posit them as insignificant but you are 4 times more likely to die of gun violence here compared to most other developed countries.   When your data attempts to show death by gunfire is a low probability don’t be so disingenuous to say you just provided data with no commentary.   Your data was slanted and provided no context of the significantly higher risk of death by gun in the United States.

as to your solutions.... they show a lack of creativity designed to maintain the status quo.   Most people, including me, don’t want to ditch the 2nd Amendment, war on poverty has already been proven to fail, and mental health won’t matter as long as gun access is a simple as it is.   

So if you really are different than I characterized you what else do you got?   

[toonkee]

6 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Fine, the majority of the 100 or so mass shooting homicides each year in the US are committed using rifles.  Do you really not understand why this is so immaterial in a country of ~330M people?

No, I don't understand. 

[NorCalCoug]

Just now, toonkee said:

No, I don't understand. 

Clearly...  well not going to spell it out for you.  Most reasonable people do.

[BSUTOP25]

11 minutes ago, Orange said:

"Padding"?

How am I "padding"?  These people are dying, and guns are why.  No, the 25,000 who kill themselves with guns now will not ALL decide that hanging or drowning is a better choice.

If someone is intent on ending their own life, they’re going to do it whether by using a gun or other means. 

[edluvar]

1 minute ago, NorCalCoug said:

Clearly...  well not going to spell it out for you.  Most reasonable people do.

Clearly America is the chithole country for gun violence in developed countries.   

[NorCalCoug]

1 minute ago, edluvar said:

Clearly America is the chithole country for gun violence in developed countries.   

Then you should move if you feel so unsafe here.  I personally wouldn’t compromise my family’s safety for anything.  I hear Costa Rica is nice.

[happycamper]

6 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The stats are all relative aren’t they.  You may posit them as insignificant but you are 4 times more likely to die of gun violence here compared to most other developed countries.   When your data attempts to show death by gunfire is a low probability don’t be so disingenuous to say you just provided data with no commentary.   Your data was slanted and provided no context of the significantly higher risk of death by gun in the United States.

as to your solutions.... they show a lack of creativity designed to maintain the status quo.   Most people, including me, don’t want to ditch the 2nd Amendment, war on poverty has already been proven to fail, and mental health won’t matter as long as gun access is a simple as it is.   

So if you really are different than I characterized you what else do you got?   

His suggestions to reduce gun violence tend to be more radical societal changes than anything you've suggested. Not sure how they're "designed to maintain the status quo".