Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Sorry son. I said the definition, not your definition.

Disingenuous at best.

Even Liberal-wackadoodle outpost Mother Jones uses 4 persons killed to define 'mass shooting'.

Our focus is on public mass shootings in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate killing. We used the following criteria to identify cases:
◾The shooter took the lives of at least four people.

Thanks for playing. Please try again.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

VAsa I think he was trying to be cutesy by saying criminals would not exist without easy acess to weapons. But criminals existed long before weapons and always will.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sorry thats an American magazine? lol

Reddit is a worldwide forum, you can argue with yourself over which has 'the definition' of the term 'mass shooting'. Personally i would say that shooting means shooting and killing means killing thus Reddit has the more correct term. Im sure you will try to argue otherwise rather than address the facts and figures.

But if you like you can replace the term 'mass' with '4 or more' either way it doesn't change the facts and figures of an average of at least 1 incident of 4 or more people shot per day in the good old US of A.

Thank you..please come again. lol

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Sorry thats an American magazine? lol

Indeed it is, and one that advocates for ultra-stringent gun control so you should be lulzing for not understanding the source.

Reddit is a worldwide forum, you can argue with yourself over which has 'the definition' of the term 'mass shooting'. Personally i would say that shooting means shooting and killing means killing. Im sure you will try to argue otherwise rather than address the facts and figures.

I highlighted the salient part. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.

But if you like you can replace the term 'mass' with '4 or more' either way it doesn't change the facts and figures of an average of at least 1 incident of 4 or more people shot per day in the good old US of A.

Did your lovely reddit breakdown how many of these were criminals shooting other criminals? No? Thought not.

Gang violence is an issue and criminals will always find a way to commit murder.

Thank you..please come again. lol

Oh, I most certainly will as it should be only a short time until you fabricate more 'facts'.

Lulz. *smiley emoticon*. More lulzing.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your personal opinion is irrelevant.

Then so would your opinion about some magazine being more correct. Hell no one would be allowed to post anything on ATS if that was true lol.

Maybe you would like to start a thread on the word shooting meaning killing. I wonder if stabbing and beating means killing in your mind also?

Oh, I most certainly will as it should be only a short time until you fabricate more 'facts'.

Which facts was i fabricating? 4 or more people shot in one go on average in the USA every day?

Why not try addressing the figures rather than arguing about your opinion (and apparently opinions dont matter anyway according to your earlier statement) on a term term to describe them.

The figures are the facts the links to the stories are the proof.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Then so would your opinion about some magazine being more correct. Hell no one would be allowed to post anything on ATS if that was true lol.

I have no opinion of that magazine other than to point out it is ultra-Liberal. They are the ones who chose to use the FBI's definition as opposed to the fictitious one you invented.

Maybe you would like to start a thread on the word shooting meaning killing. I wonder if stabbing and beating means killing in your mind also?

I have no desire to start a thread on anything at the moment but rest assured, when I do, I will probably not tell you anyway.

Which facts was i fabricating? 4 or more people shot in one go on average in the USA every day?

You fabricated a personal definition for the words, 'mass shooting'. We covered this already.

Why not try addressing the figures rather than arguing about your opinion (and apparently opinions dont matter anyway according to your earlier statement) on a term term to describe them.

The figures are the facts the links to the stories are the proof.

Sure, I asked you for a breakdown on the figures which you did not provide. How many of them were criminal activities and/or committed with illegally obtained weapons?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Then so would your opinion about some magazine being more correct. Hell no one would be allowed to post anything on ATS if that was true lol.

I have no opinion of that magazine other than to point out it is ultra-Liberal. They are the ones who chose to use the FBI's definition as opposed to the fictitious one you invented.

Maybe you would like to start a thread on the word shooting meaning killing. I wonder if stabbing and beating means killing in your mind also?

I have no desire to start a thread on anything at the moment but rest assured, when I do, I will probably not tell you anyway.

Which facts was i fabricating? 4 or more people shot in one go on average in the USA every day?

You fabricated a personal definition for the words, 'mass shooting'. We covered this already.

Why not try addressing the figures rather than arguing about your opinion (and apparently opinions dont matter anyway according to your earlier statement) on a term term to describe them.

The figures are the facts the links to the stories are the proof.

Sure, I asked you for a breakdown on the figures which you did not provide. How many of them were criminal activities and/or committed with illegally obtained weapons?

You should add more "lol" to your post so people know how dismissive you are of the opposition's position.

originally posted by: Answer
You should add more "lol" to your post so people know how dismissive you are of the opposition's position.

I actually self-edited a bunch out prior to posting.

Do you think I should put them back in? Lolz. Lol. Rofl.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Answer
You should add more "lol" to your post so people know how dismissive you are of the opposition's position.

I actually self-edited a bunch out prior to posting.

Do you think I should put them back in? Lolz. Lol. Rofl.

It certainly would add an air of maturity and credibility to your claims, LMAO!!!!!11!!!!11111oneone!!eleven!!!!!111

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Do you really want to know why we Americans cling so tightly to our guns?

Because there will always be tyrants...and plenty of angry, ignorant, fearful people *ahem* to support them as they force their will upon others.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Answer
You should add more "lol" to your post so people know how dismissive you are of the opposition's position.

I actually self-edited a bunch out prior to posting.

Do you think I should put them back in? Lolz. Lol. Rofl.

It certainly would add an air of maturity and credibility to your claims, LMAO!!!!!11!!!!11111oneone!!eleven!!!!!111

Just put it in your signature line.....that way it is always there.

Back on topic....same agenda and same arguments always come from this area....

Baffles me that people in other countries think they know whats best here without living here. I guess freedom really is hard to comprehend for those that don't truly have it.....

P.S. LOLZ, ROFLMAO, LOL

I think that those that think that people shouldn't be able to own firearms should shuffle their unarmed butts to the nearest gun owner and disarm the person.
No... they will let that job for the jack-booted thugs with military weapons.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I think that those that think that people shouldn't be able to own firearms should shuffle their unarmed butts to the nearest gun owner and disarm the person.
No... they will let that job for the jack-booted thugs with military weapons.

I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help. This would be a very interesting business opportunity I think....setting up false robberies on unarmed citizens to show them just how slow the response it by police and just how vulnerable they are to criminals.....but that would just be totally non-PC

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help.

You are obviously forgetting that most of these people are highly trained Ninja/Samurai/Kung Fu Masters who are not only able to completely disarm and assailant, they are able to actually avoid these scenarios altogether due to their Ba-y-dar*.


* Bad guy radar.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help.

You are obviously forgetting that most of these people are highly trained Ninja/Samurai/Kung Fu Masters who are not only able to completely disarm and assailant, they are able to actually avoid these scenarios altogether due to their Ba-y-dar*.


* Bad guy radar.

I am thinking at some point the government is just going to pass a bill to issue "life alert" necklaces for all US citizens. I've fallen and I can't get up....I am helpless......

LULZ LOLOLOLOL!!!!

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Some day man will need to learn how to live without crutches.

They are all obsessed about safety. "More guns running rampant in the street is the solution", they say.

But this obsession with safety... is it not what Benjamin Franklin warned us against?

Is a nation filled with guns, a nation in which every citizens are in a mini-cold war with his neighbour ("At the first sign of trouble we'll shoot each other and ask questions later"), the true and ultimate goal of the Constitution?

I think not.

But tis not really happening at all like that. At all.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: butcherguy
I think that those that think that people shouldn't be able to own firearms should shuffle their unarmed butts to the nearest gun owner and disarm the person.
No... they will let that job for the jack-booted thugs with military weapons.

I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help. This would be a very interesting business opportunity I think....setting up false robberies on unarmed citizens to show them just how slow the response it by police and just how vulnerable they are to criminals.....but that would just be totally non-PC

These folks don't have a clue. A clue to the mind of the sort they would need to protect themselves from if their home were intruded. They don't understand what sort of animals are out there walking around on two legs.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: butcherguy
I think that those that think that people shouldn't be able to own firearms should shuffle their unarmed butts to the nearest gun owner and disarm the person.
No... they will let that job for the jack-booted thugs with military weapons.

I think it would be beneficial for them to go through a violent robbery staged scenario to see just how helpless they are when they call the police and they don't show up in time to help. This would be a very interesting business opportunity I think....setting up false robberies on unarmed citizens to show them just how slow the response it by police and just how vulnerable they are to criminals.....but that would just be totally non-PC

These folks don't have a clue. A clue to the mind of the sort they would need to protect themselves from if their home were intruded. They don't understand what sort of animals are out there walking around on two legs.

Might be half the reason they want everyone disarmed. They know law-abiding gun owners are no threat to 'them'. So, they threaten to remove 'our' rights and leave us as vulnerable as they are. Gives the criminal element a greater number of sheep to choose from ... diminishing their odds of being selected for the feast.

I laugh every time I read of a home invasion where the homeowner opted out of gun ownership.

Stoopid people - there's no legal cure for them.

The U.S. government alone has enough nukes to end all life on the planet....literally. And some 'fraidy cats are worried about me legally owning a 45?



Priorities...


(wish the eyeroll emote was still around)

a reply to: swanne

Why wouldn't it be largely rejected? It's not an opinion, it's statistics, there's proof showing that in America, more gun crime is related to stricter laws. Why try arguing a fact?

Other countries may not be subject to the exact same effects - Others may be able to ban guns altogether and have less gun crime, but this is America - Where the second amendment has shaped this nation for many years and we've grown accustomed to such freedoms. Any attempt to strip them away would be wrong and bad in many ways.