texas shooter attempted/suceeeded in killing those people if he didn&#39;t have a gun?

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

3

2

4

04.30.2023 05:23PM

3

2

4

04.30.2023 05:23PM

A texas gunman shoots his neighbors, including an 8 year old boy because they asked him to stop shooting his rifle in his front yard. 5 killed 3 injured.

so you think if this guy didn't have a gun, that he would have 1. first of all attempted to kill all those people 2. he would have been successful killing all those people?

people who think the presence of guns makes no difference in murder rate, lack critical thinking skills.

#2

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,023

3

4

10

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2018/02/15/flashback-30-years-guns-schools-nothing-happened-n124076

04.30.2023 05:35PM

3

4

10

04.30.2023 05:35PM

-->

@n8nrgim

No lie, I read your op to say that he succeeded in shooting the people that talked to him because they didn't have a gun.

#3

Lemming

Debates: 6

Posts: 3,205

4

10

Lemming

04.30.2023 06:00PM

4

10

04.30.2023 06:00PM

-->

@n8nrgim

Maybe he would not have tried,

But people 'can kill other people without guns,

A hatchet, A poison pizza, A burning of a house with the exits blocked.

Frankly people could kill a 'ton of people even without guns,

And could 'keep killing people if they made an intelligent effort no to get caught.

I'm a young person,

And though I don't know of any statistics to verify it,

Guns used to look a lot more common in America,

Not to mention more rural areas where plenty of people have guns.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/31/when-toting-guns-in-high-school-was-cool/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/armed-students-delaware-high-school-1973/

I won't say guns have 'no connection to shootings occurring,

But I 'do think it's not 'just guns.

Some months ago, an older coworker of mine,

Talking about how people used to drive to school with guns in their trucks all the time.

#4

Debates: 23

Posts: 4,228

3

6

10

04.30.2023 06:29PM

3

6

10

04.30.2023 06:29PM

-->

@n8nrgim

The dude may have also been drunk.

From this article:

Vianey Balderas, who lives across the street from the family, said she first heard gunshots that night when a few people were outside. About 20 minutes later, Balderas heard about five more gunshots, then another 10, she told The Post.
“When I heard those gunshots, I didn’t think anything of it because in this neighborhood everyone has guns. Every weekend you hear gunshots,” she said in an interview in Spanish.
“People shoot in their backyards, after they drink alcohol, men take out guns at house parties and shoot the ground.”

I find it funny how this article tries to place so much attention on the AR-15 (even laughably claiming it has “a unique ability to destroy the human body” as if no other weapon could do that), yet only has this little blip about the clear cultural issues at play here.

I bring these up because no, gun control will not stop things like these, or even reduce them. Criminals don’t follow gun laws, nor do they work to keep black market prices high for anything more than a short period of time, and we don’t even know how desperate criminals are to get their hands on one. If they’re desperate enough, no price will deter them. What will help is addressing cultural issues.

#5

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,294

3

2

4

04.30.2023 06:41PM

3

2

4

04.30.2023 06:41PM

-->

@n8nrgim

It is obvious to ultra-conservative right wing that the only answer to humanities many problems is more guns and more bombs.

Lets see now, the amount of hydrogen bombs got really high --aka M.A.D--- and humanity got smart and reduced the 24 hr bombers in the air, and the large and uneccessary amount of hydrogen bombs. Ukraine is one of those who dismantled them. Yay Ukraine.

So who is talking use of nuclear bombs again, if not also increasing the stockpiles. Is it Putins Russia? Is it also China?

#6

Debates: 23

Posts: 4,228

3

6

10

04.30.2023 06:46PM

3

6

10

04.30.2023 06:46PM

Ukraine is one of those who dismantled them. Yay Ukraine.

I know we’re talking about bombs and foreign policy with your example here, but you do realize there is a real chance Ukraine never gets invaded today if they had some now, right?

It’s crazy how even a nation can make itself a target once it disarms itself, isn’t it? Now think about this concept as it applies to individuals and guns in the US.

#7

Debates: 23

Posts: 4,228

3

6

10

04.30.2023 06:47PM

3

6

10

04.30.2023 06:47PM

-->

@ebuc

^^^ forgot to tag, my b

#8

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,294

3

2

4

04.30.2023 07:02PM

3

2

4

04.30.2023 07:02PM

-->

@Mharman

I know we’re talking about bombs and foreign policy with your example here, but you do realize there is a real chance Ukraine never gets invaded today if they had some now, right?

Peace Keepers are just peace keepers until there not.

A barking dog is just a barking dog, until it bites.

A dog not on a leash, is under control, until its not.

You do realize, that, the chances of some nation with nuclear bombs intentionally or through some error --ex the the big AI scare--- going off is greater the more nations that have them, and just time in general that they exist on Earth at all?

Those who think more guns and more bombs, more posioness gas, etc is the answer are avoiding a truth, that will eventually bite humanity in the butt, if something else doesnt get us first?

#9

Debates: 23

Posts: 4,228

3

6

10

04.30.2023 07:08PM

3

6

10

04.30.2023 07:08PM

-->

@ebuc

And yet, Russia’s leash snapped after Ukraine got rid of the bombs. Interesting, isn’t it?

Again, apply that to US citizens owning guns.

Mind you, I’m not a huge foreign policy guy, but if you’re going to use foreign policy as a model for domestic policy, keep in mind the implications of your example of choice.

If I’m being honest anyway, it’s hard to argue some that countries removing nukes during the Cold War means we should get rid of our domestic guns. So even if the removal nukes helped things in some cases, keep in mind that foreign policy is not the same animal as domestic policy.

#10

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

04.30.2023 07:09PM

3

4

9

04.30.2023 07:09PM

-->

@n8nrgim

How successful would he be if the residents of that house were armed?

Also what exactly could you possibly due to keep me from having a gun?

I personally have very little respect for the law, so please tell me, how you would keep a gun out of somebody's hand like me?

#11

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,294

3

2

4

04.30.2023 07:42PM

3

2

4

04.30.2023 07:42PM

-->

@Mharman

And yet, Russia’s leash snapped after Ukraine got rid of the bombs. Interesting, isn’t it?

Yes, Russia invaded a country that has no nukes. They { USSR } also invaded Afghanistan.

Again peace keepers are like dogs, they only bark, until they bite, and given murphys law, that, anything that can occur { go wrong } given enough, time will go wrong.

I guess its the law of statistics also. Do more guns make for less violence in USA? Or is there more mass-shootings because there is just more people ergo statistically more people to shoot each other, or,

or because there is more mental illness in USA, or is that too just more people ergo statistically more mentally ill people with access to guns.

Then there is a fact of more hate speech, or at least, the internet, wifi etc, has made it easy for hate speech people to connect with each other an spawn more scared people in USA, to thinking every knock at their front door is the government or immigrant or whatever coming to ' get them '.

In the 50's sci-fi movies the out west humans always shot the aliens before attempting much communication with them. Shoot first ask questions later. So why did hollywood writers adopt that attitude?

#12

Debates: 23

Posts: 4,228

3

6

10

04.30.2023 08:54PM

3

6

10

04.30.2023 08:54PM

-->

@ebuc

They { USSR } also invaded Afghanistan.

Afghanistan also could not defend itself militarily, and had no nukes at the time (not that I trust them with any). Your point?

Again peace keepers are like dogs, they only bark, until they bite, and given murphys law, that, anything that can occur { go wrong } given enough, time will go wrong

What Murphy's Law does not cover is how many incidents would happen over a period of time. We should not fear the rare and unlikely to the point we begin to make things inherently more likely even likelier. We have thousands of cities in this country where a mass shooting could happen, yet only a few happen every month across the country. Meanwhile, the amount of countries in the present and in history that have disarmed their people is few, but among them are some of the most corrupt governments in the world and world history. A government is more likely to oppress its people after disarming them than a mass shooting is to happen in a given city on any day (in addition, mass shooting statistics are often inflated with shoddy criteria, but that's beside the point).

Indeed, one could use Murphy's Law to argue anything based on the possibility of something terrible happening. For an extreme example, one could argue that we should ban planes, given that with enough time, someone will hack into all of them and cause every plane in the sky to fall. For a non-extreme example, one could call for a ban on cars because of car accidents.

Life on Earth cannot happen without risks. They are unavoidable. If we want to minimize risk, we must see what the risks and likelihoods are in our proposed scenarios, not just the current one.

Everything we do is a cost/benefit analysis. To me, the benefit of collective self-protection from a tyrannical government is worth any of the violent crimes we have now that happen with the weapons of our choice, especially when they can happen with any weapon, or almost anything improvised as a weapon. Furthermore, the idea of a benefit of security at the cost of freedom is a false pretense. Even if we are to miraculously secure ourselves from violent crime, us giving up our freedom will result in a lack of security from government tyranny.

It's as the saying goes: Those who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither. And as I would add: And they will have neither.

#13

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,294

3

2

4

04.30.2023 10:16PM

3

2

4

04.30.2023 10:16PM

-->

@Mharman

We should not fear the rare and unlikely to the point we begin to make things inherently more likely even likelier.

Did you live through 35 years of M.A.D. Humanity got smart because it was too much chance for something to go wrong and many things did over those years and that is partly humanity go there act together to make a change, irrespective of how rare.

given that with enough time, someone will hack into all of them and cause every plane in the sky to fall.

Yes, and planes and cars become more of concern with AI scare, that, humanity is just beginning to get their heads around

They are unavoidable. If we want to minimize risk, we must see what the risks and likelihoods are in our proposed scenarios, not just the current one.

I agree, and computers is great at doing those scenarios, if given the proper data.

Less guns, less easy it is for anyone to kill another human and the same principle applies to any kind of bombs.

Those who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither. And as I would add: And they will have neither.

There exist cosmic laws aka physical laws and cosmic principles, that, associated with cosmic limits. There exists no unimpeded limits, --free liberties-- and those who try to excede those limited liberties face the consequences of cosmic forces of Gravity, EMRadiation etc.

On the old lawn mowers they were governors to keep the engine from running freely unimpeded at dangerous speed/revs.

There is always governance by humans. Those who think there is not going to limits of governance are living in fantasy land.

There is only one true liberty/freedom and that is of Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts to freely think of relative truths, absolute truths and false narratives, without consequence.

Topic's author

#14

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

3

2

4

04.30.2023 10:38PM

3

2

4

04.30.2023 10:38PM

-->

@Mharman

what happened was realistic whether or not he was drunk. these things happen all the time, both ways.

you didn't answer the question...

"so you think if this guy didn't have a gun, that he would have 1. first of all attempted to kill all those people 2. he would have been successful killing all those people?"

you just fail to realize that human pyschology is such that the ability to push a button and people are dead, combined with people's impulsivity, means that the presence of a gun is more deadly than if it was just a knife. people are more likely to kill if they have a gun. that's common sense and i bet you won't even answer my question that i quoted, cause this is a perfect example of how a gun being present changed things.

you also fail to realize that if you tell someone they can't have a gun, not all those people will run and and get one illegally. i'm talking about people who shouldn't have a gun. many will get them on the black market, but many won't. if they didn't get one illegally, and they were the person in this hypothetical, then people are less likely to die.

this stuff is such common sense, that it's mind blowing how much ya'll lack critical thinking.

Topic's author

#15

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

3

2

4

04.30.2023 10:46PM

3

2

4

04.30.2023 10:46PM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

you are deflecting. my point is that the precense of a gun makes situations more deadly than other weopons. feel free to admit this point, if that's your position. everyone else who are gun nuts like to pretend guns make no difference in the murder rate, so i'm just giving a solid example of how that's not true.

#16

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,023

3

4

10

04.30.2023 10:47PM

3

4

10

04.30.2023 10:47PM

-->

@Mharman

You could argue Japan is the most gun free nation on the planet, both legally and culturally.

And yet Shinzo Abe was assassinated by a homemade gun....

#17

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

04.30.2023 10:55PM

3

4

9

04.30.2023 10:55PM

-->

@n8nrgim

I agree that if we had a magic wand to make all guns disappear than less people would die. Now is there anything you want to admit?

Topic's author

#18

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

3

2

4

04.30.2023 11:32PM

3

2

4

04.30.2023 11:32PM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

i ascknowledge and never denied that guns have self defense points to them. and i never made the argument that you shoudln't have a gun. some people shouldn't have guns, though, and if we tell them they shouldn't have a gun, they might decide not to get one. not everyone is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun illegally. if the man in the example was told not to have a gun, and he listened, this incident may not have happened.

so. 1. guns increase murder rate 2. gun control decreases murder rate.

trying to get gun nuts to acknowledge these facts is like trying to nail jello to the wall, given said gun nuts lack common sense.

#19

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9

05.01.2023 12:19AM

3

4

9

05.01.2023 12:19AM

-->

@n8nrgim

Nobody denies gun control would decrease murder rates. Nobody is actually opposed to gun control, they are just against the liberals wanting to ban all guns

#20

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,127

3

6

05.01.2023 12:32AM

3

6

05.01.2023 12:32AM

-->

@n8nrgim

people who think the presence of guns makes no difference in murder rate, lack critical thinking skills.

SubTeach is one of them.

#21

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,127

3

6

05.01.2023 12:34AM

3

6

05.01.2023 12:34AM

Nobody denies gun control would decrease murder rates. Nobody is actually opposed to gun control

Republicans deny gun control would decrease murder rates.

Republicans are opposed to gun control

Republicans are dummies

Topic's author

#22

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

3

2

4

05.01.2023 12:38AM

3

2

4

05.01.2023 12:38AM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

many conservatives think gun control makes no difference to the murder rate. many think the precense of guns doesn't increase murder rates.

Topic's author

#23

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

3

2

4

05.01.2023 12:40AM

3

2

4

05.01.2023 12:40AM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

the amount of people arguing about 'ban all guns' v 'no dont ban all guns' is a fringe debate given this debate isn't very common. you must not be paying attention.

#24

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,023

3

4

10

05.01.2023 12:51AM

3

4

10

05.01.2023 12:51AM

-->

@n8nrgim

trying to get gun nuts to acknowledge these facts is like trying to nail jello to the wall, given said gun nuts lack common sense.

The problem is that for every gun nut, there is a ban nut.

#25

Debates: 18

Posts: 2,806

3

4

9