Change My Mind

LMAO So needed that

9rdt3i.gif (click to show)

Not if Lord Triumph has anything to say about it!

Nice

Prove it. Here's a link to the data: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

Of the 4 mass shootings that happened yesterday, none of them seem to have happened in a gun-free zone. 29 people were injured and 4 killed in those 4 incidents. And, interestingly, there have been 5 mass shootings in Texas (a state with weak gun laws), since the last mass shooting in California (where the gun laws are stronger). It kind of suggests that gun laws work.

Tell that to every school that had a mass shooting, gun free means soft target. Also we shouldn't group gang activity with "mass shooters", there should be a distinct different between a drive by shooter hitting 3 or 4 people in the arms and legs and someone that goes into a school and shoots up a bunch of kids.

According to the archive that gathered the data, "Mass Shootings are, for the most part an American phenomenon. While they are generally grouped together as one type of incident they are several with the foundation definition being that they have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident. "

Your definition is less objective.

Your definition is too broad, America has a gang problem, gang activity shouldn't be lumped into "mass shootings" - that is my point, if we took out the criminal activity/shootings of gangs ,all of a sudden America is the safest nation on earth.

So crimes and gangs aren't dangerous

I didn't say that at all, I said mass shootings should be its own catagory, not to lump in gang activity ( which democrats don't really care about) and try to boost the numbers to make it sound like average americans are committing mass shootings every day, because they are not. Criminals shooting each other should be gang related shootings, not mass shootings. It would put into perspective where the real problems lie, If we as Americans cracked down on the gangs the shooting numbers would dwindle to near nothing.

I know

Whether ut was a gun free zone or not, mass shootings wouldnt happen as feequently if more people carried guns. Because then those shooters would be killed instantly.

Also, read this article: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/

It gives the evidence against the "more guns make us safer" argument.

Right, because a far-left, anti-2A organization is the perfect more nonbiased source to get information on the rights of people to bare arms.

You can look up each one of the incidents they report. Please, "do your own research". Whatever their political orientation, the mass shooting incidents are happening. First entry for the year: 1/1/25, Dallas Texas, 2900 block of St. George Dr.; then, New Orleans, Louisiana, Bourbon St. and Iberville; then, Kankakee, Illinois, 1845 Pierson Parkway . . .

Is it possible that reality has a bit of a leftward bias?

The data disagrees. Of the first hundred mass shootings this year, 14 were in Texas, where people are much freer to carry guns, while only 7 were in California, with 4/3 the population. Louisiana (with approximately 1/8th the population of California) had 9 mass shootings in that period.

From Wikipedia: "Open carry of firearms in Louisiana is permitted without a permit, as long as the user is at least 18 years of age and legally able to possess a firearm under state and federal law. Louisiana has state preemption of firearms laws."

The more people carrying guns, the MORE mass shootings, not less. Another confirming statistic: New York (1/2 the population of California, more than 4 times the population of Louisiana) had only 2 mass shootings in that window.

Right because Wikipedia is the bastion of truth and clarity.

So, look up Louisiana's gun laws yourself. Do you really believe that you'll find that they DON'T include open carry?

I don't deny that shootings still happen in states even with open or concealed carry. What I'm trying to understand is your arguments end point. Are you saying that even in states with open or concealed carry, shootings still happen - and because of that, we should just surrender our right to bare arms altogether?

I'm saying that in states with laxer gun laws, demonstrably MORE shootings happen. People who live in states with tighter gun laws are less likely to get shot. So the argument that guns make us safer and laws that tighten access to guns don't is disproved by the data.

How do you explain Mexico? Incredibly strick gun control, yet have over 200K gun related deaths? -> In Mexico, gun deaths are a significant issue, with over 214,000 gun homicides reported from 2010 to 2022, making firearms the leading cause of homicide.

Chicago has the most shootings per capita in the entire country, yet they have the tightest gun control laws in the country.

Damn they do?

When accounting only for criminal offense and not justifiable self-defense, Chicago had 21.5 homicides per 100K people in 2024. The highest in the country - even above NYC despite NYC having several times the population. Chicago also frequently ranks in the top 5 of cities in the country with the strictest, even oppressive, gun control laws in the country.

The natural experiment of our country's patchwork of gun laws shows very clearly that states with laxer gun laws also have more shootings and gun deaths per capita, and the correlation is strong. This sufficiently disproves the argument that we would be safer if more people were armed, AND that common sense gun laws make us more vulnerable to mass shootings.

That is if the data is accurate. I don't believe the data you supplied is. I believe its fabricated information by far-left propagandists who seek to disarm the American population to leave us defenseless in the face of radical social change that would make us otherwise horrified enough to shoot them.

You believe that more than 80 separate police departments fabricated reports of shootings so that I could green-pill you?

I didn't say that. I said I don't believe the final draft of the data compilation that you shared with me from the organizations you sourced it from. You didn't go around to 80 separate police departments to collect the data yourself to ensure that fabrication didn't happen.

Well, that's on you to do. I shared the archive's link, which has in it links to the various police reports. If you are fully committed to disbelief of all of that independently assembled data, the question to ask yourself is, who and what are you placing your faith in, that makes you automatically discount the data?

Here's wishing you your very own road to Damascus.