Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Maníac ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Kílls 4 At Waffle House" video.

  1. Define an assault rifle
    4
  2. o Jules o, "design for infantry use" is vague. Are you talking about current infantry or ones from the past. Also, as for "automatic rifle" those are heavily regulated and have been since the 80s. So what's your point?
    4
  3. He can have more than one gun or more than one magazine. It seemed like he came unprepared for this shooting.
    3
  4. Gun crime was low to begin with in Australia. Also, prior to that law gun crime was dropping.
    2
  5. AkhmenHotep, that is why no one talks about Australia.
    2
  6. "exactly, we don't have as much crime (per capita)" I agree, and you didn't before the gun law either. That is an issue of culture, not guns.
    2
  7. AkhmenHotep, I will say it again, In the 80s you were around 1 shooting per year. In the 90s up to the Port MacArthur massacre you were down to a shooting every other year. Gun homicides were dropping as well. You said that the gun ban (which is incorrect, it was a buy back program) led to less gun violence. I showed you that is not true as the trend was that gun violence was dropping prior to that buyback program (that again, you incorrectly called a ban). The Port MacArthur shooting was an extreme outlier. And the buyback program is a great example of what happens when a society overreacts to such a rare event. That is why no one points to Australia for an example. I made these points while even using a source you gave me. I used a source you gave me to show you how shootings were dropping to begin with prior to the gun buyback program (again, buyback, not a ban that you incorrectly called it). Now you start talking about biker gangs. Ok, if you want to do that than you have to do the same for the US. John Lott removed situations like gang shootings and when he did that he showed that the US is not even in the top 10 in mass shootings or deaths in mass shootings. You have countries like France and Finland on the list. However, with you wanting to remove biker gangs is your moving the goals points. Next, looking at your own source in the table entitled "Firearm Deaths by Type of Death", you have gun homicide, from the 3 year periods they use in the next table, averaging at around 98, 103, 81, and 78 with there being 67 in 1995. That is a downward trend. Gun homicides were dropping. The part you are quoting references the table entitled "Type of Deaths as a Proportion of Firearm Deaths". Here is the problem here. You have accidents dropping from 62 deaths in 1980 to 15 in 1995. Gun accident deaths dropped to 1/4 of what it was when gun murders dropped to 3/4 of what it was. You see that it is obvious to see why gun homicides, in proportion of gun deaths, did not seem to drop. You had one situation dropping a lot where another did not. What you are witnessing here is a great example of how to lie with statistics. You are looking at a table and saying "ah ha, gun homicides have not dropped", when in reality they have. They were as high as 103 from 1983-85 down to 67 in 1995. They dropped and the trend was downward for years. It just so happens that deaths by gun accidents have dropped anymore. So when you say "but the numbers reflect that nothing changed until the buy back" that is 100% false. You are trying to connect to unrelated things. Gun deaths by accidents are not comparable to gun deaths by homicides. One in intentional the other is not. Again, you are moving the goal posts here. "My problem with the national review is mainly in america when you are political most of the time you toe the party line and try and show things that things are one way instead of another," That does not counter what I posted. Also, you are doing the same thing. You are really digging to show things one way instead of the other. You are doing so by eliminating biker gang violence and than comparing gun accident deaths to homicides and doing so in a proportion. What you cannot deny is this, gun homicides were dropping prior to the buy back program. Another thing with your link is that it does not do a similar comparison of these deaths after the buy back program. Why? It was published in 1997. So you are giving me numbers you cannot compare to after the buy back. "and the facts also are that it is easier to buy a gun in america then it is to buy alcohol or cigarettes" What!? Really. I did not know that I was supposed to go through a background check to buy my beer yesterday. I guess I better inform the ATF about my local gas station not doing what they should have done. Again, learn the facts before you get into opinions. You are not doing yourself any favors. You are showing a lot of reasons why no one looks at Australia. When you have to move the goal posts this much it reflects poorly on you.
    2
  8. o Jules o, you defined "assault rifles" as automatic rifles. Those are banned for the most part. They are no longer made for civilian use and to own one is highly regulated. You say "assault rifle like" and point to semi autos. Most gun deaths are by hand guns and hand guns are just as deadly. The VA Tech shooter used two hand guns and killed around 30 people. So if you get your weapon ban you want and someone shoots up a place killing many people with hand guns what is your next step? Please be 100% honest.
    2
  9. "Strong background checks, an age limit of 25-28+, inspections at the local sheriff's office every 4-6 months. Things like that." We have background checks. On the age limit, do you want to increase the voting age to 25 as well? Having the local sheriff check every so often is literally a step away from the government coming in and taking guns away. Those laws are not “common sense” as I just gave legit counter arguments for. "A 19 year old (Age of the Parkland shooter) shouldn't be able to purchase an AR15." I have been around guns since I was a kid. Also, if someone is going to commit a murder at that extreme at 19 they will probably do it at the age of 25 also. Do you think when you turn 25 a bright light shines on you and you suddenly know all?
    2
  10. If he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter before anyone was killed.
    2
  11. " if you look before the gun ban we did actually have a problem" No you didn't. Gun murders were dropping prior to the gun buyback. You said to things that are not correct. 1. It was not a gun ban, it was a buyback program were at least 60% of your nation's guns are still in citizens' hands 2. Gun murders were dropping prior to the buyback program
    1
  12. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/australia-gun-control-obama-america/ I mean, these stats are very easy to look up.
    1
  13. Giovani, define "common sense gun laws". Also, saying 93% want them is not true. We have seen relaxing of gun laws in Missouri and expanded background checks did not pass in Maine and passed in NV by only 0.45%.
    1
  14. AkhmenHotep, I cannot take you serious if you cannot get very basic facts correct.
    1
  15. AkhmenHotep, actually shootings were falling. Using your source you had 9 shootings with 5 or more dying. From 1990 you had three. So in the 80s you had around one a year, in the 90s you had one every other years. I agree, these things are very easy to look up. Thanks for the link showing how shootings were dropping prior to the gun buyback.
    1
  16. Define "common sense gun regulations". The fact there is a debate to begin with makes it so it is not "common sense".
    1
  17. "also the national review is a conservative journal that leans towards the right" Ok, and? What was wrong with what they said? Also, I literally took your own links and used them to show you how you are wrong.
    1
  18. AkhmenHotep, again, in the 80s you had around 1 shooting a year. In the 90s up to 96, before that major shooting you had a shooting every other year, on average. Gun homicide and mass shootings were dropping prior to the gun buyback program. Why are you having a hard time accepting basic facts? I am surprise you have not deleted this comment considering how dumb you look.
    1
  19. Giovani Molano, background checks exist and were pushed for by the NRA. What mental health tests do you want? That is a vague topic as millions have mental health problems of some kind but will never commit an act of violence ever.
    1
  20. Giovani Molano, Loughner did not commit any crimes. Again, many people have mental problems, including me. I have one on record but I have never harmed anyone in my life. Mental problems are more common than what you think. You are pointing at one incident where there are millions of people with mental problems who will go to their grave never breaking the law. The gun show loophole is a myth. Most there are licensed dealers. In private sales, how do you regulate those? I can sell anyone of my guns to my friends and there is zero record of me ever owning it. The Dylan Roof case is the failure of the FBI. And how would the seller of the gun would have known Roof's intentions? You are going off of hindsight and rare incidents.
    1
  21. Giovani, having problems with the law is one thing, but having a mental disorder while breaking zero laws is another.
    1
  22. o Jules o, define "common sense ". The fact there is a debate to begin with means it isn't common sense.
    1
  23. "Sorry that I think an AR15 is too much firepower for an 18-19-year-old to possess." What about a 12 gauge shot gun? Even more fire power. What about a 1917 Enfield? Even more fire power. In reality the AR 15 has little fire power compared to what is out there. Not to be rude but I do see you as a person who has little knowledge about guns. "..wat? What does voting age have to do with purchasing an AR15, AK, etc.? " You feel they are not old enough to possess a gun, so why should they be old enough to vote on policies now? You picking the age of 25 is completely arbitrary. I was shooting guns since I was 6, and I have friends who were a lot younger. "How?" They know who has the guns and thus they can just go in there and take them with any minor reason. Say a murder too place near your home, they can go in and take them as "evidence". That is invasion of privacy as well. Just because I decided to own a gun does not mean I should have my privacy invaded. Why not do the same for having kids? Why not send social services in every home every few months to make sure every kid is being cared for? "Yes, they will. " Ok, then why have an age limit? "1. I didn't specifically say 25, "25-28+" 2. Usually, at that age, you're more mature and educated than an 18-19 y/o." Ok, then they can't vote until they are 25. You want them to be allowed to vote at 18 but then claim they are not educated nor mature enough to own a gun. I see double standards.
    1
  24. "I'm NOT talking about ALL guns, just Assault Rifles" What is your definition, and what is your stopping point? Many mass shootings happen with hand guns which are, arguably, deadlier. Just pointing to one set of guns leads to a path to regulate and ban all guns. Also, you want the age limit which is arbitrary but only want it on "assault rifles" when hand guns are, again, deadlier in many ways. "I'll admit I'm not a genius when it comes to firearms but I'm pretty confident one could do more damage with an AR15 than with the average shotgun or rifle. " I would disagree. I can do a lot of damage with a 12 gauge if I wanted. I can do a lot of damage with a .22. A .22 is more dangerous in my hands than a BAR is in someone's hands who does not know how to shoot. There are other variables involved.
    1
  25. Bill Anderson, he bought the gun in Illinois, a state with very strict laws. Also, if he owned a gun how do you take it away? As for regulations on mental health, that is very vague. How do you enforce that? Many people, including me, have mental health problems of some kind but will never break the law ever in their lives. Why do you want to strip them of their rights?
    1
  26. amihart, Australia never had a problem to begin with. Prior to the gun buyback program gun murders were dropping already. It would be wise of you to stop pointing to Australia.
    1