Mass Shooting at Walmart in El Paso

[Ace Nova]

11 hours ago, action said:

that's cute, but you're from new zealand. you're probably more at risk of being punched by a kangaroo than being shot by a gun.

Well, not necessarily....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings
 

[Ace Nova]

A moderate and well thought-out article:

What Chicago’s Gun Violence Can Teach The Country

 

Between the Aurora shooting, New Zealand and the Chicago mayoral race, gun violence is back in the news. It often seems like this conversation — and the policy it results in — never have an impact and much of the reason for this is that we’re not talking about the right things. Each side has its talking points, but what does the data actually say?

Possibly the most important dirty little secret of the gun debate, both in Chicago and nationally, is that there appears to be little correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. 

There have been countless studies from the left trying to prove that guns increase crime under the logic that more guns in an area mean more illegal use of guns in that area — only to find this has no effect. The right has responded by saying guns decrease crime with the logic that legal gun owners stop crime — only for their studies to get the same result. 

When the Research and Development Corporation (RAND) conducted possibly the largest analysis of studies to date, it found “insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship between gun prevalence and violent crime” and when one researcher tried to find a relationship, both nationally and internationally, he found “garbage.”

So if guns themselves don’t seem to have much of an impact on gun crime, then what can be done to stop it? 

Thankfully there’s one thing that gun crime is strongly related to: crime. This is a fact that is true almost everywhere in the country, in a way that appears to be unconnected with each area’s gun laws, and Chicago is a prime example. 

The city has some of the tightest gun-control laws in the country. Illinois as a whole is one of seven states to require a license to buy any gun, one of only five with mandatory waiting periods and was the last state to allow concealed carry. In addition, Cook County has an assault weapons ban and, until it was ruled unconstitutional, Chicago banned all handguns in city limits. 

These laws haven’t slowed down gun crime, though. A large part of  the reason why is because the laws traditionally associated with gun-control have relatively little direct effect on the issue of crime itself. 

More commonly, the laws that can get public support are laws that address only peripheral issues, possibly the best example is the debate over assault rifles; a policy so popular that even President Ronald Reagan signed a ban into effect, but a policy that doesn’t impact much. 

Despite the national attention, it isn’t assault weapons that are killing people. In 2017, the most recent year from which there is data, Illinois had 814 murders and, though most of these were committed using firearms, only 24 — or less than three percent — were committed with any type of rifle. 

The number of people killed by assault rifles is so low the FBI doesn’t even track it. Instead, they lump it in with deaths from all rifles, a number that, nationally, is about 2.5 percent. This is even lower than the number in Illinois, despite the state’s gun laws.

And yet assault rifles dominate the national conversation, in large part because they’re more likely to be used in mass shootings. The only problem is mass shootings are not nearly as much of a problem as everyday violence. 2017 was touted by many as the deadliest year for mass shootings, but — using the most liberal definition of what qualifies as a mass shooting — these deaths accounted for 2.8 percent of gun deaths.

The bigger problem, both in Chicago and the country as a whole, is the slow trickle of violence committed against people who don’t make the national news. These are the same people who would be most helped by focusing more attention on crime in general, rather than small, specific policy with little impact. 

The issue with this solution is it means fixing gun violence isn’t an easy task, as Chicago is all too aware. America has a lot of gun crime because the country has a lot of crime overall, and adding more legal gun owners doesn’t seem to stop crime any more than getting rid of guns does. 

To actually reduce gun violence, America has to reduce crime in general.

Now, only if solving it were that easy.

 

 

http://loyolaphoenix.com/2019/03/what-chicagos-gun-violence-can-teach-the-country/

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Download]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

USA is hardly special in that regard,yet other countries seem to have grown out of their fixation with weapons. 

I don’t know if thats exactly it but perhaps. 

It seems other people from other countries have more of a fixation on Americans owning guns than actual Americans. 

I own several and almost everyone I know owns several. It’s a part of our culture. We’re a constitutional republic and it’s right there at #2 on the list 🙂

i don’t really think about it until I see people on tv wanting to take them, but it’s real simple from my perspective. Are you willing to die in order to take my guns? Because I’m willing to die in order to keep my guns. 

Mass shootings are terrible. Anytime Innocent lives are lost is a terrible thing that thoughts and prayers aren’t going to provide the answer for. 

I think its a multi variable problem and a lot of things get a pardon so guns can take the blame. Just like the reasons for gun control are multi variable. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Download

[lame ass security]

This boils down to one thing, money.  Gun control proponents need a unified coalition with huge money to rival the NRA.

Edited August 7, 2019 by lame ass security

[Ace Nova]

The solution to reducing gun violence in the U.S. is directly correlated to reducing crime.  If you reduce crime, you will reduce gun violence. 

The first step in reducing crime in the U.S. is to finally end the failed war on drugs.  Completely legalize marijuana and decriminalize the simple possession of all drugs.  Start treating drug addiction like a disorder instead of a crime.... and watch crime, along with gun related crime, drop drastically.  That should coincide with reform of the criminal justice system. 

That's a pragmatic and moderate approach to the issue.  It won't make either side (completely) happy but the right can keep their guns and the left can watch gun crime drop. 

That's a start.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Graeme]

Aye, call me when we go a year without a gun massacre in the US under the status quo... (I'd obviously love to be proven wrong on this).

[Ace Nova]

32 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Aye, call me when we go a year without a gun massacre in the US under the status quo... (I'd obviously love to be proven wrong on this).

That may not happen anytime in the near future.  The bigger issue is reducing the gun related homicide rate in the U.S.  

To put it bluntly, I would not like (neither would any humane person) to have any massacres, ever...but if the U.S. reduced its overall gun violence rate by 80% and still had mass shootings, that would actually be much better than the current status quo, no?

What people fail to realize is that mass shootings (as despicable as they may be) are not anywhere near the core issue of gun violence in the U.S.  They are an extremely small % of the overall gun homicide rate in the U.S.  

I personally equate mass shootings/shooters, etc to serial killers.   The only major difference is that a mass murderer (shooter) typically does it in one day/night vs. a serial killer who typically does it over an extended period of time.  But in either case, a mass shooter/murderer or a serial killer, they represent an extremely small % of gun violence and murderers. 

Both mass shooters and serial killers are an extremely small % of the overall homicides/homicide rate in the U.S.  

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

7 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

these laws haven’t slowed down gun crime, though.

I wonder why that is?  Perhaps because in neighbouring state Indiana it's easy as hell to get a gun?  

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html

I don't understand these arguments.  It's as if they believe pointing out how gun laws don't work in one city or state is somehow proof that gun laws don't work period.  

America's patchwork of gun laws is akin to a boat with several leaks.  Sure, you can patch up the wholes at the front of the boat, but if you do nothing about the leaks at the back then water will get everywhere.  

[downzy]

17 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

What people fail to realize is that mass shootings (as despicable as they may be) are not anywhere near the core issue of gun violence in the U.S.  They are an extremely small % of the overall gun homicide rate in the U.S. 

Agreed.  But it's the only time and opportunity to have the discussion.  I'm not naive to think that increased gun restrictions will stop all mass shootings.  They still occur in other developed nations.  But gun violence is a problem in the United States that is incomparable to most developed nations when not being selective of timeline.  

20 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I personally equate mass shootings/shooters, etc to serial killers.

I think a criminal behavioural scientist would deeply disagree with this assessment. 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

I wonder why that is?  Perhaps because in neighbouring state Indiana it's easy as hell to get a gun?  

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html

I don't understand these arguments.  It's as if they believe pointing out how gun laws don't work in one city or state is somehow proof that gun laws don't work period.  

America's patchwork of gun laws is akin to a boat with several leaks.  Sure, you can patch up the wholes at the front of the boat, but if you do nothing about the leaks at the back then water will get everywhere.  

Err...that's exactly the point.  Of course criminals will get their guns from other places.  They rely on them for their "business".   Cartels would love a ban on guns.  It would be become one of their better "businesses".  That's not even a question.  

 

I know most of you guys mean well but some of you need to put the keyboards down and need to get your hands dirty and... get out on the streets.  If guns get restricted or "banned" that's even more $$ in trade in the streets.  

A war on guns is no different than a war on drugs.

 

 

5 minutes ago, downzy said:

Agreed.  But it's the only time and opportunity to have the discussion.  I'm not naive to think that increased gun restrictions will stop all mass shootings.  They still occur in other developed nations.  But gun violence is a problem in the United States that is incomparable to most developed nations when not being selective of timeline.  

I think a criminal behavioural scientist would deeply disagree with this assessment. 

Maybe from a psychological standpoint (but maybe not, really) not from a statistical standpoint. 

[downzy]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Err...that's exactly the point.  Of course criminals will get their guns from other places.  They rely on them for their "business".   Cartels would love a ban on guns.  It would be become one of their better "businesses".  That's not even a question.  

A ban would greatly drive up prices and restrict access to only those who have contacts.  In other words, Adam Lanza doesn't get his hands on an assault rifle.  An abusive husband can't stop by his local Walmart to pick up a gun to use against his wife.  And more significantly, those feeling down and out and thinking of killing themselves would have more time to think about it if a gun wasn't so accessible.  

4 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I know most of you guys mean well but some of you need to put the keyboards down and need to get your hands dirty and... get out on the streets.  If guns get restricted or "banned" that's even more $$ in trade in the streets.  

A war on guns is no different than a war on drugs.

This really doesn't happen in any other developed nation.  

Perhaps travel more?  

[Ace Nova]

20 minutes ago, downzy said:

A ban would greatly drive up prices and restrict access to only those who have contacts.  In other words, Adam Lanza doesn't get his hands on an assault rifle.  An abusive husband can't stop by his local Walmart to pick up a gun to use against his wife.  And more significantly, those feeling down and out and thinking of killing themselves would have more time to think about it if a gun wasn't so accessible.  

This really doesn't happen in any other developed nation.  

Perhaps travel more?  

Adam Lanza?  So you want to stop the 1% while I'm trying to reduce the 99%.  Nice logic there, fellow. 

 

What doesn't happen in other developed nations?  I travel abroad every year and have done it just about every year it since I was 2 years old. 

 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

Travelling abroad since you were 2 to the Vatican, your medieval castle and the international wind-up merchants convention, doesn't count. 

I actually would love to go to New Zealand some day.  From photos and videos I've seen, it seems to be one of the most beautiful places on Earth. 

[downzy]

21 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Adam Lanza?  So you want to stop the 1% while I'm trying to reduce the 99%.  Nice logic there, fellow

I know this might be difficult to comprehend, but a universal ban would do two things at once: lower mass shootings and overall levels gun violence.  As seen in both the UK and Australia.

[Ace Nova]

Just now, downzy said:

I know this might be difficult to comprehend, but a universal ban would do two things at once: lower mass shootings and gun-related crimes.  As seen in both the UK and Australia.

A "Universal ban" will lower mass shootings and gun-related crimes as seen in the UK?

 

(Wrong.  The UK decided to use knives to kill themselves instead)  Google:  UK: Knife deaths.

 

Downzy, I respect you bro but just stop.  The actual studies that have been done on the issue show zero correlation.  Zero.  Go debate the guys that did the studies, not me.

On the other hand, there have been studies done that reducing crime does indeed reduce gun violence.

And to be frank, if I could actually see and analyze any study that showed evidence that reducing LEGAL guns reduced violent crime, I would be on board.  But NO STUDY EXISTS.  

 

It's simple. Reduce crime and you will reduce gun violence.

 

 

 

 

 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

Adam Lanza?  So you want to stop the 1% while I'm trying to reduce the 99%.  Nice logic there, fellow. 

To be fair, @downzy also mentioned domestic gun violence and suicides, which accounts for the vast majority of gun violence/homicides. 

Again, it works everywhere else. I agree you Americans are special, but you are subjects to the laws of nature like everyone else. 

[SoulMonster]

52 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

It's simple. Reduce crime and you will reduce gun violence.

Simple in theory perhaps… It's another of those "let's fix racism!" arguments where people go for the ambitious, long-term objectives rather than fixing what is right under their nose: making your gun laws more consistent and sensible.

Btw, I agree with your point that the war on drugs should be ended. It would free up resources (and space in jails) that could be better used against violent crimes.

[action]

38 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Simple in theory perhaps… It's another of those "let's fix racism!" arguments where people go for the ambitious, long-term objectives rather than fixing what is right under their nose: making your gun laws more consistent and sensible.

Btw, I agree with your point that the war on drugs should be ended. It would free up resources (and space in jails) that could be better used against violent crimes.

racism and mass-shootings have one very important difference: mass shootings pose an imminent safety risk, racism doesn't. mass shootings are like a nature disaster: unpredictable when they will happen, but they will happen eventually. Like earthquakes, or avalanches. You can't make a law, forbidding earthquakes. Likewise, you can't make a law and expect mass-shootings not to happen anymore.

This is why I argue, the criminal pillar of society intervention is a bit powerless against this phenomenon.

Rather, the "safety pillar" should be more enforced. Work more on prevention. Like when you close a ski area when there is danger of avalanches, you'll be closing websites when too much hate speech is posted there. Also, take away the seeds that can cause massacres. Work more on schools and bullying. Put committees in place that will actively work on bullying on schools. 

And if the gap between poor and rich is an issue (in the USA, it really is, by the way), then do something about your money redistribution model.

[Dazey]

54 minutes ago, action said:

racism and mass-shootings have one very important difference: mass shootings pose an imminent safety risk, racism doesn't. mass shootings are like a nature disaster: unpredictable when they will happen, but they will happen eventually. Like earthquakes, or avalanches. You can't make a law, forbidding earthquakes. Likewise, you can't make a law and expect mass-shootings not to happen anymore.

That's just nonsense. Once again you're taking the view that just because you can't eradicate something completely there's no point in taking any action whatsoever. Common sense gun laws can and do make a difference. 

[Padme]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

I wonder why that is?  Perhaps because in neighbouring state Indiana it's easy as hell to get a gun?

That's true. California has plenty of gun control laws. Yet recently there was a mass shooting in a Garlic Festival. The guy bought his gun in Nevada

[action]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

That's just nonsense. Once again you're taking the view that just because you can't eradicate something completely there's no point in taking any action whatsoever. Common sense gun laws can and do make a difference. 

well, for starters I suggest you read my whole post, including the 3/4 that you left out.

You will find, in that portion I have outlined the proper "action" to take to prevent further massacres.

I maintain, criminal laws are no effective means to prevent any of these massacres, period. Every time one of these horrible acts happen, I'm further confirmed in my observations. Make fun of that all you want, I stand by my point.

[-W.A.R-]

Government taking down internet sites:
-It will run into 1st Amendment problems
-Do we really want the government deciding whats acceptable? i got news for you if you think only white supremacy sites will be affected
-The way the internet works is when you take down one site another one pops up just like it.

 

 

[action]

15 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Government taking down internet sites:
-It will run into 1st Amendment problems
-Do we really want the government deciding whats acceptable? i got news for you if you think only white supremacy sites will be affected
-The way the internet works is when you take down one site another one pops up just like it.

 

 

- then lawmakers should start working, and change the 1st amendment

- as I said, massacres are a safety issue. it is the government's job to provide safety. When there is danger of avalanches, the ski resort is closed. And we accept that, we don't want victims of avalanches. It's the same with online hate platforms: they breed mass-murderers and should be taken down. As for other people but white supremacists affected; it's the age old problem of the social contract. If the government screws up, they can be held accountabe. If the government takes down other websites but extremist ones, they can be held accountable. it's not a problem of principle, but of execution.

- I'm aware of that. But I also see that nations like Russia and china have very effective means to counter that which tells me that, at least on a technical level, my solution should be doable. 

[-W.A.R-]

38 minutes ago, action said:

- then lawmakers should start working, and change the 1st amendment

Yeah how about no.

Quote

as I said, massacres are a safety issue. it is the government's job to provide safety

Then wouldn't it make sense to make getting guns tougher?

Your hold up seems to be that it wont stop every shooting but not every mass shooter is an extremist that post on extremist websites. So your method wouldn't stop every one either. Its a nonsensical argument.

Edited August 8, 2019 by -W.A.R-

[soon]

'we need guns for self defence' Why wasnt there any self defence? People wimped out?

'we need guns to protect our selves from government tyranny' The government allowing for school shootings to continue is tyranny.

'I made a phone call to my Rep. to ask for better gun control. Then I posted about it and attended a protest where I chanted and signed a petition' Lets run up on these gun manufacturers for ourselves. Shut them down. Not one new killing machine.