Jump to content

Gun Control/Rights Thread


RussTCB

Recommended Posts

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

It really doesn't matter if you agree on principle or not, the statistics on the volume of gun homicides per million people detailed fairly comprehensively here show that the U.S. has a problem an order of magnitude larger than any other advanced economy. Unless you're arguing that Americans are more genetically predisposed to commit mass murder, then your argument that taking away the most common implement of aforementioned mass murder would have no impact on the number of mass murders committed seems nonsensical.

#
COUNTRY
AMOUNT
DATE
GRAPH
1 South Africa 700.98 2002 2 Colombia 531.29 2002 3 Slovakia 438 2002 4 Thailand 313.99 2002 5 El Salvador 239.83 2002 6 Philippines 95.21 2002 7 Zimbabwe 47.31 2002 8 Albania 41.37 2002 9 Uruguay 32.76 2002 10 United States 32.57 2002 11 Costa Rica 32 2002 12 Mexico 24.42 2002 13 Slovenia 19.55 2002 14 Czech Republic 17.74 2002 15 Croatia 17.12 2002 16 Peru 16.54 2002 17 Estonia 15.46 2002 18 Azerbaijan 14.68 2002 19 Republic of Macedonia 12.53 2002 20 Latvia 11.97 2002 21 Switzerland 9.33 2002 22 Portugal 8.68 2002 23 Bulgaria 8.01 2002 24 Sweden 6.5 2002 25 Bolivia 5.88 2002 26 Moldova 5.52 2002 27 Lithuania 4.61 2002 28 Canada 4.59 2002 29 Cyprus 4.08 2002 30 Belarus 3.85 2002 31 Hungary 3.74 2002 32 Ukraine 3.59 2002 33 Germany 3.26 2002 34 Austria 3.09 2002 35 Ireland 3.05 2002 36 Australia 3 2002 37 Poland 2.9 2002 38 Denmark 2.6 2002 39 New Zealand 2.53 2002 40 Spain 2.35 2002 41 Chile 0.569 2002 42 Burma 0.548 2002 43 Japan 0.369 2002 44 United Kingdom 0.236 2002 45 Morocco 0.0341 2002 =46 Luxembourg 0.0 2002 =46 Iceland 0.0 2002 =46 Oman

I get most of the countries that precede the U.S. on the list, but what's going on in Slovakia? Didn't realize that nation was so violent....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

Would you know where to buy a gun on the black market? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Urban gang circles. I thought you lived in Manchester? Manchester gun crime is notorious.

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

It really doesn't matter if you agree on principle or not, the statistics on the volume of gun homicides per million people detailed fairly comprehensively here show that the U.S. has a problem an order of magnitude larger than any other advanced economy. Unless you're arguing that Americans are more genetically predisposed to commit mass murder, then your argument that taking away the most common implement of aforementioned mass murder would have no impact on the number of mass murders committed seems nonsensical.

#
COUNTRY
AMOUNT
DATE
GRAPH
1 South Africa 700.98 2002 2 Colombia 531.29 2002 3 Slovakia 438 2002 4 Thailand 313.99 2002 5 El Salvador 239.83 2002 6 Philippines 95.21 2002 7 Zimbabwe 47.31 2002 8 Albania 41.37 2002 9 Uruguay 32.76 2002 10 United States 32.57 2002 11 Costa Rica 32 2002 12 Mexico 24.42 2002 13 Slovenia 19.55 2002 14 Czech Republic 17.74 2002 15 Croatia 17.12 2002 16 Peru 16.54 2002 17 Estonia 15.46 2002 18 Azerbaijan 14.68 2002 19 Republic of Macedonia 12.53 2002 20 Latvia 11.97 2002 21 Switzerland 9.33 2002 22 Portugal 8.68 2002 23 Bulgaria 8.01 2002 24 Sweden 6.5 2002 25 Bolivia 5.88 2002 26 Moldova 5.52 2002 27 Lithuania 4.61 2002 28 Canada 4.59 2002 29 Cyprus 4.08 2002 30 Belarus 3.85 2002 31 Hungary 3.74 2002 32 Ukraine 3.59 2002 33 Germany 3.26 2002 34 Austria 3.09 2002 35 Ireland 3.05 2002 36 Australia 3 2002 37 Poland 2.9 2002 38 Denmark 2.6 2002 39 New Zealand 2.53 2002 40 Spain 2.35 2002 41 Chile 0.569 2002 42 Burma 0.548 2002 43 Japan 0.369 2002 44 United Kingdom 0.236 2002 45 Morocco 0.0341 2002 =46 Luxembourg 0.0 2002 =46 Iceland 0.0 2002 =46 Oman

The UK has strict gun laws, correct?

- Dunblane (1996 - granted this was the incident which instigated the handgun ban), 18 dead including perpetrator, 15 injuries.

- Raoul Moat (2010), 2 dead including perpetrator, 2 injured.

- Derrick Bird (2010), 13 people dead including perpetrator, 11 injured.

In Norway firearms are strictly regulated by legislation, requiring licenses - since reinforced in 2009.

- Anders Behring Breivik (2011), 77 dead, 319 injured (doesn't this dwarf America's massacres?)

You are employing a straw man argument anyhow as I actually agree that the United States needs to regulate firearms. I merely do not see it as a holistic solution. Putting it another way, if you have reached a stage in which you want to massacre a bunch of innocents, the fact it is harder to obtain the means will probably not eradicate the intent.

Also, you have not readdressed the problem of bottling up America's guns. It is easier to legislate in a country like Britain, say post-Dunblane, which does not possess a gun culture than it would be in a country like the United States. It raises the question of what type of gun laws people propose? What would be the methodology?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

Would you know where to buy a gun on the black market? I sure as hell wouldn't.

you wouldnt because your not a psycho looking to kill a bunch of kids. if you are hellbent on massacring people you will find a way to get a gun. wasnt there a case not too long ago in england where someone called in a crime to the police just to ambush them with guns and grenades? its similar to drugs(in the US anyway, hell i was offered to buy a stolen gun for 50 dollars while trying to buy a bag of weed with my brother when i was 19) in that they are illegal but you are always going to be able to get it, people with the means of bringing them in will do so since the money is so good. then you have the invention of 3d printers where you can literally print a full auto not to mention you can literally make guns out of every day items, there is a company in the phillipines that made zip guns that were so good they became a legit business you can get homemade 45s, mac 10s etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

Would you know where to buy a gun on the black market? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Yknow that mythical older lad that kids talk about in hushed fearful tones when you're a lad? Find him. Or else hang out with dealers, its really not ever so hard, if you can find people still selling acid in this day and age a shooter aint ever so hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think theres issues with mental care in the states. Combined with weak gun laws shit like this will happen.

Why not try an amensty for illegal or non registered weapons in one state to start with.

Introduce a mandatory licence for gun ownership with an age restriction depending on the type of weapon. Or possibly introduce a mandatory licence, with a special permit required for a high powered weapon.

For the licence, references would be required, some sort of police background check, and mental health assessment/test.

All firearms are to be locked safely

Licences will expiry, say every three years and then the applicant will have to re-apply as above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

Would you know where to buy a gun on the black market? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Urban gang circles. I thought you lived in Manchester? Manchester gun crime is notorious.

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

It really doesn't matter if you agree on principle or not, the statistics on the volume of gun homicides per million people detailed fairly comprehensively here show that the U.S. has a problem an order of magnitude larger than any other advanced economy. Unless you're arguing that Americans are more genetically predisposed to commit mass murder, then your argument that taking away the most common implement of aforementioned mass murder would have no impact on the number of mass murders committed seems nonsensical.

#

COUNTRY

AMOUNT

DATE

GRAPH

1 South Africa 700.98 2002 2 Colombia 531.29 2002 3 Slovakia 438 2002 4 Thailand 313.99 2002 5 El Salvador 239.83 2002 6 Philippines 95.21 2002 7 Zimbabwe 47.31 2002 8 Albania 41.37 2002 9 Uruguay 32.76 2002 10 United States 32.57 2002 11 Costa Rica 32 2002 12 Mexico 24.42 2002 13 Slovenia 19.55 2002 14 Czech Republic 17.74 2002 15 Croatia 17.12 2002 16 Peru 16.54 2002 17 Estonia 15.46 2002 18 Azerbaijan 14.68 2002 19 Republic of Macedonia 12.53 2002 20 Latvia 11.97 2002 21 Switzerland 9.33 2002 22 Portugal 8.68 2002 23 Bulgaria 8.01 2002 24 Sweden 6.5 2002 25 Bolivia 5.88 2002 26 Moldova 5.52 2002 27 Lithuania 4.61 2002 28 Canada 4.59 2002 29 Cyprus 4.08 2002 30 Belarus 3.85 2002 31 Hungary 3.74 2002 32 Ukraine 3.59 2002 33 Germany 3.26 2002 34 Austria 3.09 2002 35 Ireland 3.05 2002 36 Australia 3 2002 37 Poland 2.9 2002 38 Denmark 2.6 2002 39 New Zealand 2.53 2002 40 Spain 2.35 2002 41 Chile 0.569 2002 42 Burma 0.548 2002 43 Japan 0.369 2002 44 United Kingdom 0.236 2002 45 Morocco 0.0341 2002 =46 Luxembourg 0.0 2002 =46 Iceland 0.0 2002 =46 Oman

The UK has strict gun laws, correct?

- Dunblane (1996 - granted this was the incident which instigated the handgun ban), 18 dead including perpetrator, 15 injuries.

- Raoul Moat (2010), 2 dead including perpetrator, 2 injured.

- Derrick Bird (2010), 13 people dead including perpetrator, 11 injured.

In Norway firearms are strictly regulated by legislation, requiring licenses - since reinforced in 2009.

- Anders Behring Breivik (2011), 77 dead, 319 injured (doesn't this dwarf America's massacres?)

You are employing a straw man argument anyhow as I actually agree that the United States needs to regulate firearms. I merely do not see it as a holistic solution. Putting it another way, if you have reached a stage in which you want to massacre a bunch of innocents, the fact it is harder to obtain the means will probably not eradicate the intent.

Also, you have not readdressed the problem of bottling up America's guns. It is easier to legislate in a country like Britain, say post-Dunblane, which does not possess a gun culture than it would be in a country like the United States. It raises the question of what type of gun laws people propose? What would be the methodology?

Your comparison is actually the biggest and most common straw man argument used in this discussion. So, because there are such things happening in other countries with stricter gun laws means that gun laws don't work, right? Otherwise these things wouldn't have happened obviously. But this isn't a black or white thing, you won't erase gun violence completely by banning guns, all you can hope for is to minimize the number of victims by gun violence. So let's have a look at the average firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year, not on a single event:

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

- Anders Behring Breivik (2011), 77 dead, 319 injured (doesn't this dwarf America's massacres?)

Um, no, not at all.

Edited by misch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

Would you know where to buy a gun on the black market? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Urban gang circles. I thought you lived in Manchester? Manchester gun crime is notorious.

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

It really doesn't matter if you agree on principle or not, the statistics on the volume of gun homicides per million people detailed fairly comprehensively here show that the U.S. has a problem an order of magnitude larger than any other advanced economy. Unless you're arguing that Americans are more genetically predisposed to commit mass murder, then your argument that taking away the most common implement of aforementioned mass murder would have no impact on the number of mass murders committed seems nonsensical.

#

COUNTRY

AMOUNT

DATE

GRAPH

1 South Africa 700.98 2002 2 Colombia 531.29 2002 3 Slovakia 438 2002 4 Thailand 313.99 2002 5 El Salvador 239.83 2002 6 Philippines 95.21 2002 7 Zimbabwe 47.31 2002 8 Albania 41.37 2002 9 Uruguay 32.76 2002 10 United States 32.57 2002 11 Costa Rica 32 2002 12 Mexico 24.42 2002 13 Slovenia 19.55 2002 14 Czech Republic 17.74 2002 15 Croatia 17.12 2002 16 Peru 16.54 2002 17 Estonia 15.46 2002 18 Azerbaijan 14.68 2002 19 Republic of Macedonia 12.53 2002 20 Latvia 11.97 2002 21 Switzerland 9.33 2002 22 Portugal 8.68 2002 23 Bulgaria 8.01 2002 24 Sweden 6.5 2002 25 Bolivia 5.88 2002 26 Moldova 5.52 2002 27 Lithuania 4.61 2002 28 Canada 4.59 2002 29 Cyprus 4.08 2002 30 Belarus 3.85 2002 31 Hungary 3.74 2002 32 Ukraine 3.59 2002 33 Germany 3.26 2002 34 Austria 3.09 2002 35 Ireland 3.05 2002 36 Australia 3 2002 37 Poland 2.9 2002 38 Denmark 2.6 2002 39 New Zealand 2.53 2002 40 Spain 2.35 2002 41 Chile 0.569 2002 42 Burma 0.548 2002 43 Japan 0.369 2002 44 United Kingdom 0.236 2002 45 Morocco 0.0341 2002 =46 Luxembourg 0.0 2002 =46 Iceland 0.0 2002 =46 Oman

The UK has strict gun laws, correct?

- Dunblane (1996 - granted this was the incident which instigated the handgun ban), 18 dead including perpetrator, 15 injuries.

- Raoul Moat (2010), 2 dead including perpetrator, 2 injured.

- Derrick Bird (2010), 13 people dead including perpetrator, 11 injured.

In Norway firearms are strictly regulated by legislation, requiring licenses - since reinforced in 2009.

- Anders Behring Breivik (2011), 77 dead, 319 injured (doesn't this dwarf America's massacres?)

You are employing a straw man argument anyhow as I actually agree that the United States needs to regulate firearms. I merely do not see it as a holistic solution. Putting it another way, if you have reached a stage in which you want to massacre a bunch of innocents, the fact it is harder to obtain the means will probably not eradicate the intent.

Also, you have not readdressed the problem of bottling up America's guns. It is easier to legislate in a country like Britain, say post-Dunblane, which does not possess a gun culture than it would be in a country like the United States. It raises the question of what type of gun laws people propose? What would be the methodology?

Your comparison is actually the biggest and most common straw man argument used in this discussion. So, because there are such things happening in other countries with stricter gun laws means that gun laws don't work, right? Otherwise these things wouldn't have happened obviously. But this isn't a black or white thing, you won't erase gun violence completely by banning guns, all you can hope for is to minimize the number of victims by gun violence. So let's have a look at the average firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year, not on a single event:

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

- Anders Behring Breivik (2011), 77 dead, 319 injured (doesn't this dwarf America's massacres?)

Um, no, not at all.

Everyone disagreeing me here is employing a colossal straw man since I actually advocate gun control and basically agree with what I have highlighted in your above post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

Would you know where to buy a gun on the black market? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Urban gang circles. I thought you lived in Manchester? Manchester gun crime is notorious.

I do not agree in the slightest. The thing about legislation is you have to bottle up an entire gun culture and all of those legally obtained weapons. You have to record them and criminalise them or at a very minimum licence them. Now it is possible to buy a gun in Britain on the black market which has never possessed a gun culture so how are you going to bottle up an entire American gun culture?

It really doesn't matter if you agree on principle or not, the statistics on the volume of gun homicides per million people detailed fairly comprehensively here show that the U.S. has a problem an order of magnitude larger than any other advanced economy. Unless you're arguing that Americans are more genetically predisposed to commit mass murder, then your argument that taking away the most common implement of aforementioned mass murder would have no impact on the number of mass murders committed seems nonsensical.

#

COUNTRY

AMOUNT

DATE

GRAPH

1 South Africa 700.98 2002 2 Colombia 531.29 2002 3 Slovakia 438 2002 4 Thailand 313.99 2002 5 El Salvador 239.83 2002 6 Philippines 95.21 2002 7 Zimbabwe 47.31 2002 8 Albania 41.37 2002 9 Uruguay 32.76 2002 10 United States 32.57 2002 11 Costa Rica 32 2002 12 Mexico 24.42 2002 13 Slovenia 19.55 2002 14 Czech Republic 17.74 2002 15 Croatia 17.12 2002 16 Peru 16.54 2002 17 Estonia 15.46 2002 18 Azerbaijan 14.68 2002 19 Republic of Macedonia 12.53 2002 20 Latvia 11.97 2002 21 Switzerland 9.33 2002 22 Portugal 8.68 2002 23 Bulgaria 8.01 2002 24 Sweden 6.5 2002 25 Bolivia 5.88 2002 26 Moldova 5.52 2002 27 Lithuania 4.61 2002 28 Canada 4.59 2002 29 Cyprus 4.08 2002 30 Belarus 3.85 2002 31 Hungary 3.74 2002 32 Ukraine 3.59 2002 33 Germany 3.26 2002 34 Austria 3.09 2002 35 Ireland 3.05 2002 36 Australia 3 2002 37 Poland 2.9 2002 38 Denmark 2.6 2002 39 New Zealand 2.53 2002 40 Spain 2.35 2002 41 Chile 0.569 2002 42 Burma 0.548 2002 43 Japan 0.369 2002 44 United Kingdom 0.236 2002 45 Morocco 0.0341 2002 =46 Luxembourg 0.0 2002 =46 Iceland 0.0 2002 =46 Oman

The UK has strict gun laws, correct?

- Dunblane (1996 - granted this was the incident which instigated the handgun ban), 18 dead including perpetrator, 15 injuries.

- Raoul Moat (2010), 2 dead including perpetrator, 2 injured.

- Derrick Bird (2010), 13 people dead including perpetrator, 11 injured.

In Norway firearms are strictly regulated by legislation, requiring licenses - since reinforced in 2009.

- Anders Behring Breivik (2011), 77 dead, 319 injured (doesn't this dwarf America's massacres?)

You are employing a straw man argument anyhow as I actually agree that the United States needs to regulate firearms. I merely do not see it as a holistic solution. Putting it another way, if you have reached a stage in which you want to massacre a bunch of innocents, the fact it is harder to obtain the means will probably not eradicate the intent.

Also, you have not readdressed the problem of bottling up America's guns. It is easier to legislate in a country like Britain, say post-Dunblane, which does not possess a gun culture than it would be in a country like the United States. It raises the question of what type of gun laws people propose? What would be the methodology?

Your comparison is actually the biggest and most common straw man argument used in this discussion. So, because there are such things happening in other countries with stricter gun laws means that gun laws don't work, right? Otherwise these things wouldn't have happened obviously. But this isn't a black or white thing, you won't erase gun violence completely by banning guns, all you can hope for is to minimize the number of victims by gun violence. So let's have a look at the average firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year, not on a single event:

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

- Anders Behring Breivik (2011), 77 dead, 319 injured (doesn't this dwarf America's massacres?)

Um, no, not at all.

Everyone disagreeing me here is employing a colossal straw man since I actually advocate gun control and basically agree with what I have highlighted in your above post.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

most gun deaths in the US are in high crime African American cities, twice as many matter of fact.

So the solution to gun "deaths" is an entirely different conversation than the mass shooting one.

truth be told liberals, political liberals, don't necessarily care about how many people are dying to gun violence, or they would focus on the plight of the inner city.

What they actually really care about is being able to tie some sort of gun violence to votes, and that's where the sympathy lies, in mass shootings of innocent people.

Imagine if they chastised inner city minorities for the real numbers dying there over the senseless drug epidemic and gang wars?

wouldn't bode well for their voting base would it?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

most gun deaths in the US are in high crime African American cities, twice as many matter of fact.

So the solution to gun "deaths" is an entirely different conversation than the mass shooting one.

truth be told liberals, political liberals, don't necessarily care about how many people are dying to gun violence, or they would focus on the plight of the inner city.

What they actually really care about is being able to tie some sort of gun violence to votes, and that's where the sympathy lies, in mass shootings of innocent people.

Imagine if they chastised inner city minorities for the real numbers dying there over the senseless drug epidemic and gang wars?

wouldn't bode well for their voting base would it?

Excellent points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

most gun deaths in the US are in high crime African American cities, twice as many matter of fact.

So the solution to gun "deaths" is an entirely different conversation than the mass shooting one.

truth be told liberals, political liberals, don't necessarily care about how many people are dying to gun violence, or they would focus on the plight of the inner city.

What they actually really care about is being able to tie some sort of gun violence to votes, and that's where the sympathy lies, in mass shootings of innocent people.

Imagine if they chastised inner city minorities for the real numbers dying there over the senseless drug epidemic and gang wars?

wouldn't bode well for their voting base would it?

Gun deaths and mass shootings aren't as inseparable as you're making them out to be.

Moreover, the argument that "liberals" don't care about how many people are dying of gun violence is absurd. Liberals do focus on the plight of the inner city. That's why they propose greater spending on areas like education, infrastructure, job training - anti-poverty programs that are repeatedly denounced by conservatives. Moreover, efforts were made to ban hand-guns in Washington D.C. due to the epidemic of gun violence only for the law to struck down by the Supreme Court. Many would love to impose gun control measures to combat gun-related violence in the city streets, but those voices rarely make the news and it takes a mass shooting to garner any level of mass attention to bring the issue to the fore. Suggesting that gun-control advocates don't care about inner-city violence because you never hear from them when violence flares up in inner cities is ignorant of the facts.

And f'n please, as if Republicans don't tie fears of "government comin' to get your guns" to their political campaigns. The amount of fear mongering that happens every presidential election by the NRA and their financially supported candidates reaches absurd levels at times.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

most gun deaths in the US are in high crime African American cities, twice as many matter of fact.

So the solution to gun "deaths" is an entirely different conversation than the mass shooting one.

truth be told liberals, political liberals, don't necessarily care about how many people are dying to gun violence, or they would focus on the plight of the inner city.

What they actually really care about is being able to tie some sort of gun violence to votes, and that's where the sympathy lies, in mass shootings of innocent people.

Imagine if they chastised inner city minorities for the real numbers dying there over the senseless drug epidemic and gang wars?

wouldn't bode well for their voting base would it?

You've hit the nail on the head, per usual.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, politicians and the left freak out and overact on gun control. IMO, it's mainly because Republicans are more on the gun ownership side. So a mass-shooting is the perfect time to paint the entire republican population in a bad light.

The greatest mass killings in the US are not caused by guns. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured 600 - without using a gun.

And your facts about inner city violence are SPOT on. As are your comments about certain politicians not wanting to upset that voting population.

Hell, 30 people are killed EVERY day in the United States due to drunk driving accidents.

How many people are killed in mass-shootings? 30 people a YEAR?

From the time somebody wakes up this morning, and then wakes up tomorrow morning - more people will die in drunk driving accidents than will die in the entire next year from a gun man.

Why are people showing 1000 time more emotion about a shooting than they are about the 30 people that die EVERY single day from drunk drivers? Where is the outrage??? (Yes, one crime does not make another crime better or worse. People shouldn't miss the point).

If we could go back in time a couple hundred years and limit the gun industry and usage - that would be awesome.

But today, with how many guns are already out there in society - it's just the band aid to what the real problems are.

The gun is the tool the kid uses to shoot up the school or movie theatre. To think that if he didn't have access to a gun that he wouldn't have still reacted violently is really naïve, imo. If that kid is mentally unstable or so full of anger and without hope that he is willing to go kill a group of innocent people, he IS going to find another method to lash out. A bomb. Starting a school on fire. Poison. Crash your car into a school bus or into a playground.

More bans and tougher laws on guns is definitely a good step. But it certainly won't fix the real issue.

As for as Hilary voicing her opinion, how much value can we put into anything she says? Her views on major issues seem to completely change every few years as she works her way up the political ladder. How do you trust somebody whose core values end up changing so often?

THIS POST IS 100% MY OPINION AND NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANYBODY'S CHARACTER (except for Hilary Clinton).

Edited by Apollo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the laughable quote about liberals caring about the plight of the inner cities because they offer job training and promote education.. and lets not forget infrastructure. :headbang:

Every time I think I have heard the most ridiculous claim ever, along comes another one.

I believe in banning assault rifles, and magazine clips of excess, but other than that until we meet thugs with what they understand and thats PRISON until they rot, Inner city "plight" will continue to give us multitudes of thug on thug murders, nightly.

And mass shootings is just something that is going to happen from time to time, maybe pay more attention to people acting aloof and mental, but otherwise they will get their hands on weapons to do their thing if it is in their mind, legislation will not stop that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

most gun deaths in the US are in high crime African American cities, twice as many matter of fact.

So the solution to gun "deaths" is an entirely different conversation than the mass shooting one.

truth be told liberals, political liberals, don't necessarily care about how many people are dying to gun violence, or they would focus on the plight of the inner city.

What they actually really care about is being able to tie some sort of gun violence to votes, and that's where the sympathy lies, in mass shootings of innocent people.

Imagine if they chastised inner city minorities for the real numbers dying there over the senseless drug epidemic and gang wars?

wouldn't bode well for their voting base would it?

You've hit the nail on the head, per usual.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, politicians and the left freak out and overact on gun control. IMO, it's mainly because Republicans are more on the gun ownership side. So a mass-shooting is the perfect time to paint the entire republican population in a bad light.

The greatest mass killings in the US are not caused by guns. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured 600 - without using a gun.

And your facts about inner city violence are SPOT on. As are your comments about certain politicians not wanting to upset that voting population.

Hell, 30 people are killed EVERY day in the United States due to drunk driving accidents.

How many people are killed in mass-shootings? 30 people a YEAR?

From the time somebody wakes up this morning, and then wakes up tomorrow morning - more people will die in drunk driving accidents than will die in the entire next year from a gun man.

Why are people showing 1000 time more emotion about a shooting than they are about the 30 people that die EVERY single day from drunk drivers? Where is the outrage??? (Yes, one crime does not make another crime better or worse. People shouldn't miss the point).

If we could go back in time a couple hundred years and limit the gun industry and usage - that would be awesome.

But today, with how many guns are already out there in society - it's just the band aid to what the real problems are.

The gun is the tool the kid uses to shoot up the school or movie theatre. To think that if he didn't have access to a gun that he wouldn't have still reacted violently is really naïve, imo. If that kid is mentally unstable or so full of anger and without hope that he is willing to go kill a group of innocent people, he IS going to find another method to lash out. A bomb. Starting a school on fire. Poison. Crash your car into a school bus or into a playground.

More bans and tougher laws on guns is definitely a good step. But it certainly won't fix the real issue.

As for as Hilary voicing her opinion, how much value can we put into anything she says? Her views on major issues seem to completely change every few years as she works her way up the political ladder. How do you trust somebody whose core values end up changing so often?

THIS POST IS 100% MY OPINION AND NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANYBODY'S CHARACTER (except for Hilary Clinton).

The difference is, obviously, gun-related deaths do not occur at the same rate in other countries as it does in the United States. We have likely have just as many people killed in Canada (proportional to population size) relating to drinking and driving. What we don't have is the level of gun-related deaths we see south of the border. Nor do we see similar levels of gun-related homicides and suicides in other developed nations as we do in the U.S.

Shades and yourself can argue that current levels of gun violence in the U.S. is normal; that it's something Americans just need to accept. But no other developed nations accept such violence at the hand of guns. Why? Because every other developed nation has regulations that work to lower gun violence. It's not rocket science.

Nobody is painting anyone in a bad light. But what do you say about a party that will not allow a vote in the House or Senate regarding passing universal background checks - something 90 percent of Americans support? Most of my American relatives are Republican and not one of them opposes universal background checks. So why does their own party fail their own electorate? It's not Republican voters who are the problems, it's the NRA funded Republican (and a few Democratic) Congressmen and Senators who do the bidding of the gun-lobby.

Sorry, but it's absurd to suggest that a trouble kid without access to a gun is going to do the same level of violence as a kid with a gun. The same day Adam Lanza shot up 26 people in Newtown a crazed man in China attacked 20 kids with a knife. None of the kids attacked by the guy with the knife lost their lives. The argument that access to deadly weaponry doesn't effect the scope and depth of carnage has no basis in reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the laughable quote about liberals caring about the plight of the inner cities because they offer job training and promote education.. and lets not forget infrastructure. :headbang:

Every time I think I have heard the most ridiculous claim ever, along comes another one.

I believe in banning assault rifles, and magazine clips of excess, but other than that until we meet thugs with what they understand and thats PRISON until they rot, Inner city "plight" will continue to give us multitudes of thug on thug murders, nightly.

And mass shootings is just something that is going to happen from time to time, maybe pay more attention to people acting aloof and mental, but otherwise they will get their hands on weapons to do their thing if it is in their mind, legislation will not stop that.

What's ridiculous about the claim that liberals wanting to help the inner city poor by offering job training, education, and infrastructure projects? You say it's ridiculous, but as usual, you don't explain why.

After a crazed gunman in Australia killed 35 people in 1996, Australia enacted gun legislation that banned private sales, required all guns to be individually registered to their owners, and required gun buyers to present a "genuine reason" for needing a one. Here's what happened:

"What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

So no, mass shootings are not something that will just happen regardless of policy. Sure, there's always going to be the possibility of one in a nation that allows gun ownership, but their frequency and scope can be greatly reduced if the proper laws are put into place. That's a fact because we've seen it happen in Australia.

Lots can be done with respect to mental health (mind you, not if you subscribe to the Republican policy prescriptions of less spending on healthcare), but as others have pointed out already, how one would actually affect gun violence by tackling mental health has yet to be demonstrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA: 10,64

Norway: 1,78

UK: 0,26

most gun deaths in the US are in high crime African American cities, twice as many matter of fact.

So the solution to gun "deaths" is an entirely different conversation than the mass shooting one.

truth be told liberals, political liberals, don't necessarily care about how many people are dying to gun violence, or they would focus on the plight of the inner city.

What they actually really care about is being able to tie some sort of gun violence to votes, and that's where the sympathy lies, in mass shootings of innocent people.

Imagine if they chastised inner city minorities for the real numbers dying there over the senseless drug epidemic and gang wars?

wouldn't bode well for their voting base would it?

You've hit the nail on the head, per usual.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, politicians and the left freak out and overact on gun control. IMO, it's mainly because Republicans are more on the gun ownership side. So a mass-shooting is the perfect time to paint the entire republican population in a bad light.

The greatest mass killings in the US are not caused by guns. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured 600 - without using a gun.

And your facts about inner city violence are SPOT on. As are your comments about certain politicians not wanting to upset that voting population.

Hell, 30 people are killed EVERY day in the United States due to drunk driving accidents.

How many people are killed in mass-shootings? 30 people a YEAR?

From the time somebody wakes up this morning, and then wakes up tomorrow morning - more people will die in drunk driving accidents than will die in the entire next year from a gun man.

Why are people showing 1000 time more emotion about a shooting than they are about the 30 people that die EVERY single day from drunk drivers? Where is the outrage??? (Yes, one crime does not make another crime better or worse. People shouldn't miss the point).

If we could go back in time a couple hundred years and limit the gun industry and usage - that would be awesome.

But today, with how many guns are already out there in society - it's just the band aid to what the real problems are.

The gun is the tool the kid uses to shoot up the school or movie theatre. To think that if he didn't have access to a gun that he wouldn't have still reacted violently is really naïve, imo. If that kid is mentally unstable or so full of anger and without hope that he is willing to go kill a group of innocent people, he IS going to find another method to lash out. A bomb. Starting a school on fire. Poison. Crash your car into a school bus or into a playground.

More bans and tougher laws on guns is definitely a good step. But it certainly won't fix the real issue.

As for as Hilary voicing her opinion, how much value can we put into anything she says? Her views on major issues seem to completely change every few years as she works her way up the political ladder. How do you trust somebody whose core values end up changing so often?

THIS POST IS 100% MY OPINION AND NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANYBODY'S CHARACTER (except for Hilary Clinton).

The argument that access to deadly weaponry doesn't effect the scope and depth of carnage has no basis in reality.

Would you prefer to be attacked by a man with a knife or by a man with a bomb?

No basis in reality. That's a strong statement.

Are you implying that if somebody is messed up enough (for whatever reason) that they would actually go kill a dozen people and then take their own life, are you saying of that person can't get ahold of a gun that they will lose part of their rage or will to kill, and will instead downgrade to just grabbing a knife and stabbing a few people or maybe just getting into a fist didn't? Or maybe not killing at all?

I am not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking you to explain your statement.

I believe if a kid wakes up and says "I'm gonna go kill as many people as possible today" but then he can't find a gun, he will find another way to inflict as much damage as possible. Your no basis in reality comment would seem to indicate you think the kid would go from wanting to murder to a lower level of violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe if a kid wakes up and says "I'm gonna go kill as many people as possible today" but then he can't find a gun, he will find another way to inflict as much damage as possible.

But that damage will be reduced by several orders of magnitude if he can't get his hands on a gun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe if a kid wakes up and says "I'm gonna go kill as many people as possible today" but then he can't find a gun, he will find another way to inflict as much damage as possible.

But that damage will be reduced by several orders of magnitude if he can't get his hands on a gun.

the problem is it still wouldnt be hard to get a gun. you are talking about a country that has as many guns as people.....not to mention if you ban guns(which will never happen) you think the cartels in mexico who have crazy amounts of fire power wont start bringing more and more guns into the country?(which they already do) like i said before with 3d printers you will literally be able to print out a machine gun if you want to and a fully functional gun can be built with everyday items lying around the house. its the same thing with guns as drugs, as long as there is a demand for it someone will always find a way to supply it. criminals and maniacs dont follow the law they could give a shit less, they break dozens of laws when they go off and murder someone. the sandy hook killer broke almost 40 different laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe if a kid wakes up and says "I'm gonna go kill as many people as possible today" but then he can't find a gun, he will find another way to inflict as much damage as possible.

But that damage will be reduced by several orders of magnitude if he can't get his hands on a gun.

the problem is it still wouldnt be hard to get a gun. you are talking about a country that has as many guns as people.....not to mention if you ban guns(which will never happen) you think the cartels in mexico who have crazy amounts of fire power wont start bringing more and more guns into the country?(which they already do) like i said before with 3d printers you will literally be able to print out a machine gun if you want to and a fully functional gun can be built with everyday items lying around the house. its the same thing with guns as drugs, as long as there is a demand for it someone will always find a way to supply it. criminals and maniacs dont follow the law they could give a shit less, they break dozens of laws when they go off and murder someone. the sandy hook killer broke almost 40 different laws.
For the record I don't think sensible gun controls would stop gang violence or anything involving hardcore bad people with guns, at least not for years and years. What I do think it would eliminate pretty much overnight is creepy little aspergers as fuck virgin nerdlingers from carrying out this specific type of mass killing just because mommy never loved them and they had one too many wedgies in high school. Edited by Dazey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think sensible gun control laws are needed no doubt. there is no excuse why the loophole for gun shows and private sales not requiring background checks or universal background checks have not been passed, it should have been passed long ago. instead what we get is we need t ban"assault rifles"(assault rifles are alreadybanned) drunk drivers kill more people in a little over week than "assault rifles" in a year, yet in my state there are liquor stores on every highway with exits to huge liquor stores. you can go through drive through liquor stores that will even put ice in a cup for you.

if you look at the gun deaths in the US the majority are suicides and in homicides the vast number are gang related. the inner cities are poor, there are no jobs and the schools are in shambles. people resort to selling drugs to make money to support themselves and their families. these people defend their territory since its their livelihood. then on top of that you have mexican gangs coming into neighborhoods that are mostly black gang areas and murdering them.

when people say "hey it works in X country" it doesnt really matter. a place like australia, england or canada are isolated and in some cases sparsely populated. not to mention the social makeup of the US. i doubt australia or canada really have to worry about a bunch of gangs or violent cartels for that matter. what is amazing is with all this shit homicides by gun are going down and have been going down since the peak off 1993, almost by 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...