SoulMonster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Maybe he really was evil, as Trump said. It definitely wasn't some spontaneous act of madness. But I suppose insanity can be premediated, too. Anyway, really horrible event. I feel for all affected by the atrocity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) This is interesting and very clearly show that something is horribly wrong with USA. About 27 times more gun deaths per capita in USA compared to Norway. In Norway we have a very strong hunting culture and the number of guns per capita isn't that far away from USA (112 vs 31 per 100 residents), but we don't have a culture of fear and we take care of the mentally ill - which I guess helps to explain the difference. Our guns are also made for hunting (mostly), not for killing other humans. Edited October 5, 2017 by SoulMonster 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) The more I look into this...the lack of a clear motive, etc....the more I'm beginning to believe that the guy was basically evil...or had evil thoughts in his mind for quite some time and eventually acted on those thoughts. Whether you want to call it "crazy" or "evil" doesn't make a difference to me...but to me, "crazy" guys usually can't put together a meticulous plan like this, tell basically no one and basically go through with it as planned. If you look at what the guy enjoyed: gambling, flying, etc...he was a risk taker...so he needed risk in his life to "feel good". After some time, gambling no longer feels that good when you do it professionally (I played professional poker years ago). After some time it basically becomes a regular "job" and rather boring. Could he have hit this point a year ago when he started to buy all the guns? He was comped free high rise hotel rooms for years....how many times did he look out of those rooms and see a large concert crowd?....and maybe thought, he could easily take out hundreds of them if he wanted to....maybe that's how the thoughts began and years later he went through with it. Psychopaths don't think like the rest of us. Some barely feel emotions....maybe gambling made him feel good for a while, when it stopped making him feel good his true evil spirit came out and he took it to the next, completely psychopathic level. Edited October 5, 2017 by Kasanova King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 An autopsy might also reveal if it might have been a clinical condition. Here are the summary findings of the Connolly Commission that reviewed the autopsy findings of Charles Whitman, the Texas University clock tower shooter: "They found that the tumor had features of a glioblastoma multiforme, with widespread areas of necrosis, palisading[a] of cells and a "remarkable vascular component" described as having "the nature of a small congenital vascular malformation." Psychiatric contributors to the report concluded that "the relationship between the brain tumor and [...] Whitman's actions [...] cannot be established with clarity. However, the [...] tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions", while the neurologists and neuropathologists concluded: "The application of existing knowledge of organic brain function does not enable us to explain the actions of Whitman on August first." Maybe nothing, but perhaps there is a biological or chemical explanation for Paddock's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontdamnmeuyi2015 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Kasanova King said: Paddock may have previously targeted Lollapalooza festival in Chicago over the summer. Starting to look like the guy just wanted to target a large group of people....looking less and less "politically motivated". Yeah, and it's learned he was with a mystery woman. Last night CNN showed more footage of fans running out of the venue. The caption said "More footage of people running for their lives". I thought that was terrible. It's amazing no one ran over each other to get out. Then you could hear the gun fire. It's like a bad dream. I doubt any gun law will stop all this gun violence. I think it's too late for that. It seems these guys buy the guns months apart and on different sites and no one can trace them. CNN talked to an FBI guy and he said how hard it was to track them and some of it was against the law and they couldn't do anything about it. How shitty is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 The NRA is cleverly jumping at the opportunity to support regulation of bump stocks, making them come out as reasonable heroes, stifling further discussions to regulate firearms, and doing next to nothing to reduce the 30k gun deaths in USA per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) The USA is very unwell and it needs help. Help from the outside. An approach the rest of the word might try is to engage US citizens and dwellers to help them start to care about and relate to the homeless and dispossessed, the mad and the imprisoned. To point out that the lie that is the American Dream causes individuals to disassociate from their own class and, rather, to identify with the elites (erroneously believing they will join them soon if they obey and keep their nose down - ignoring the suffering caused to themselves and their peers by those very elites and the structure of Capital). The stratification caused by the implied rules of the American Dream seems to be distorting their perspective on the value of life. Almost like other humans bodies are seen as a mode of transportation to climb upwards; whose faces are just rungs of a ladder to be grasped at to elevate ones self. Obviously this is just one possible piece of a complex puzzle, but as has been said: we gotta get started somewhere. If you're in the US and thinking, "Hey! I am one of those who fights for economic justice, equality and inclusion!" Then I say thank you!! Keep enraged and carry on!! Edited October 6, 2017 by soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 hours ago, downzy said: An autopsy might also reveal if it might have been a clinical condition. Here are the summary findings of the Connolly Commission that reviewed the autopsy findings of Charles Whitman, the Texas University clock tower shooter: "They found that the tumor had features of a glioblastoma multiforme, with widespread areas of necrosis, palisading[a] of cells and a "remarkable vascular component" described as having "the nature of a small congenital vascular malformation." Psychiatric contributors to the report concluded that "the relationship between the brain tumor and [...] Whitman's actions [...] cannot be established with clarity. However, the [...] tumor conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions", while the neurologists and neuropathologists concluded: "The application of existing knowledge of organic brain function does not enable us to explain the actions of Whitman on August first." Maybe nothing, but perhaps there is a biological or chemical explanation for Paddock's actions. Shit, Whitman, i forgot about Whitman, hes sort of like Whitman, isn’t he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janrichmond Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 39 minutes ago, Len Cnut said: Shit, Whitman, i forgot about Whitman, hes sort of like Whitman, isn’t he? Whitman was aware that something was 'wrong' with him wasn't he? He asked for his brain to be examined after death to find the cause his violent urges, i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 hours ago, SoulMonster said: The NRA is cleverly jumping at the opportunity to support regulation of bump stocks, making them come out as reasonable heroes, stifling further discussions to regulate firearms, and doing next to nothing to reduce the 30k gun deaths in USA per year. Meanwhile guns stores are selling out bump stocks everywhere. Everybody wins. Well except for the victims and their families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Bump stocks are shit anyway. Anyone who has used them can attest that that won't make any difference other than to appease people who don't know any different. No bump stocks give people a false sense of security that maybe there won't be another madman.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 On 10/4/2017 at 9:46 AM, downzy said: I was chatting with @gunsguy about this last night on Facebook and our conversation ran on similar lines. He pointed out that the war on drugs and attempts to ban them have proven futile. And while that might be so, I'm not sure if drugs and guns are as comparable as we might think. I'm not a gun owner myself (surprise, surprise), so perhaps I'm uninformed on the dynamics of gun ownership, but I don't believe there is an addictive quality to owning a gun like there is with the consumption of booze or alcohol. Drug abuse is really a matter of combating psychological or physiological issues whereby drug abuse provides temporary relief. I don't see that same dynamic with guns. Save for the truly mentally deranged, I've never heard of anyone "jonesing" for a gun. I do agree that tackling the gun problem in the US is akin to climbing a mountain and that where the country exists now is squarely at the bottom. But the moral imperative is to at least try by using best practices employed by other civilized nations. The argument that nothing can be done doesn't hold water. It would take a real longterm commitment and success would be every elusive and always in the distance, but think of the number of lives that could be saved in the coming decades if America's priority was improving access to quality healthcare (which includes improved treatment for mental illness) while at the same time curbing access to firearms in the form of banning high-efficiency firearms, greater onerous gun ownership (training, storage, etc.) and limitations on gun efficiencies (banning high capacity gun clips/magazines). I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who argues that those measures won't have any effect on gun-related violence. It's a dynamic that has played out in every other developed nation. America, despite its President, is not that different than England, Canada, or Australia. I agree the same method of addiction is not there however I would argue that even if you don't own a gun we all have certain "addictions" we have, if you minus drugs or booze how about phones, vehicles, etc? Well you cannot be technically addicted wouldn't you say we certainly seem to be addicted? I am to my phone I think, maybe it's not the right word but fuck me if I have to go without it for awhile, that is physiological as well because it won't make me ill or anything yet I HAVE to have it. Guns are kind of like that, guitars too, once you have one you want more even if you don't get more, you want more. Have you ever shot a gun of any kind @downzy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 He probably would have go more kills if he just stuck with semi-auto. Then the NRA and the GOP would have to deal with the high capacity ammunition argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 3 hours ago, gunsguy said: I agree the same method of addiction is not there however I would argue that even if you don't own a gun we all have certain "addictions" we have, if you minus drugs or booze how about phones, vehicles, etc? Well you cannot be technically addicted wouldn't you say we certainly seem to be addicted? I am to my phone I think, maybe it's not the right word but fuck me if I have to go without it for awhile, that is physiological as well because it won't make me ill or anything yet I HAVE to have it. Guns are kind of like that, guitars too, once you have one you want more even if you don't get more, you want more. Have you ever shot a gun of any kind @downzy? Yeah, I see what you're saying. I feel strange if I go a few hours looking at my phone. But I just don't think phone "addiction," like gun addiction, is anywhere near addictions to alcohol, gambling, and particularly drugs. I've never heard of whoring themselves out for their next gun fix or breaking their hands or wrist so they can get another oxycodent script. I've head a few guns but never shot one. Although, as strange as this sounds, I do want to go to a gun range if I'm ever in Vegas to give it a try. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 23 minutes ago, downzy said: Yeah, I see what you're saying. I feel strange if I go a few hours looking at my phone. But I just don't think phone "addiction," like gun addiction, is anywhere near addictions to alcohol, gambling, and particularly drugs. I've never heard of whoring themselves out for their next gun fix or breaking their hands or wrist so they can get another oxycodent script. I've head a few guns but never shot one. Although, as strange as this sounds, I do want to go to a gun range if I'm ever in Vegas to give it a try. I realize this may not be something you wanna do however... Perhaps you and I could go a range nearby and record some of our day for the forum? One of us has never shot before and one of us has. I like guns and respect them greatly, I grew up with them and my father taught me a lot about them. I grew up much further North and guns were a part of that upbringing. I can't say you will enjoy it but there is something about shooting a gun that draws many in, in that regard it can be addicting, perhaps more so like a collector, its hard to describe really. Doesn't mean it will change your mind on anything however it would be a fun time for us both that I can be sure of. I am not a pro by any means, been a few years since I even shot one. It would give us a safe place to view the different people and guns out there and may give us another point of view on certain aspects of the gun. You are right in that unlike drugs the addiction isn't steadfast. It is more like an overwhelming enjoyment perhaps rather than a true addiction. Some folks are addicted to collecting baseball cards, tee shirts... others like collecting records or whatever. Some of us may be addicted to sex. Perhaps my comparison to drugs was not exactly on the same level, I am not sure what is exactly, I just know that people develop a want (I guess as opposed to a "need" like drugs) Maybe its a thrill or maybe its something else 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Georgy Zhukov said: He probably would have go more kills if he just stuck with semi-auto. Then the NRA and the GOP would have to deal with the high capacity ammunition argument. We don't know his experience with the guns however as people get more experience the high capacity thing doesn't do much to make me feel any better about a madman hellbent on as many kills as he can. Why? Because a shooter with experience can change them fast enough to keep the shooting going pretty fast. In THIS case he had a lot of time to change them out. there isnt a process you have to get through really, you simply unclip the mag and pop another in, we are talking seconds for an experienced shooter. Yes you would need to carry more of them sure but being perched in a room he had the option of having hundreds of mags if he wanted. An experienced shooter does not mean some military man who has training, I am talking about the average Joe who goes and practices at a range and builds speed and accuracy. Of course again in THIS case he didn't need accuracy either, he simply had to point it towards the crowd and fire then keep firing in the same general area, he was going to hit someone it didn't matter how accurate he was. As far as bump fire goes, bump fire stocks were legalized under Obama. The NRA is giving them a bone by asking them to review it, it passed twice so I can't imagine they will overturn it but if they do so be it, it is low hanging fruit for the NRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/4/2017 at 8:44 PM, Bono said: The problem with guns in America is the pro gun crowd at large have such a perverse attitude towards guns. The gun culture mentality is absurd. Nobody is saying ban all guns. Nobody says to take away all the guns. However some common sense needs to be implemented but holy fucking shit the second you even remotely start to talk about any kind of gun control of gun legislation no matter how minute, the pro gun crowd freak the fuck out as if you're not only attacking their "god given rights to bare arms" but attacking them personally. Only in America is Stephen Paddock's right to own all those fucking guns more important than the people he shot, killed and injured's right to universal health care to treat their injuries. The argument that there are too many guns already to do anything is flat out fucking bullshit. There is no easy fix and there is nothing that can be done to change things over night. It will be a long and tiresome process but changes need to be made and you gotta start somewhere. For anyone to sit back now and cling to the 2nd amendment and even remotely suggest changes are not needed is fucking asinine. The person who does that is an parasitic asshole straight up. To give an example of how damn stupid and perverted the attitude towards guns in America is, the number of comments I've read online from people suggesting the answer is more guns and more people armed the safer everyone will be is astonishing. I've actually read numerous comments from people who genuinely believe if everyone in that crowd had been carrying this would have been far less catastrophic and possibly even prevented altogether. The stupidity of people knows no bounds. And like I said the funny thing is far too many of the people who think that way, who support a person's right to bare arms before anything else, feel that right is more important than a child's right or the rights of those injured in this inciddent to health care. It's unreal. I'm sorry to one of the people who looks from the outside and criticizes but honestly it's time for America to pull it's head out of it's ass when it comes to this topic. No longer do any of your thoughts and prayers mean a fucking thing if as a whole the country refuses to move forward and make drastic changes to at the very least experiment with possible solutions. **Note: Nowhere in my post did I say ban all guns and take all guns away from good law abiding gun owners but rest assured someone will counter my post with that type of bullshit. It always happens. Like clock work. And also cue the person who thinks because I'm not American I have no clue what I'm talking about. Yeah you're right. I'm only a dumb Canadian who lives right next door. The rest of the world has no clue. America's attitude towards guns is probably the most effective way to go. What changes would you like to see that could have prevented this attack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 32 minutes ago, gunsguy said: What changes would you like to see that could have prevented this attack? I'm not gonna bother reading the thread to see what your stance on this is but I'm sorry to say your question is bullshit because we all know there isn't one single change or multiple changes that can prevent this overnight but I'm sure that's the answer you want. People have this tendency to use that as the justification to do nothing. Like if we can't prevent all gun related deaths than what's the point. It's a pointless question really in a debate where one side refuses to see anything involving "gun control" as anything other than an infringement on their "God given right to bare arms". My post was very clear and to the point. Changes need to be made that can over time produce results and if not at the very least something should be done to at least experiment in the hopes of producing positive results. America needs to start somewhere rather than nowhere. Had this guy been a Syrian refugee or had he simply been related to immigrants or if he had a muslim family the entire right and most gun owners would be screaming their lungs out that changes need to be made to who's allowed into the country. They'd want his family deported, they'd want stronger background checks, they'd want the wall built NOW! They'd want so much new legislation to prevent this yet if anyone dare said maybe we need better background checks when it comes to purchasing guns well holy shit fuck that bullshit. Are you insane? That's my god given right to own a gun, fuck you fuck you fuck you, you idiot liberals. I could suggest one "simple" change that would possibly strike fear into some people possessing illegal weapons but the pro gun crowd would cry outrage because it would infringe on said "god given right to bare arms". It's so beyond laughable how tightly people hold onto that "right" yet laugh at the idea of universal health care. Registering a gun is a small thing to do. Fuck sakes we all do it every year with our vehicles so all this bitching and moaning that registering a gun one time is such an infringement is horsehsit. Start with this. Make it harsh and make it real. All gun owners must register their firearms in their name. It can even be free or $5 or whatever just don't make it some blatant cash grab for the government. Make it so the intent behind the reasoning is genuine. Whatever it is they need to be registered to the rightful owner. ANYONE caught in possession of an illegal or unregistered or not registered in their name firearm faces an automatic 5 years in jail. Second offence is 15 years. See how willing people are to be in possession of these guns then. Will it stop all psychotic mass murders? No. Of course not but it might be able to put a dent in the day to day gun deaths in America. I just gave an extreme example and of course it opens another debate about the number of people already incarcerated but don't sit there and act like NOTHING can be done. There is a lot that could be done if only people weren't such fucking jackasses who felt their right to own a gun supersedes every other human right. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, Bono said: I'm not gonna bother reading the thread to see what your stance on this is but I'm sorry to say your question is bullshit because we all know there isn't one single change or multiple changes that can prevent this overnight but I'm sure that's the answer you want. People have this tendency to use that as the justification to do nothing. Like if we can't prevent all gun related deaths than what's the point. It's a pointless question really in a debate where one side refuses to see anything involving "gun control" as anything other than an infringement on their "God given right to bare arms". My post was very clear and to the point. Changes need to be made that can over time produce results and if not at the very least something should be done to at least experiment in the hopes of producing positive results. America needs to start somewhere rather than nowhere. Had this guy been a Syrian refugee or had he simply been related to immigrants or if he had a muslim family the entire right and most gun owners would be screaming their lungs out that changes need to be made to who's allowed into the country. They'd want his family deported, they'd want stronger background checks, they'd want the wall built NOW! They'd want so much new legislation to prevent this yet if anyone dare said maybe we need better background checks when it comes to purchasing guns well holy shit fuck that bullshit. Are you insane? That's my god given right to own a gun, fuck you fuck you fuck you, you idiot liberals. I could suggest one "simple" change that would possibly strike fear into some people possessing illegal weapons but the pro gun crowd would cry outrage because it would infringe on said "god given right to bare arms". It's so beyond laughable how tightly people hold onto that "right" yet laugh at the idea of universal health care. Registering a gun is a small thing to do. Fuck sakes we all do it every year with our vehicles so all this bitching and moaning that registering a gun one time is such an infringement is horsehsit. Start with this. Make it harsh and make it real. All gun owners must register their firearms in their name. It can even be free or $5 or whatever just don't make it some blatant cash grab for the government. Make it so the intent behind the reasoning is genuine. Whatever it is they need to be registered to the rightful owner. ANYONE caught in possession of an illegal or unregistered or not registered in their name firearm faces an automatic 5 years in jail. Second offence is 15 years. See how willing people are to be in possession of these guns then. Will it stop all psychotic mass murders? No. Of course not but it might be able to put a dent in the day to day gun deaths in America. I just gave an extreme example and of course it opens another debate about the number of people already incarcerated but don't sit there and act like NOTHING can be done. There is a lot that could be done if only people weren't such fucking jackasses who felt their right to own a gun supersedes every other human right. There was no answer I want... I am generally curious to see responses on how to fix the problem when a mass murderer acts on his evil ways. I am not opposed to change at all. I genuinely do not see the relationship between the changes you proposed and the prevention of this. Why? Because there was nothing in his checks that would have red flagged him in anyway. I am not saying change nothing and expect change I was asking how we can prevent a madman from doing this again. A lot of people think gun laws, sure that is obvious but if we could go back in time what specifically could of possibly prevented this? I am not sure any side has an answer to that. If guns themselves were the issue solely we would have a lot more mass murders in Canada wouldn't you agree? We have millions of gun owners here too. The route to get a gun here may differ but if your clean you are clean and you get a licence no issue. It appears there is a line in between law abiding gun owners and evil, this guy stepped over it for unknown reasons. I think that beyond guns there is something else at play be it mental health, poverty or something we can't see that puts America in trouble with violence. I don't have an answer but thank you for your response Bono 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 23 minutes ago, gunsguy said: I think that beyond guns there is something else at play be it mental health, poverty or something we can't see that puts America in trouble with violence. Because USA is fixated with violence? Because it cherishes violent brutes? Because it is enamored with the idea that might is right? Look at their heroes, look at its history, look at their media, look at Trump. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, gunsguy said: There was no answer I want... I am generally curious to see responses on how to fix the problem when a mass murderer acts on his evil ways. I am not opposed to change at all. I genuinely do not see the relationship between the changes you proposed and the prevention of this. Why? Because there was nothing in his checks that would have red flagged him in anyway. I am not saying change nothing and expect change I was asking how we can prevent a madman from doing this again. A lot of people think gun laws, sure that is obvious but if we could go back in time what specifically could of possibly prevented this? I am not sure any side has an answer to that. If guns themselves were the issue solely we would have a lot more mass murders in Canada wouldn't you agree? We have millions of gun owners here too. The route to get a gun here may differ but if your clean you are clean and you get a licence no issue. It appears there is a line in between law abiding gun owners and evil, this guy stepped over it for unknown reasons. I think that beyond guns there is something else at play be it mental health, poverty or something we can't see that puts America in trouble with violence. I don't have an answer but thank you for your response Bono But it doesn't really take much to get someone from law-abiding to non-law abiding. As Jim Jefferies argues in his bit on the topic, you unfortunately have to play to the lowest common denominator. Sure, there are many people who can handle the responsibility of owning certain types of weaponry. But we can't set policy according to those individuals (even if they appear to be in the overwhelming majority). We have to play to the deranged few who may not have the resources or know-wherewithal to access highly potent weapons. We don't allow people to drive track-tuned sports cars on our streets because a few fucknuts will, well, fuck things up. So we put limits on what cars and trucks are allowed to be driven with a standard license. I've got no issues with allowing access to a certain levels of weaponry if they came with greater demands on the user's training and background (as well as limits on where they can be used). The issue isn't that those like yourself who argue that greater oversight on gun ownership and use would not likely have prevented what happened in Vegas are wrong. You're likely correct that changes in gun policy would not have changed much (though limits on quantity, type, and ammunition capacities might have likely lessened the carnage and death toll). But that's not really the point that most reasonable advocates for gun control in and outside of the US are trying to make. Mass shootings are just another and glaring reminder of the problem of gun violence that plagues a relatively civilized nation that is not present in other similarly civilized countries. It's the only time everyone is paying attention to the issue, so it's an opportunity like none other to underscore the problem of gun violence in general and suggest solutions that would have an effect on gun violence in its entirety. It's unreasonable to argue that universal background checks or a ban on assault weapons would have made what happened in Vegas an unlikely proposition. But those policy changes would likely have a dramatic effect on gun violence as a whole. It's the low lying fruit to addressing a real problem. And it isn't the only necessary adjustment to the problem, but it is one of them and likely the most effective and feasible (relatively) to tackling the more complex contributors to the problem (addressing shortages in identifying and treating mental health, lack of economic opportunity, poverty, etc.). Almost every regressive analysis of the problem points to a strong correlation between gun violence and the qualitative, quantitative and support to a nation's gun policy. Studies continually demonstrate that when you control for poverty, mental health treatment, inequality, and gun policy, it's gun policy that shows the greatest effect on gun violence. I'm sure you're familiar with Hastings street (and surrounding area) in Vancouver; one of Canada's worst neighbourhood for crime, drugs, gangs, and poverty. And yet there were only 11 murders in Vancouver in 2016. There are obviously clear reasons for this outside of gun ownership and saturation, but obviously gun policy plays an important role when one compares American cities that likely do not have a neighbourhood like Hastings. Admittedly this just anecdotal on my part, but I think it underscores how we can compare nations that choose to more onerous regulations than those that do not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 4 hours ago, gunsguy said: There was no answer I want... I am generally curious to see responses on how to fix the problem when a mass murderer acts on his evil ways. I am not opposed to change at all. I genuinely do not see the relationship between the changes you proposed and the prevention of this. Why? Because there was nothing in his checks that would have red flagged him in anyway. I am not saying change nothing and expect change I was asking how we can prevent a madman from doing this again. A lot of people think gun laws, sure that is obvious but if we could go back in time what specifically could of possibly prevented this? I am not sure any side has an answer to that. If guns themselves were the issue solely we would have a lot more mass murders in Canada wouldn't you agree? We have millions of gun owners here too. The route to get a gun here may differ but if your clean you are clean and you get a licence no issue. It appears there is a line in between law abiding gun owners and evil, this guy stepped over it for unknown reasons. I think that beyond guns there is something else at play be it mental health, poverty or something we can't see that puts America in trouble with violence. I don't have an answer but thank you for your response Bono Of course there is something else at play here. Mental issues, snap shows, Psychos, evil fucking people etc etc. BUT this man purchased all that gear legally. None of the stuff he used should be legal. There is ZERO reason why any human being needs what he had. Just listening to the video clips is horrifying and yet having that kind of fire power was perfectly legal and his right to own it once again is more important to way too many people than the rights to health care of his victims. America has a sick and twisted view on gun. The culture is so perverse it's nearly impossible to imagine it exists in a developed country. You're right though there is more at play. Mental health is a big issue but mental health is this incredible enigma. We haven't even scrathed the surface of understanding it. Guns well those are an inanimate object that we could do something about eve in some small way. For example, put 100 mentally ill people in a room with 1 gun or 100 guns it doesn't matter. What's the first step to preventing anyone from getting hurt? Curing mental illness or removing the guns? The answer is obvious and America needs to start looking at a way they can reduce the number of guns and the ease in which people get their hands on them. There is no other way around it other than with some kind of legislation. It will likely be trial and error but at the end of the day something needs to be done, something needs to change. Doing nothing is to spit in the face and on the graves of everyone who's been impacted by such events. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, Bono said: For example, put 100 mentally ill people in a room with 1 gun or 100 guns it doesn't matter. What's the first step to preventing anyone from getting hurt? Curing mental illness or removing the guns? Shooting the mentally ill people? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Or you could put the gun in a room with sane people instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Len Cnut said: Or you could put the gun in a room with sane people instead? This is starting to sound like a Saw movie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.