• 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
    477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49270219]No I get it too, trust me. But Chicago, cali, D.C., you can still get a gun [I]relatively[/I] easy, otherwise it would be drawing near to violating the constitution. Despite the measures taken, and the little waiting processes, some of which seem p. reasonable actually. But it's still hard to regulate, or restrict people from getting a hold of guns, since.. you know. We all know the deal. And like user cloak raider suggested, a lot of D.C.'s gun violence often seems to come from neighboring states, which is pretty interesting.. (Who knows how much private sales are conducted in cali as well despite illegal, too? etc..) Anyways, no real solution here by me, either..[/QUOTE] The problem with the useless regulation (I'm not saying regulation is useless) is that it's a waste of time and effort, and only makes life difficult for legitimate gun owners in those states. All it does give politicians and soccer moms a warm and fuzzy 'I did something to curb gun violence :downs:' feeling instead of actually doing things to fix the problem because that would be hard.
[QUOTE=Apache249;49235873]This isn't a "gun crisis." It's a mass shooting crisis.[/QUOTE] They're trying to take our gunz!?!
[QUOTE=coldroll5;49270414]They're trying to take our gunz!?![/QUOTE] :badzing: [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] I'm not even a gun owner, but this level of sensationalism is an absolute farce.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49264648]aren't DCs homicide rates dropping enormously [URL]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Washington_DC_vs_US_total_homicide_rates_1960-2012.svg[/URL] that's a fairly fucking enormous reduction in homicide rate in fact, in 1995-6, in conjunction with the whole Operation Ceasefire thing done elsewhere, the homicide rate absolutely plummets. also in the wikipedia article for it, it says that a significant portion of gun-crime in the capital is committed with guns that came from out-of-state, or at unregulated events[/QUOTE] Homicide rates have fallen enormously nation-wide since the late 80s. The claim that the crime rate drop in 1997 was due to Operation Ceasefire is... tenuous, to say the least. 1997 was the year with the lowest homicide rate in 30 years across the US. It was also the year after the strongest implementation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which gave $30 billion to local law enforcement and crime prevention programs nation-wide, concentrated in crime-ridden areas like Chicago and DC. It is true that many of the guns used in crime in DC come from out of state. But they're not being bought legally out of state and brought to DC, they're illegal weapons being smuggled in and sold to gangs. That requires someone in another state to be buying the guns and selling them to DC residents, which is multiple felonies, and can be traced back through ATF transaction records when the guns are recovered. This is also why I'm in favor of giving normal people access to the NICS, and holding them more accountable in private sale. I'm a responsible gun owner and I don't want to sell to someone who's going to use the gun to commit a crime, I want to run a background check. But if I'm an unscrupulous seller knowingly giving a gun to a felon, I ought to be considered complicit in whatever crime he commits with that gun. [QUOTE=Bat-shit;49270219]Despite the measures taken, and the little waiting processes, some of which seem p. reasonable actually. But it's still hard to regulate, or restrict people from getting a hold of guns, since.. you know. We all know the deal.[/QUOTE] The thing is, all those laws mean that pretty much none of the guns used in crime in DC or Chicago are purchased legitimately. No gangbanger is applying for a firearm permit, undergoing the waiting period, and then passing a background check. They're typically buying from black market dealers who make a killing on selling guns in gun-restricted environments or getting a gun from a friend or family member (who typically in turn has it illegally). I don't mean to sound like one of those 'gun laws don't work repeal all gun laws everyone gets an uzi' types because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's clear evidence that criminals aren't getting their guns legitimately, so laws that further restrict the legitimate purchase of guns simply aren't effective. Our time and effort is better spent focusing on the methods by which illegal firearms are typically procured.
Most illegal guns are bought out of the trunk of an old Monte Carlo. Let's ban Monte Carlos, that will solve the problem.
How about taxing Major weapons and ammunition manufacturers companies higher taxes. Every time there is a shooting, increase the tax and make sure those taxes eat into their profits.
[QUOTE=BCell;49279676]How about taxing Major weapons and ammunition manufacturers companies higher taxes. Every time there is a shooting, increase the tax and make sure those taxes eat into their profits.[/QUOTE] Lmao what? How will this fix anything?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49279685]Lmao what? How will this fix anything?[/QUOTE] Lmao yeah that makes zero sense. It'd be like saying we should tax every fast food establishment more every time someone dies from an obesity-related illness, even if that person didn't eat at a good portion of the chains being taxed. Taxing a company like Smith and Wesson for a shooting done with a Hi-Point sounds buttfuck retarded.
[QUOTE=Fort83;49279737]Would there be any benefits to making it harder to get annunciation for the guns? And it would be a more realistic alternative to restricting guns? Allow people to continue to get whatever firearm they desire but have more restrictions on ammo. Only being able to purchase it at a shooting range, and not allowing the person to take it home unless they have a very extensive background check.[/QUOTE] If you consider even more absurd price gouging on ammunition at ranges a benefit, yes, it'd be highly beneficial. Millions of Americans load their own ammunition at home, so all you'd do is create an under the table home ammunition market with potentially unsafe loads that can injure people who are just trying to have fun or hunt.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49279685]Lmao what? How will this fix anything?[/QUOTE] Well weapon manufacturers are responsible for selling firearms to people. Do you think those weapons manufacturers care about the mass shooting? They probably don't care if the guns they made ends up in the hands of lunatics, criminals and terrorists as long as they get money.
[QUOTE=BCell;49279788]Well weapon manufacturers are responsible for selling firearms to people. Do you think those weapons manufacturers care about the mass shooting? They probably don't care if the guns they made ends up in the hands of lunatics, criminals and terrorists as long as they get money.[/QUOTE] Do you think crims and crazies can just roll up to the factory and buy guns in bulk? This isn't Fallout. And anyway, they very much [I]do[/I] care, the only really dubious manufacturer in the US is Hi-Point. Gun manufacturers take domestic violence committed with their weapons very seriously because if nothing else it severely impacts their business. Firearms enter the black market via unregulated, unscrupulous private sales. They are federally tracked from the moment the serial number is inscribed on the receiver at the factory to the moment they leave the inventory of the retailer.
[QUOTE=Fort83;49279737]Would there be any benefits to making it harder to get ammunition for the guns? And it would be a more realistic alternative than restricting guns? Allow people to continue to get whatever firearm they desire but have more restrictions on ammo. Only being able to purchase it at a shooting range, and not allowing the person to take it home unless they have a very extensive background check. Etc.[/QUOTE] Public bans on things that are easy to create at home are what create black markets. For example, look at Prohibition. Anyone can make alcohol with off-the-shelf ingredients, so instituting laws against its production and distribution had the primary effect of creating new systems of organized crime dedicated to alcohol. Or better yet, consider weed. Despite needing specialized supplies (seeds), growth and sale of weed in states where it is banned is widespread. Ammunition is ridiculously easy to make with home reloading components. Even with a total ban on primers, powder, bullets, and all other reloading components, the amount of those already in circulation is astronomical, and there are plenty of individuals who would take advantage of a ban to make some money for themselves. Also, the people who use large amounts of ammunition are recreational shooters. I can go through a 1000rd case of 9mm in a few months. Your average gangbanger on the other hand realistically needs just enough to fill a magazine. Since they don't need much ammo, it would be very easy to satisfy that requirement through the aforementioned black market. So now he has to pay a dollar a round- so what? Fifteen bucks is nothing when he's already spending $500 on an illegal handgun. Lastly, consider the main reasons law-abiding citizens own firearms- recreation, hunting, and defense. Recreational shooters would be angry that they're expected to shell out for overpriced range ammo, especially when shooting high volumes. Hunters would be angry that they're not allowed to actually have ammo to hunt with, without jumping through more hoops. People concerned about their safety would be rightfully angry that they're allowed to have a gun, but not any ammo to actually shoot through it if the need arises. So basically, I don't think restricting ammo will actually address the problem, and even if it did, the ability to manufacture ammo at home is so widespread that I don't think it would have much effect except to sorely inconvenience legitimate shooters. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=BCell;49279788]Well weapon manufacturers are responsible for selling firearms to people.[/QUOTE] Google is responsible for serving plans of how to build homemade bombs to people. Telecom companies are responsible for facilitating communication and organization amongst people (including terrorists). Hardware stores are responsible for selling steel pipe, fertilizer, and other makeshift bomb components to people. You are going down a dangerous road by holding manufacturers responsible for deliberate misuse use of their products.
We could turn the ceilings of highschools and movie theatres into supermagnets so that nobody can interact with anything metal within those areas. Save that IDK what can be done.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49280988]We could turn the ceilings of highschools and movie theatres into supermagnets so that nobody can interact with anything metal within those areas. Save that IDK what can be done.[/QUOTE] How about remove gun-free zone signs? The Aurora shooter deliberately drove to that theater because the 2-3 other closer theaters allowed firearms through their doors. People always seem to forget, mass shooters, with the exception of some fanatical terrorists, are inherently cowardly people. They deliberately pick locations they know there will be no resistance (hence why schools are popular) and often end their own lives the second police show up. I recall a story where someone started shooting up a mall and a nearby CHL holder simply pointed his weapon at the shooter. The shooter immediately turned his gun to himself, CHL holder didn't need to fire a shot. This is a constantly repeating dynamic. Shooters constantly target areas they know people will be unarmed. They constantly avoid confrontation and often give up immediately upon any form of resistance. Yet people seem to think the solution is to create more areas with unarmed people and provide even less resistance, the very things that facilitate mass shootings in the first place. Why aren't there any mass shootings at NRA conventions? Why aren't gun stores robbed more frequently? Why don't people shoot up police stations? Why are mass shootings so rare in states with lax gun control laws, but common in states with the tightest gun control laws? More guns = less crime is not a logical statement, I am not saying we should just hand out guns to everyone and all problems will be solved. It's moreso creating "gun free" zones also creates "please shoot me in the face" zones. Advertising your vulnerability is never, never, a good thing. Students don't need to be armed, but simply give teachers with CHLs the option of carrying at work and watch school shootings steadily decline. Even if very few or none are carrying, cowardly fuck shooters will be deterred by the mere notion that someone in that building might shoot back.
[QUOTE=billibobc;49261962]This is also not a good argument. Are fast cars, alcohol, or the internet tools to very efficiently kill people?[/QUOTE] Alcohol kills more people every year than all gun crime. Car crashes kill right about the same amount of people as guns.
[QUOTE=BCell;49279788]Well weapon manufacturers are responsible for selling firearms to people. Do you think those weapons manufacturers care about the mass shooting? They probably don't care if the guns they made ends up in the hands of lunatics, criminals and terrorists as long as they get money.[/QUOTE] Are you a moron? The majority of crimes are committed with illegally owned weapons, what, do you think they're buying guns from stores and filing the serial numbers off? Lmao.
[QUOTE=BCell;49279788]Well weapon manufacturers are responsible for selling firearms to people. Do you think those weapons manufacturers care about the mass shooting? They probably don't care if the guns they made ends up in the hands of lunatics, criminals and terrorists as long as they get money.[/QUOTE] Wrong. They sell guns to clearing houses, who sell them to dealers, who then sell them to people. And they shouldn't care about how people use them. That's like blaming an auto maker when someone uses one of their cars in a bank robbery.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.