994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
477 replies, posted
Skewing statistics to help push an agenda.
Other countries have it just as bad, if not worse with gun violence/crime, its just that it doesn't get reported/the media never catches wind. If they do, then the country keeps a tight lip, whereas the states has no filter.
Given the population of the US, we've got it pretty good over here. The main focus should be on gang violence/activity (main offenders from what I understand) and reforming the judicial system (completely broken, keep minor offenders out of prison so they can be with their familys/father their children), not banning guns. Banning guns only makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to aquire them.
Its easy to say "ban guns", but then what? Do you go into the homes of every person and raid it for weapons? Can you be sure to get every one? It reminds me of the whole confederate flag fiasco, flag is banned, now what? Life moves on, nobody gives a shit anymore, and the people who liked the flag suffer because of something getting blown out of proportion.
Look at what happened with gun free zones? A safe haven for shooters to basically shoot fish in a barrel, now imagine all of the states like that? All it takes is one nut with a gun and he has free rein to shoot to his hearts desire until an officer rolls around.
I dont want to turn this into a pro-guns sans-guns debate, I'm just wondering what would be the most viable approach?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49236043][Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/gb.png[/img]: "guns are bad"
[Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/us.png[/img]: "crazy people are bad"
[Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/se.png[/img]: "as a European I am compelled to agree with england and disagree with america"[/QUOTE]
"proboardslol": "I generalize opinions"
Seeing as nobody agrees on anything, it's inevitable that at this rate more deadly shootings are going to happen, I just hope nobody is sick enough to target children.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49236043][Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/gb.png[/img]: "guns are bad"
[Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/us.png[/img]: "crazy people are bad"
[Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/se.png[/img]: "as a European I am compelled to agree with england and disagree with america"[/QUOTE]
I like guns, I go shooting in UK and check the ugly/cool guns thread on fp at least daily. I think you can enjoy and appreciate them without having 1 in your house, or feeling the compulsion to walk around with it. I feel safe without a gun here in the UK and we have crime issues and mental health issues like the US. Our nutters don't have such easy access to guns (what little gun crime we have is usually hand guns) and as a result we have much lower deaths from crime per capita.
You can blame nutters and crime and poverty and gangs but ultimately the impact of all those would be reduced if they weren't using guns to do their killing. It might be too late to solve the wide availability of guns in the US but simply saying "solve crime and mental illness" is unrealistic in the short term (it will take decades even if we/you started today)
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;49236074]Skewing statistics to help push an agenda.
Other countries have it just as bad, if not worse with gun violence/crime, its just that it doesn't get reported/the media never catches wind. If they do, then the country keeps a tight lip, whereas the states has no filter.?[/QUOTE]
This is blatantly untrue and it's so easy to prove that it's not true that I'm shocked you'd think you could get away with it. America leads the Western world in [I]per capita[/I] gun violence by a wide margin. It only takes the most cursory google search on "per capita gun violence by country" to completely discredit that point. Not counting literal warzones, only fourteen other countries on the planet have it "just as bad" or "worse" as the United States when it comes to gun violence adjusted for population, and every one of them is in Africa or South America (excepting Mexico) in incredibly unstable regions. Like, I don't care what your personal position on gun control is, you can't spread obvious misinformation in order to make your point.
Define "Mass Shooting" and remove cases of gang violence and self/home defense cases and watch the number drop like a rock.
Want to tackle gun violence? Tackle gang violence, that's where most of your statistics come from. I'd also like to note that most of "Gun Violence" happens to be in the places with the strictest anti-gun legislation in place, so that's cool too, the legislation is useless if you don't actually tackle the biggest offenders.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49236107] I think you can enjoy and appreciate them without having 1 in your house[/QUOTE]
the entire point of me owning it would for me to, you know, own it and have it in my house.
not to mention that would royally fuck up reenacting as a hobby, especially the period I'm interested in (WWI)
I think its kinda ironic that most of floridas crime is in/around Miami. Shock.
Guns don't have the ability to pull their own triggers. Guns don't force people to kill each other by putting a knife to your throat. People kill people, this isn't the guns fault. Criminals that want guns will always find a way to get them. We've already seen evidence of this from Paris. What we need is better mental health and better health care for all (preferably single payer) so these sick individuals can find help and get that help if they can't afford it and want it. This isn't a cookie cutter solution but it would be a good first step. Just my thoughts.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49236121]Define "Mass Shooting" and remove cases of gang violence and self/home defense cases and watch the number drop like a rock.[/QUOTE]
how often has a mass shooting had to do with selfdefense lol
[QUOTE=apierce1289;49236189]Guns don't have the ability to pull their own triggers. Guns don't force people to kill each other by putting a knife to your throat. People kill people, this isn't the guns fault. Criminals that want guns will always find a way to get them. We've already seen evidence of this from Paris. What we need is better mental health and better health care for all (preferably single payer) so these sick individuals can find help and get that help if they can't afford it and want it. This isn't a cookie cutter solution but it would be a good first step. Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
Why can't it be both? It doesn't have to be just one or the other: people or guns.
Guns do not pull their own trigger, you're right, but guns give people who want to pull a trigger the ability to do so much more harm than they otherwise could. Bad people are a problem. Bad people with guns are a bigger problem. This is a crisis that needs to managed on multiple fronts, and just as focusing strictly on gun control without addressing the human element is doomed to fail, so is the reverse.
[QUOTE=Kannata;49236247]how often has a mass shooting had to do with selfdefense lol[/QUOTE]
Someone already posted that at least one of the "mass shootings" was a home invasion in which the burglars were injured.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49236256]Why can't it be both? It doesn't have to be just one or the other: people or guns.
Guns do not pull their own trigger, you're right, but guns give people who want to pull a trigger the ability to do so much more harm than they otherwise could. Bad people are a problem. Bad people with guns are a bigger problem. This is a crisis that needs to managed on multiple fronts, and just as focusing strictly on gun control without addressing the human elements is doomed to fail, so is the reverse.[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right. But we can both agree that there's nothing to be gained from reactively legislating in a way that only really affects people who have already and would only continue to follow the law, correct?
[QUOTE=Kannata;49236247]how often has a mass shooting had to do with selfdefense lol[/QUOTE]
When you are attending your wife's boss' christmas party in a skyscraper and you get attacked by a team of german criminals equipped with mp5s, LAWs and c4 explosives planning on stealing $640m in untraceable bonds from the company's vault and all you have a semi auto pistol and sleeveless vest.
[QUOTE=Kannata;49236247]how often has a mass shooting had to do with selfdefense lol[/QUOTE]
Because, as has been stated, "victims" of shootings are anyone ranging from someone getting hit, to someone scraping their knee while trying to get away. So if someone in a dark alley fires their weapon in self-defense, the attacker is injured, the shooter is injured (probably scuffed up at least from the conflict), and if at least 2 people get scraped up fleeing from the sound of gunfire, it has officially become a "mass shooting" by definition.
And keep in mind the media will do anything to redefine any incident as a mass shooting. There have been single shooter, single victim incidents reported as "mass shooting in progress we have no idea if he's going to shoot anybody else stay tuned for more but first watch these ads".
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49236107]Our nutters don't have such easy access to guns (what little gun crime we have is usually hand guns) and as a result we have much lower deaths from crime per capita.[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of gun deaths in USA are also from handguns.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49236107]You can blame nutters and crime and poverty and gangs but ultimately the impact of all those would be reduced if they weren't using guns to do their killing. It might be too late to solve the wide availability of guns in the US but simply saying "solve crime and mental illness" is unrealistic in the short term (it will take decades even if we/you started today)[/QUOTE]
But that is the way to do it. How many people are murdered in America has scarcely anything to do with the availability of guns. If someone is going to kill someone else, even if you somehow magically wish away all guns, they'll just do it with something else. And if you outlaw guns now, all it will do it create a [i]MASSIVE[/i] black market for guns, which will directly feed the already huge criminal underworld, which as far as I know is what causes the majority of these deaths, and guess what, feeding it will cause [i]even more deaths[/i].
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236266]You're absolutely right. But we can both agree that there's nothing to be gained from reactively legislating in a way that only really affects people who have already and would only continue to follow the law, correct?[/QUOTE]
Depends largely on what you mean by that statement. I don't know that it's possible to make the changes necessary without impacting lawful gun owners in [I]some[/I] way, though I'd definitely prefer a magic wand solution.
My personal preferred policies would, at least, grandfather in a variety of weapons: including historical pieces and sporting equipment. The brunt of focus on gun control and gun depopulation needs to be targeted towards handguns and semi-automatic rifles, as far as I'm concerned.
[QUOTE=Kannata;49236247]how often has a mass shooting had to do with selfdefense lol[/QUOTE]
Multiple assailants?
[QUOTE=apierce1289;49236189]Guns don't have the ability to pull their own triggers. Guns don't force people to kill each other by putting a knife to your throat. People kill people, this isn't the guns fault. Criminals that want guns will always find a way to get them. We've already seen evidence of this from Paris. What we need is better mental health and better health care for all (preferably single payer) so these sick individuals can find help and get that help if they can't afford it and want it. This isn't a cookie cutter solution but it would be a good first step. Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
ax's don't cut down trees, people do. now go cut down that tree without an ax.
like i said on the previous page; this isn't just a gun thing and it isn't just a people thing
[QUOTE=Kannata;49236247]how often has a mass shooting had to do with selfdefense lol[/QUOTE]
Very often, if you consider the extremely weak definition of 'mass-shooting'
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49236118]This is blatantly untrue and it's so easy to prove that it's not true that I'm shocked you'd think you could get away with it. America leads the Western world in [I]per capita[/I] gun violence by a wide margin. It only takes the most cursory google search on "per capita gun violence by country" to completely discredit that point. Only fourteen other countries on the planet have it "just as bad" or "worse" as the United States when it comes to gun violence adjusted for population, and every one of them is in Africa or South America (excepting Mexico) in incredibly unstable regions. Like, I don't care what your personal position on gun control is, you can't spread obvious misinformation in order to make your point.[/QUOTE]
"You also need to be very careful before relying too heavily on homicide rates in other countries. If the Unites States is relatively more accurate in measuring its homicide rate and other countries try to hide their rates, it will look make it look like the US has a relatively higher rate than it actually does. Take two examples.
Argentina — Some countries might deliberately mischaracterize homicides into another category.
The breakdown of official statistics also raises the critical question of whether the extent of youth homicides is being obscured. With gun suicides and accidental deaths separately categorized, many of the violent deaths involving a firearm that La Nacion reports are currently listed as “unknown intent” could be homicides. . .
UK — Homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US."
Source: [url]http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/[/url]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49236315]Depends largely on what you mean by that statement. I don't know that it's possible to make the changes necessary without impacting lawful gun owners in [I]some[/I] way, though I'd definitely prefer a magic wand solution.
My personal preferred policies would, at least, grandfather in a variety of weapons: including historical pieces and sporting equipment. The brunt of focus on gun control and gun depopulation needs to be targeted towards handguns and semi-automatic rifles, as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE]
But that's a very broad brush to paint with. Semi-automatic doesn't necessarily make it more dangerous, just like being open-bolt doesn't make it more dangerous (which is one of the reasons the open-bolt ban is retarded). Additionally no criminals are shooting people up with $1200 USPs or $800 AR-15s unless they've stolen them and aren't expecting to be able to sell them for money.
My point isn't that we can't do anything or that the situation is too complex to bother with so just let everybody die. I just want to see properly researched measures targeting the throwaway/disposables that are actually used in gang crime rather than expensive, collector and hobby grade weapons.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=God of Ashes;49236327]ax's don't cut down trees, people do. now go cut down that tree without an ax.[/QUOTE]
Alright, I'll use a saw. No saw? I'll chain it to the back of my truck and pull it out of the ground.
getting so tired of people completely dismissing lax gun control as a factor in this
I think the people in this thread have already made a brilliant argument for how to have less mass shootings: just change the definition so that less occur, boom problem completely solved
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;49235913]Anyone ever thought about a "mental issue" crisis?[/QUOTE]
HAahaha you cant be serious, this is a blanket term applied to the white males that do this. Not saying it isnt part of an issue but stop being apart of the political buzzword problem.
Thing is you don't have to be mentally ill to do shit like what happened in Cali.
[QUOTE=Scot;49236349]getting so tired of people completely dismissing lax gun control as a factor in this[/QUOTE]
We aren't, we are mostly mentioning how proposed laws are ineffective, and wouldn't work.
Remember that for something to be considered a MCI you need a minimum of 4 people to be injured and/or kill.
Chicago: 49 "mass" shootings
Detoilet: 21
LA: 14
NYC: 3
Minneapolis: 8
etc.
Theres a lot more being injured and surviving than there is death. In a country of this size, with these laws, and with as many conflicts, you're going to have a shooting involving four or more people daily. Thats not unreasonable.
This article is garbage and is going for shock and awe.
[QUOTE=elowin;49236308]
But that is the way to do it. How many people are murdered in America has scarcely anything to do with the availability of guns. If someone is going to kill someone else, even if you somehow magically wish away all guns, they'll just do it with something else. And if you outlaw guns now, all it will do it create a [i]MASSIVE[/i] black market for guns, which will directly feed the already huge criminal underworld, which as far as I know is what causes the majority of these deaths, and guess what, feeding it will cause [i]even more deaths[/i].[/QUOTE]
If a nut wants to kill a man its much easier to use a gun than a knife. If a nut wants to kill a school its much easier to use a gun than a knife.
If a man moves towards you with malicious intent decked out with a shiv, you can run away no issue, or even overwhelm the would be slasher. If a bad guy comes at you with a blaster you can't really run too easily and unless you are already right next to them you will struggle to overwhelm them, unless you're a cowboy with a 6 shooter on your hip and can out draw them.
It won't solve the issue, I never said it would, it will be lessen the effect and reduce the number of people killed. Solving the causes for gangs and crime in general will take years (and weve not really started imo with poverty and inequality increasing) in those years lives can be saved by lessening the impact of guns.
I also made a post about alternatives to outlawing guns. Won't get done though coz "you know who else had a database?!?!?! adolf hitler! yeah! QED! [] guns are my human right as a human to own a gun, self defence". People are just too entrenched and banning guns is an even less popular policy (currently) than doing the thing that would save lives (imo)
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236339]But that's a very broad brush to paint with. Semi-automatic doesn't necessarily make it more dangerous, just like being open-bolt doesn't make it more dangerous (which is one of the reasons the open-bolt ban is retarded). Additionally no criminals are shooting people up with $1200 USPs or $800 AR-15s unless they've stolen them and aren't expecting to be able to sell them for money.
My point isn't that we can't do anything or that the situation is too complex to bother with so just let everybody die. I just want to see properly researched measures targeting the throwaway/disposables that are actually used in gang crime rather than expensive, collector and hobby grade weapons.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
Alright, I'll use a saw. No saw? I'll chain it to the back of my truck and pull it out of the ground.[/QUOTE]
My concern with "expensive collectors'" weapons is not how often they are used, but the devastating effect to which they can be used when they are. While I know that it would negatively impact hobbyists, I simply see no reason whatsoever why semi-automatic high capacity rifles, carbines, and pistols should be available to the public at large. I understand that dedicated hobbyists are likely among the most responsible gun owners there are, but their ability to engage in their hobby by purchasing the most dangerous weaponry available short of actual modern military hardware comes at the cost of those who would use those weapons for nefarious purposes also having access to them as well. An interesting hobby is simply not worth the cost in human lives in my opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.