• 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
    477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49236371]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 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. 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] It will marginally reduce the death rate [I]to guns[/I] while completely, expensively and arbitrarily disarming a large population of law abiding people who wouldn't have committed crimes with theirs anyway and still failing to address the reasons why people are trying to kill each other. Do you want to solve the actual fucking problem or do you just want to ban the scary shootbangers? Every gun owner in the United States is ready and willing to talk turkey on fixing the real issues of gang violence fueled by illegal gun circulation, our non-existent mental health care system, etc. but they're driven to silence by [I]you people[/I] or polarized on this single issue of gun control when gun deaths make up only one facet of a massive crime issue in this country. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49236383]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.[/QUOTE] That's a fair stance and not rooted in random paranoia and I wouldn't have an issue with tighter regulations on those types of weapons but even so I would not like to see them banned outright. There's a lot of history and value in many semi-automatic platforms. It'd be nice if the federal government didn't build one F-35 and instead used that money to partially cover the costs on rifle safes for gun owners. Then you could justify safe laws and etc. I have a modern AR-15. It was gifted to me. Personally I wouldn't have bought it myself and I don't shoot it much but I don't mind having it around as it's been handy for varmints on a few occasions. That said, I would some day like to own an original 1960s AR-15 and I'd be pretty sour with any laws that get in the way of that but don't stop Pedro from bringing a live AKM over the Mexican border.
The point being, it's the same shit as it always is. A bunch of people who know dick about our culture want to take away everyone's guns for the actions of the few. and we have over 300 million population, so yes this is just a few.
[QUOTE=Lium;49235897]Which is done with, get this, guns...[/QUOTE] If it isn't guns it's knives, if there are no knives it would be baseball bats and tire irons. Hell more people are killed with hammers than rifles every year, where's the outcry
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236384] Every gun owner in the United States is ready and willing to talk turkey on fixing the real issues of gang violence fueled by illegal gun circulation, our non-existent mental health care system, etc. but they're driven to silence by [I]you people[/I] or polarized on this single issue of gun control when gun deaths make up only one facet of a massive crime issue in this country.[/QUOTE] I am personally responsible for you gun death problem. On a serious note though I mentioned fixing crime issues will take decades. In that time 10000s of people will die unnecessarily. Thats assuming we started fixing crime today which we are not (we being the west coz UK + europe have similar issues of mental health and crime). The reason we (we being the people who think the US has a gun death problem) think the US has a gun death problem is compared to other developed nations (with the same issues of crime, gangs and mental health) your homicides using guns per capita are unusually high. So consider deaths from guns caused by crime. You have similar amount of crime/mental health issues as other developed nations, you have far more guns than other developed nations and you have far more deaths from guns than other developed nations. This is per capita so its not because you have a higher population. Without guns people would still try to kill each other but they would be less likely to succeed and wouldn't be able to kill en masse.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49236415]If it isn't guns it's knives, if there are no knives it would be baseball bats and tire irons. Hell more people are killed with hammers than rifles every year, where's the outcry[/QUOTE] People bent on killing each other will do it with whatever is on hand, be that a gun, a hammer, or fire, as has been a popular mass murder method in Australia lately. The only argument I've ever seen to that is "but hammers aren't made for killing humans!" but I don't consider that a strong argument unless you also plan on banning all swords, all military surplus items, many knives, etc... [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49236430]I am personally responsible for you gun death problem. On a serious note though I mentioned fixing crime issues will take decades. In that time 10000s of people will die unnecessarily. Thats assuming we started fixing crime today which we are not (we being the west coz UK + europe have similar issues of mental health and crime). The reason we (we being the people who think the US has a gun death problem) think the US has a gun death problem is compared to other developed nations (with the same issues of crime, gangs and mental health) your homicides using guns per capita are unusually high. So consider deaths from guns caused by crime. You have similar amount of crime/mental health issues as other developed nations, you have far more guns than other developed nations and you have far more deaths from guns than other developed nations. This is per capita so its not because you have a higher population. Without guns people would still try to kill each other but they would be less likely to succeed and wouldn't be able to kill en masse.[/QUOTE] Yes, we have more deaths from guns than nations that have banned guns, correct. We also have more Laffy Taffy choking incidents than countries where Laffy Taffy isn't sold. Yet our rate of attempted violent crimes reflects other nations regardless of gun bans. So how can you say that guns are [B]the[/B] problem? Or even that banning them is a valid response when people who misuse guns are such an exceedingly small amount that they can almost be counted a statistical anomaly in the face of the population of this country?
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;49236337]"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] And yet, even using the adjusted values given by that report for how the US's homicide rate would look if we counted it by the same figures that the United Kingdom does, we [I]still[/I] have twice the per capita homicide rate of the UK. Your report does not prove that the United States doesn't have the highest rate of gun violence in the Western world, it just proves that the figures aren't as immediately accurate as they first look.
[QUOTE=Lord Xenoyia;49235911]But is also done by, the easy access to guns by crazy people...[/QUOTE] But that is arguable
no matter what side you are on, everyone realizes that something has to be done. Its too easy for crazy mentally impaired people to get their hands at guns, whatever gun laws are passed are often outright useless and punish the people who do nothing wrong (are more like feel good laws) and most of all, I have yet to see anyone seriously addressing one of the biggest problems: illegal gun trade
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49236441]And yet, even using the adjusted values given by that report for how the US's homicide rate would look if we counted it by the same figures that the United Kingdom does, we [I]still[/I] have twice the per capita homicide rate of the UK. Your report does not prove that the United States doesn't have the highest rate of gun violence in the Western world, it simply proves that the figures aren't as immediately accurate as they first look.[/QUOTE] The most telling thing for me is that some of the most high violence areas also have some of the strictest weapons laws. That is not to say that removing restrictions will necessarily help but it does mean that adding them doesn't necessarily help, either. The violence issue is seemingly largely independent of the immediate legal availability of weapons. [QUOTE=da space core;49236460]no matter what side you are on, everyone realizes that something has to be done. Its too easy for crazy mentally impaired people to get their hands at guns, whatever gun laws are passed are often outright useless and punish the people who do nothing wrong (are more like feel good laws) and most of all, I have yet to see anyone seriously addressing one of the biggest problems: illegal gun trade[/QUOTE] Illegal gun trade is an interesting topic because a big chunk of guns sold under the table in the US are sold by and bought by people who otherwise follow the law. These weapons that are illegal - mostly NFA items - but collectible and valuable. You see a lot of WW1/2/Korea/Vietnam era weapons that never reached the civilian market legally or only in small amounts but which collectors want to own and don't want to bother with all the paperwork. I think, for one thing, the machine gun registry should be re-opened along with an amnesty like we had in '68 to decrease criminalization of some of these rare and historically important items that are circulating unregulated. That will bring some of that trade back in line and plug up some lines that can be abused for more serious criminal purposes. You can argue that it'd be better to destroy them since they're evil full autos or whatever but short of legalizing and regulating them, many of them will never be found and therefore never subject to the law. It will also improve the chances that some of these illegal weapons find their way into the hands of law abiding collectors while decreasing the chances that they end up in the hands of a gang member or domestic terrorist.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236384]It will marginally reduce the death rate [I]to guns[/I] while completely, expensively and arbitrarily disarming a large population of law abiding people who wouldn't have committed crimes with theirs anyway and still failing to address the reasons why people are trying to kill each other. Do you want to solve the actual fucking problem or do you just want to ban the scary shootbangers? Every gun owner in the United States is ready and willing to talk turkey on fixing the real issues of gang violence fueled by illegal gun circulation, our non-existent mental health care system, etc. but they're driven to silence by [I]you people[/I] or polarized on this single issue of gun control when gun deaths make up only one facet of a massive crime issue in this country. That's a fair stance and not rooted in random paranoia and I wouldn't have an issue with tighter regulations on those types of weapons but even so I would not like to see them banned outright. There's a lot of history and value in many semi-automatic platforms. It'd be nice if the federal government didn't build one F-35 and instead used that money to partially cover the costs on rifle safes for gun owners. Then you could justify safe laws and etc. I have a modern AR-15. It was gifted to me. Personally I wouldn't have bought it myself and I don't shoot it much but I don't mind having it around as it's been handy for varmints on a few occasions. That said, I would some day like to own an original 1960s AR-15 and I'd be pretty sour with any laws that get in the way of that but don't stop Pedro from bringing a live AKM over the Mexican border.[/QUOTE] Personally, I'd be fine with grandfathering in weapons of a certain age and category into any proposed gun control laws. This is primarily because I don't expect that it will be possible to accurately measure the impacts of any gun control legislation except over a period of decades, making historical weapons that have been grandfathered into the legislation increasingly less relevant in the overall picture. At a certain point, the rarity, age, and expense of these weapons would simply make them too difficult to acquire for anybody [I]but[/I] the most dedicated collectors. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236463]The most telling thing for me is that some of the most high violence areas also have some of the strictest weapons laws. That is not to say that removing restrictions will necessarily help but it does mean that adding them doesn't necessarily help, either. The violence issue is seemingly largely independent of the immediate legal availability of weapons.[/QUOTE] Which simply speaks to the fact that gun control in itself is not effective in the face of severe socioeconomic instability. Gun control is not the ultimate answer, it's just a part of it. Just as important is addressing the conditions that [I]lead[/I] to violent crime.
I think America could take a lesson from the uk, Europe and Australia on guns honestly 0 mass shootings since we put our harsh gun control into play I know different countries different culture but even some simple gun control stuff like more background checks would be a good start but the NRA has the governments balls in its hands
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236514]I think America could take a lesson from the uk, Europe and Australia on guns honestly [B]0 mass shootings since we put our harsh gun control into play [/B]I know different countries different culture but even some simple gun control stuff like more background checks would be a good start but the NRA has the governments balls in its hands[/QUOTE] What Do you even care about being slightly factually correct anymore or are you literally just making shit up at this point? And why does it matter [I]that much[/I] precisely how people are being killed in MCIs if there are still MCIs occurring? I'll ask again, are you more concerned about people dying or about the scary shootbangers?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236519]What[/QUOTE] We've had 0 mass shootings since port Arthur Sydney siege does not count, one person was killed by the perpetrators gun, the other was shot by a stray police bullet [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Lmfao I'm not making this up its the brute fact
[QUOTE=Lord Xenoyia;49235911]But is also done by, the easy access to guns by crazy people...[/QUOTE] Which exists with or without laws because a lot of obtained illegally.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236528]We've had 0 mass shootings since port Arthur Sydney siege does not count, one person was killed by the perpetrators gun, the other was shot by a stray police bullet [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Lmfao I'm not making this up its the brute fact[/QUOTE] I see three mass shootings since Port Arthur, not counting the Sydney siege. You are entirely making shit up. That does not even approach the fact that Australia is less violent overall than the US and especially the crime-ridden cities that skew our nationwide averages.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236514]I think America could take a lesson from the uk, Europe and Australia on guns honestly 0 mass shootings since we put our harsh gun control into play I know different countries different culture but even some simple gun control stuff like more background checks would be a good start but the NRA has the governments balls in its hands[/QUOTE] Nope, but you did have this recently: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings[/url]
[QUOTE=Megadave;49236543]Nope, but you did have this recently: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings[/url][/QUOTE] Except that was done with a knife, not a gun.
[QUOTE=Megadave;49236543]Nope, but you did have this recently: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings[/url][/QUOTE] Is this the seed for some kind of "arm children with firearms to reduce knife crime" argument? beautiful [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236562]Wow, that's one way to announce your complete resignation from logical thought.[/QUOTE] Speaking of resignation, I'm out of this thread its literally reason vs gun enthusiasts
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49236557]Is this the seed for some kind of "arm children with firearms to reduce knife crime" argument? beautiful[/QUOTE] Wow, that's one way to announce your complete resignation from logical thought.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236554]Except that was done with a knife, not a gun.[/QUOTE] Exactly, so while your laws may have prevented most shootings (there are still more than 0) they haven't stopped killing. Less frequent yes, but still happening.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236554]Except that was done with a knife, not a gun.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege[/url] There is also this, which doesn't have a wikipedia article: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunt-family-murders-witness-describes-final-night-at-family-home-20151006-gk2vo5.html[/url] So that's three mass shootings, not counting the Port Arthur siege. And you still have murders, attempted murders, illegal firearms, mass casualties conducted through fire, stabbings, [B]acid[/B] and other means, and general violent crimes which, while not on the level of the US, means your measures have not been as effective as you claim. Also consider that the US population is almost 16 times the Australian population with a much higher overall rate of poverty and violence, mostly concentrated in shitty ex-industrial cities with collapsed economies and massive social decay, areas that don't readily respond to force of law.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49236557]Is this the seed for some kind of "arm children with firearms to reduce knife crime" argument? beautiful [/quote] How the fuck do you make an assumption like that? [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] I mean, I'm serious. I want to know what the fuck powers your thought process that you can make such an assumption.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236581][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege[/url] There is also this, which doesn't have a wikipedia article: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunt-family-murders-witness-describes-final-night-at-family-home-20151006-gk2vo5.html[/url] So that's three mass shootings, not counting the Port Arthur siege. And you still have murders, attempted murders, illegal firearms, mass casualties conducted through fire, stabbings, [B]acid[/B] and other means, and general violent crimes which, while not on the level of the US, means your measures have not been as effective as you claim. Also consider that the US population is almost 16 times the Australian population with a much higher overall rate of poverty and violence, mostly concentrated in shitty ex-industrial cities with collapsed economies and massive social decay, areas that don't readily respond to force of law.[/QUOTE] I think you just listed the problems that need fixing, now vote for a candidate that will do just that
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236598]I think you just listed the problems that need fixing, now vote for a candidate that will do just that[/QUOTE] That's why I'm voting Sanders.
Calm down everyone the big bad Australian isn't coming to take your guns from you. He just pointed out a statistic.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;49236620]Calm down everyone the big bad Australian isn't coming to take your guns from you. He just pointed out a statistic.[/QUOTE] I love ignorant shitposts like this because the people that throw them around are the same people who call other people immature babies for defending an interest in a legal hobby.
I'm starting to think each community should have a walk in public armory where everyone's guns are stored safely. It would function like a bank, except with guns. You go up to the security guard behind the glass, look him in the eye and show him your photo ID. The only person who knows the combination to your gun locker is you. Nobody's stealing it. Then you go to where your gun is and go hunting deer etc. That way, some person's mentally unstable kid doesn't start another "Take your gun to school day". The federal government hasn't taken anybody's guns away and the guns aren't in the hands of unbalanced children.
America does not have a gun problem We have a crime problem. Think about it. We get rid of the guns, and you'll still see on the local news that there was a murder roughly 3 miles from your house Imo if we get rid of the crime problem, by improving living standards for those with lower incomes, reforming the prison system, and deal more adequately with mental illness, we would see a definite decrease in these tragedies. Something is wrong, but guns are not the problem.
Honestly if you want to shoot guns in some deserted desert or in a training field go for it, if you want to have guns to defend your property, go for it If you want to be an asshole open carrying rifles to make a point about your 2nd amendment rights, don't Like the only problem i really have is with open carriers, the only people who should be open carrying in public is either the police or defence force, not some yokel scaring an entire shopping centre with his ak47 around his back and 2 glocks in his side pocket making a point Exercise your hobby, I don't think that should end, protect your house, I don't think that should end, just don't fucking show me or anyone else who can get scared easily by the sight of a gun Believe it or not but growing up in a country and a space where guns are only seen holstered by police, you are not adjusted to seeing them all the time without context
[QUOTE=God of Ashes;49236327]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] Very true. But good luck getting all the people down south giving up their gun rights. I think pistols, hunting rifles, and shot guns that are semi automatic should be perfectly legal for a citizen to own. But I see no point in a normal guy having military grade equipment. Most people like that just own that stuff for target shooting and bragging rights. Hunting equipment and pistols serve a purpose like self defense and hunting obviously but I don't see a reason why anyone needs military grade equipment. On the other hand a law abiding gun owner should be able to own military equipment such such as these but they don't need to be a dick and open carry huge guns like they sometimes do. They do it to get a reaction out of the public which is stupid. Meanwhile all the other pro gun guys run around defending the guy open carrying such a gun and arguing with a police officer trying to ask the guy to stop scaring people. They're jerks that run around with a hard on and an assault rifle or long gun. I genuinely think these people love stirring up that kind of trouble. Idk I'm not sure what the solution is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.