• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744198]Want to compare frequency/prevalence or even just total numbers of those attacks to mass-shootings in the US. Go on, I dare you.[/QUOTE] Also, I just went through all the attacks in Europe this year, of which there were 8, and I came up with 27 fatalities discounting the perpetrators, who added another 10+ to the total. That's immensely less fatal than mass-shootings. Edit: Bah, this WAS meant to be an edit, but it's 3AM and I clicked the wrong button.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744198]Want to compare frequency/prevalence or even just total numbers of those attacks to mass-shootings in the US. Go on, I dare you.[/QUOTE] Obviously not as much, but a few people here were heavily implying that guns are the only effective means of mass attacks, which they are not. They are a viable means, but not the only one.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52744232]Obviously not as much, but a few people here were heavily implying that guns are the only effective means of mass attacks, which they are not. They are a viable means, but not the only one.[/QUOTE] They are the most effective means though, short of explosives, and those require a level of technical competency/training above using a firearm (As the spate of failed bombings over the past year show). Vehicles are much less effective because once they get moving in one direction, it is hard to switch them to new "targets". Hell, your zinger about Nice has a very nice and obvious rebuttal - the Bataclan attack in 2015. Carried out using guns (and explosives in the form of grenades and suicide vests), and a death toll around 50 higher. The truck attack was devastating, sure, but the one involving firearms was worse. But in Europe, a mass shooting is a rarity, and as here, often terror related. In the US there has been 273~ attacks classed as mass shootings this year so far.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52744232]Obviously not as much, but a few people here were heavily implying that guns are the only effective means of mass attacks, which they are not. They are a viable means, but not the only one.[/QUOTE] I'll never doubt the human ability to find ways to kill it's fellow man but you gotta admit guns are the most convenient way to do it. I like guns as a hobby as the next Texan but not acknowledging guns as the perfect apex predator of manslaughter is foolish. Their size to destruction ratio cannot be matched by cars or knifes or other things.
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36805164[/url] Also here's a source on the 86 number.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743528]this is why it's so hard for me to have any faith in any side of the political spectrum people will shit on republicans all day for being insincere illogical fuckwads but then they'll do the exact same shit they call out republicans for the moment it becomes convenient to do so it's fucking embarassing[/QUOTE] The reality is that this is a complicated problem and there is no silver bullet solution that will fix everything overnight. Attitudes need to shift. Drunk driving used to be a problem 40 years ago and now it's not, the same thing could happen here. There just needs to be enough anger and political willpower for change. And of course, get money outta politics but that's a larger issue to solve.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744236]They are the most effective means though, short of explosives, and those require a level of technical competency/training above using a firearm (As the spate of failed bombings over the past year show). Vehicles are much less effective because once they get moving in one direction, it is hard to switch them to new "targets". Hell, your zinger about Nice has a very nice and obvious rebuttal - the Bataclan attack in 2015. Carried out using guns (and explosives in the form of grenades and suicide vests), and a death toll around 50 higher. The truck attack was devastating, sure, but the one involving firearms was worse.[/QUOTE] Yeah and how many of those do you think were obtained legally? [del]Also no, in scale Bataclan was not worse. See my previous post[/del] whoops I read that as 50. Nevermind it was worse in terms of deaths.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52744250]Yeah and how many of those do you think were obtained legally?[/QUOTE] None, and? That terror attack was an absolute rarity that rocked the entirety of Europe. In the US there has been 273 incidents classed as mass shootings this year alone.
[QUOTE=srobins;52744225]Why are they not? You want to rid the world of mass casualty events by getting rid of guns, but refuse to acknowledge that these events still take place, with even higher death counts, using different means.[/QUOTE] Because until we have self driving vehicles, the sheer usefulness of cars and trucks outweigh the risks
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744256]None, and? That terror attack was an absolute rarity that rocked the entirety of Europe. In the US there has been 273 incidents classed as mass shootings this year alone.[/QUOTE] And I damn near guarantee a good portion of them are either gang related or mass shootings in name only.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;52744268]And I damn near guarantee a good portion of them are either gang related or mass shootings in name only.[/QUOTE] People still die in them, and that's the point - the US firearm based homicide rate is obscene compared to any other comparable western country.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744256]None, and?[/QUOTE] And making guns illegal wouldn't have done jack shit against people who readily obtain them illegally.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52744272]And making guns illegal wouldn't have done jack shit against people who readily obtain them illegally.[/QUOTE] Except that is not as easy as you make out, that's the whole point. By making it illegal you make it hard for a murderer or a school shooter to get their hands on them. You want to know what happened after the UK introduced stricter gun control after Dunblane? Mass shootings all but stopped. They're not illegal, just heavily licensed and regulated. Crazy, right? In 2014, in the US, there was around 4.5 homicides per 100 000 people. 3.6 of those were firearm homicides (And boy finding the data for that was fun... Wikipedia has some very helpful articles but the total homicide data was from 2015, had to go to the FBI website for 2014s). In the equivalent timespan the UK had 0.92 homicides per 100 000 people. I can't find the data on how many of those were committed with a firearm because it is so insignificant as to have not been mentioned on any public source, and I'm not going to submit an FOI request just to beat the (self-evident) point in any further. (It was 0.06 in 2011, though)
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744271]the US firearm based homicide rate is obscene compared to any other comparable western country.[/QUOTE] Wow I've never heard that groundbreaking stat before! I think we are all aware by now. America has a lot of guns. Shocker. You're probably not gonna stop those gang shootings if you banned guns because they'd just get them from a guy their drug dealer knows. You'd have to erase all the guns in circulation, which is a near logistical impossibility. So how many more times do we gotta hear that line? You're not advancing the debate at all. And so it will be, because people on the ban guns side are unwilling to budge and the people on the keep guns side are unwilling to budge.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744280]Except that is not as easy as you make out, that's the whole point. By making it illegal you make it hard for a murderer or a school shooter to get their hands on them. You want to know what happened after the UK introduced stricter gun control after Dunblane? Mass shootings all but stopped. They're not illegal, just heavily licensed and regulated. Crazy, right?[/QUOTE] I wonder how all these Bill O'Reilly types feel about all the tightening up of airplane security after 9/11.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744280]By making it illegal you make it hard for a murderer or a school shooter to get their hands on them.[/QUOTE] Do you really, though? Buying illegal shit is not hard like people make it out to be. How many guns did the UK have before Dunblane? Probably a hell of a lot less than the US currently has. If you banned guns you'd be digging up rifles from barns for decades.
[QUOTE=OvB;52744298]Do you really, though? Buying illegal shit is not hard like people make it out to be. How many guns did the UK have before Dunblane? Probably a hell of a lot less than the US currently has. If you banned guns you'd be digging up rifles from barns for decades.[/QUOTE] Quite a lot actually, very active hunting industry here. Hell, it's the second most common (dedicated) land-use of around half of Scotland's landmass, the most common being Hill Sheep Farming.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52744138]The big argument people have against the gub'ment taking their guns away is that they need it to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. You honestly thing semi-autos and pistols are going to stop the government alone?[/QUOTE] People said the same thing circa 1770, insisting it was impossible for hunting muskets to go up against artillery and warships. Turns out if you have a gun it's much easier to take possession of the things you need to wage a war. I'm not too huge on the whole 'fight a tyrannical government' reason for owning guns but there are numerous examples of personal armament allowing a cause to achieve much more than they would otherwise, even in the modern era. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;52744138]As for "home defense", a shotgun or handgun would be perfectly suitable, yet you have people claiming they need an AR15 or AK-47 to do so.[/QUOTE] Two points here. 1. For home defense, an AR-15 is absolutely a better choice than a handgun or shotgun. They're less likely to pierce a wall and kill your neighbors. They're easier to control so you can aim accurately and end the threat with as few shots as possible. They're manageable by women and children in a way a huge pump shotgun isn't. For a responsible gun owner, an AR-15 is less likely to inflict collateral damage on innocent bystanders and is by far the more responsible choice. Buckshot, shotgun slugs, and FMJ pistol ammo are very good at penetrating drywall, .223 is not. 2. In 97% of firearm crime in which the gun is identified, the weapon used is a handgun. The Virginia Tech shooter carried out his attack with handguns. The Columbine shooters were primarily equipped with handguns. I don't know why people focus on ARs and AKs when handguns are overwhelmingly a bigger problem in this country. I would sooner support a ban on handguns than one on 'assault weapons', because one of these represents an overwhelming trend in crime and gun violence while the other is a staple of armed self-defense and only in the news for its comparatively extremely rare appearance in high-profile events. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;52744138]What about bump-stocks? Need those for home defense? Or are they just for fucking around? Why can't I fuck around with explosives?[/QUOTE] Bump-fire stocks are strictly for fucking around. You can fuck around with explosives, they are regulated by the 1934 NFA. I'm not sure what your point is, these are hobbyist interests. I haven't heard confirmation that a bump-fire stock was used in this attack, but if it was, it is literally the first time I have ever heard of one being used for nefarious purposes. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;52744138]Don't infantrymen have grenades? Where can I pick up some of those? Infantrymen have access to fully-automatic weapons, if not those then weapons with three-shot bursts, and last I checked you can't buy one of those without a shit-ton of red tape, if at all.[/QUOTE] See above. Grenades and automatic weapons are both restricted by the 1934 NFA, but are both available for anyone willing to jump through the hoops.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744264]Because until we have self driving vehicles, the sheer usefulness of cars and trucks outweigh the risks[/QUOTE] Until we have an absolute guarantee that governments will not abuse a monopoly on lethal force, and that they will be able to intervene within seconds of a violent crime being committed, the usefulness of firearms will always outweigh the risk.
[QUOTE=OvB;52744292]Wow I've never heard that groundbreaking stat before! I think we are all aware by now. America has a lot of guns. Shocker. You're probably not gonna stop those gang shootings if you banned guns because they'd just get them from a guy their drug dealer knows. You'd have to erase all the guns in circulation, which is a near logistical impossibility. So how many more times do we gotta hear that line? You're not advancing the debate at all. And so it will be, because people on the ban guns side are unwilling to budge and the people on the keep guns side are unwilling to budge.[/QUOTE] To restate: In 2014, in the US, there was around 4.5 homicides per 100 000 people. 3.6 of those were firearm homicides (And boy finding the data for that was fun... Wikipedia has some very helpful articles but the total homicide data was from 2015, had to go to the FBI website for 2014s). In the equivalent timespan the UK had 0.92 homicides per 100 000 people. I can't find the data on how many of those were committed with a firearm because it is so insignificant as to have not been mentioned on any public source, and I'm not going to submit an FOI request just to beat the (self-evident) point in any further. (It was 0.06 in 2011, though) Okay, but if you're unwilling to actually do something about dealing with the root causes of your crazy murder rate, then you're just going to go endlessly round in circles on the issue, whilst doing absolutely fuck all to avert further tragedies because "Muh second amendment." It's a pretty callous state of affairs when you value continued, barely-restricted access to a hunk of metal designed to kill others (Sure, you might use them for sport shooting, but they were created from the off to be tools to kill) over the lives of your fellow citizens
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52744316]I think looking into the actual cause of these murders will be far more beneficial to the state as a whole, rather than fighting the uphill battle that will (inevitably) fail horribly and result in repeal.[/QUOTE] Mental health care is probably not too different between the US and UK, cheaper due to the NHS, sure. But one of the root causes is also the fact that mentally unstable people have easy access to firearms, the problems don't exist in isolation, they co-exist and feed off one another here. You CAN address both. You absolutely should, too.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744320]Mental health care is probably not too different between the US and UK, cheaper due to the NHS, sure. But one of the root causes is also the fact that mentally unstable people have easy access to firearms, the problems don't exist in isolation, they co-exist and feed off one another here. You CAN address both. You absolutely should, too.[/QUOTE] please define easy access to firearms
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744313]Okay, but if you're unwilling to actually do something about dealing with the root causes of your crazy murder rate, then you're just going to go endlessly round in circles on the issue, whilst doing absolutely fuck all to avert further tragedies because "Muh second amendment." It's a pretty callous state of affairs when you value continued, barely-restricted access to a hunk of metal designed to kill others (Sure, you might use them for sport shooting, but they were created from the off to be tools to kill) over the lives of your fellow citizens[/QUOTE] You haven't been reading my posts. Like this one: [QUOTE=OvB;52744219]I think trying to say that we'd just have knife attacks is a stretch. It's true in that if we magically poofed guns away, people would still be intent to do crime and would pick the next best tool to do it with, which would probably be a blade. But Guns are good at killing lots of people. The difference is a rotary lawn mower vs. a driving lawn mower. They do the same job, but one is clearly better at it. My biggest issue with the whole replacing guns with knifes thing is that you're still just treating a symptom. We wouldn't need to worry about it if you put all your time and energy into fighting the reasons why people kill each other, instead of figuring out what scary black gun parts to ban or whether or not this rifle is hunty or self defensy enough to bless your people with the right to use it. Banning things, whether its guns, drugs, alcohol, whatever, is lazy legislation. It creates black markets and upsets law abiding citizens. Address the issues at hand, and we wouldn't need to ban things. Gun bans are especially useless since they just find ways around them. The gun is still the same gun whether or not it looks black and had pistol grips. You can take the same gun that this murder used and make it look like a hunting rifle but it doesn't change the fact that it can still do what it did. So you end up with shit legislation that doesn't do shit to stop the fact that people still wanna kill eachother. Lazy lazy lazy.[/QUOTE] Or the one where I call guns the perfect apex predator of murder.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744313]Okay, but if you're unwilling to actually do something about dealing with the root causes of your crazy murder rate, then you're just going to go endlessly round in circles on the issue, whilst doing absolutely fuck all to avert further tragedies because "Muh second amendment."[/QUOTE] Guns are not the root cause of the problem. For mass casualty attacks it's often a case of poor mental healthcare, someone with untreated mental issues that takes out his anger on the people around him. There's also the fact that the news constantly makes these people famous, so every snapped psychopath wants to be the next media darling. For urban shootings it's a failed socio-economic system where people turn to crime and even glorify what it means to be a criminal. The bulk of the shootings in this country excluding suicide come from these warring criminal groups.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52744328]please define easy access to firearms[/QUOTE] [url]https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/a-tale-of-two-countries-gun-laws-in-the-us-and-uk/[/url] Compare the two and get back to me. Easy access is nebulous because it varies on a state to state basis but two crucial factors would be a.) Private sales being allowed and not requiring detailed bg checks etc and b.) (generally) a lack of federal or law enforcement involvement in licensing in states where licensing is even a factor. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52744333]Guns are not the root cause of the problem. For mass casualty attacks it's often a case of poor mental healthcare, someone with untreated mental issues that takes out his anger on the people around him. For urban shootings it's a failed socio-economic system where people turn to crime and even glorify what it means to be a criminal. There's also the fact that the news constantly makes these people famous, so every snapped psychopath wants to be the next media darling.[/QUOTE] Except that without guns, those mass-casualty attacks would be that much harder. Yes, Mental healthcare issues are what cause them to grab a gun and go out and perform the attack, but guns are what enables them to have so many casualties. It streamlines the process of killing.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744336]Except that without guns, those mass-casualty attacks would be that much harder. Yes, Mental healthcare issues are what cause them to grab a gun and go out and perform the attack, but guns are what enables them to have so many casualties.[/QUOTE] Then you're looking at treating the symptoms whilst depriving law abiding citizens of their rights and continuing to ignore the reason it happens in the first place. If you're going to put in so much effort, why not put the effort in where it won't predominantly target law abiding citizens?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52744299]I could obtain a revolver with no serial in around 10 minutes, assuming the dude holding it is taking a shower right now. That's how easy this shit is to come by.[/QUOTE] I know a guy that can build you whatever you want from scratch. Not talking no pipe gun either. Though it'll probably cost you.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52744344]Then you're looking at treating the symptoms whilst depriving law abiding citizens of their rights and continuing to ignore the reason it happens in the first place. If you're going to put in so much effort, why not put the effort in where it won't predominantly target law abiding citizens?[/QUOTE] Why not do both? A stricter licensing system benefits everyone. People who require guns for legitimate purposes here in the UK still get access to them (Hunting and Sport Shooting) whilst undergoing a rigorous system of background and health checks (their doctor is involved in the licensing process, clearing them to the Police). Law abiding citizens with need and reason get access to guns here.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52744333]Guns are not the root cause of the problem. For mass casualty attacks it's often a case of poor mental healthcare, someone with untreated mental issues that takes out his anger on the people around him. [/QUOTE] Most people with mental disorders do not attack other people. The issue is guns and the access that those with mental disorders have to them. Which is pretty irrelevant to this particular mass shooting but in [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting]Aurora, Colorado[/url] maybe it would have made a difference
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744336][url]https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/a-tale-of-two-countries-gun-laws-in-the-us-and-uk/[/url] Compare the two and get back to me. Easy access is nebulous because it varies on a state to state basis but two crucial factors would be a.) Private sales being allowed and not requiring detailed bg checks etc and b.) (generally) a lack of federal or law enforcement involvement in licensing in states where licensing is even a factor. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] Except that without guns, those mass-casualty attacks would be that much harder. Yes, Mental healthcare issues are what cause them to grab a gun and go out and perform the attack, but guns are what enables them to have so many casualties. It streamlines the process of killing.[/QUOTE] So basically people who sell private property who aren't checking to make sure people are legally eligable, which is illegal, and law enforcement not doing enough. Sounds like the later half is the problem mate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.