At least 5 killed in shooting outside Pittsburgh; police searching for 2 gunmen - Polidicks

Ugh I have a good friend in the Allegheny area I think, this is just awful and stupid Can we stop with the bullets and shit, please?

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;49910137]!!personal anecdotes!! you finding the democratic nra member doesnt mean the nra isnt a massive sponsor of the republican party also guys, calling the nra shitty isnt saying we should disarm anyone or anything. im in the military and like my guns but the nra is p scummy.[/QUOTE] It's pretty scummy but it's the only organisation with enough weight to actually do anything. It's entire budget is made up from individual donors and comparatively speaking small donations from firearms manufacturers, so it's not like a billionaire is leading the front.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49906508]Um. Gun free zones and areas with the most restrictions are the most dangerous, just saying. (NYC, Detroit, Baltimore, DC, LA, etc)[/QUOTE] New York City actually has one of the lowest murder rates in the United States today despite being the largest city in the country. There were only a little over 300 homicides there in 2014, which isn't bad at all considering the population is more than 8.4 million people. Los Angeles also, despite being a city with more than 3.8 million people (almost 3.9 anymore) living in it, has a very low murder rate; there were a little over 200 homicides there in 2013. So sorry, but at least as far as these two major metropolitan areas of the United States are concerned, that argument doesn't hold water. They are [i]not[/i] dangerous. In fact, they're really fucking safe. They're some of the safest places you could be when it comes to your chances of getting murdered. And again, given their massive populations, that's actually quite an impressive thing for them to be able to boast about. Detroit and Baltimore aren't dangerous because of gun restrictions. They're dangerous because poverty has ruined them. Detroit is our national posterchild for the effects of poverty and economic decline, and it has been for years and years now. One thing I'd like to point out here as well, St. Louis here in my state has few to no gun restrictions, and yet despite being a city of only about 318,000 people, there were 188 murders committed there last year. Compare that against a gigantic place like NYC or LA, again, and it's obvious how much safer those places are by comparison. And that's pathetic given the population differences. [editline]11th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SnakeHead;49909563]Right? Getting shot at everyday really blows! Also, you should do us all a favor and stay in Canada.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he should stay in Canada actually. This country fucking sucks by comparison, gun issues aside.

[QUOTE=King of Limbs;49906917]I grew up in Pittsburgh. This isn't a gun issue at all. Who ever this was would have used anything to kill these people. Pittsburgh is a small city but one with very unique and closed off view. A lot of my friends back home had severe anger issues tied into a racist mind set. A lot of the city is like that. Stop with the fucking, oh, it's because he had a gun, fuck guns. Why don't you morn the dead and stop looking like a know it all. People died because someone was mentally unstable and found a means to an end. He could have stabbed them. He could have choked them one by one. The only reason you comment was because a gun was involved. Shame on you. It really is a shame. That city is amazing. Hell it's up and coming. But there is a fierce underbelly to it that you would not believe. It really is a shame that someone brought themselves to that point in their lives where this was the decision they had to make. Why can't that be the discussion? Oh wait, I know, because that's to hard, to big, to ambiguous. Anywho, if you do visit pittsburgh check out the O in Oakland. Best dogs you'll have any where around. Unless you go to the Brighton hot dog shop haha[/QUOTE] Exactly this. "one shooting happened there, now it's a dangerous place because of guns!" No. If somebody is going to say that then they might as well say "a car crash killed 5 pedestrians, now it's a dangerous place because of cars!" But of course, with a headline like that the media will not get any attention...

Saying New York "only" had 300 murders makes it safe is still pretty terrible when you consider Canada as a country has around 500 murders a year only a few hundred miles north.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49911634]Saying New York "only" had 300 murders makes it safe is still pretty terrible when you consider Canada as a country has around 500 murders a year only a few hundred miles north.[/QUOTE] No, it really isn't. Canada only has a population of just over 35 million people. The United States overall has a population of around 320 million, and we also have a higher ratio of guns to people than Canada does. Additionally, population density differs as well; NYC has a bunch of people (again, more than 8.4 million; this isn't counting the metro as a whole, in which case the number jumps to about 17 million people) packed together tightly with each other in an urban area. Of course there's going to be more incidents of criminal activity. There's more opportunities given the packed conditions, and there's going to be more tensions and natural problems arising between individuals. It's safe. I've been there, I've had family that's lived in and around there for years, it's not dangerous despite restrictions on firearms. That's not just anecdotally true, it's statistically true as well.

No, it really is. That's the thing with per-capita statistics is they scale. Let's look at Chicago and Toronto. Both cities of similar size. Toronto, annually, has about 60 murders a year. Chicago has over 500. Chicago has more murders than all of Canada with a population of 2.5 million. It's pretty terrible.

Hey my home city is in the news today! *Looks* Shit. Well it could have been worse. At least the city didn't get flooded in chest high water on st Patrick's day like in the 1930's. Isn't there any way we can make it harder for mentally unstable people to access guns without infringing people's rights? I thought a public armory that requires your photo ID etc. to take the gun out would be a good idea.

A "public armoury" is the worst idea. It's a blatant infringement on people's right to own and use property, not to mention the fees they would charge would certainly be cost-prohibitive, and it then provides would-be thieves with one central location that they know they can get a shitload of guns from, that will probably have shit security. Not to mention the possibility of theft internally from corrupt employees, the higher risk of loss, the chance that my gun and someone else's would get mixed-up, and my guns would probably get wrecked by the poor handling procedures of the employees, poor storage conditions, and they'd probably do absolutely nothing to stop moisture from causing rust. I cannot think of a single developed country that requires you store your guns anywhere but your home, and I think there's good reason for that. They're safer with the owner than with some central storage. Not to mention it's a blatant affront to the principle of the 2nd Amendment, which is for people to be armed to be able to overthrow the government. The government mandating central storage would be blatantly unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49912323]No, it really is. That's the thing with per-capita statistics is they scale. Let's look at Chicago and Toronto. Both cities of similar size. Toronto, annually, has about 60 murders a year. Chicago has over 500. Chicago has more murders than all of Canada with a population of 2.5 million. It's pretty terrible.[/QUOTE] We were talking about New York City, not Chicago. It is [i]not[/i] terrible when comparing NYC to, say, Chicago or Toronto. And yeah, you're absolutely right, these statistics do scale... which is exactly what tells anyone who cares to read and articulate them that NYC, despite it's restrictions and bans, is still somehow an incredibly safe place despite being the largest city in the United States and one of the largest in the entire world with a very densely packed population. A little over 300 murders in 2014 in a city of more than 8.4 million people (17+ million if you count the entire metro) is tiny to the point of being insignificant for your average person. Odds are if you live there, you're not going to get shot and killed (or killed period). It's not a dangerous place. Chicago on the other hand is a different story. The issue isn't gun restrictions, the main issue is gangs. Chicago is a haven for gang activity, has been for a long time now, and that's what gives it such a shitty reputation. [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/fullpage/chicago-gang-violence-numbers-17509042]It's the most gang-infested city in the United States[/url]; it's been estimated that there's about 100,000 active gang members there today... and there's only 12,000 law enforcement officers on the flip side opposing them. With that said however, like anywhere else, some areas are more dangerous than others are. Places like Austin and Englewood have murder rates 10x higher than the rest of the city, and so it makes sense to avoid them if possible, because there's a strong chance something could happen to you there; meanwhile, places like Lincoln Park and Edgewater are extremely safe and pleasant. New York City and Los Angeles are both safe places to live in and visit, despite all the restrictions and bans they have against firearms. Go on a vacation to either one sometime. You'll be fine.

NYC still has a homicide rate of 4.0/100k. I'm not implying you'll get shot walking outside randomly or that it's necessarily because of their restrictions on guns, but 4.0/100k is by no means a "very safe" city. That murder rate is terrible.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49913209]NYC still has a homicide rate of 4.0/100k. I'm not implying you'll get shot walking outside randomly or that it's necessarily because of their restrictions on guns, but 4.0/100k is by no means a "very safe" city. That murder rate is terrible.[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate]...no, it's not.[/url] St. Louis has a murder rate of 59.23/100,000. New Orleans has one of 41.44/100,000. New York City is a very safe city ([url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/travel/safest-cities-2015/]one of the safest in the world, actually, to the point of being in the top 10 according to the Safe Cities Index[/url]) and has a very low murder rate. End of discussion.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49913018]A "public armoury" is the worst idea. I cannot think of a single developed country that requires you store your guns anywhere but your home, and I think there's good reason for that. They're safer with the owner than with some central storage. Not to mention it's a blatant affront to the principle of the 2nd Amendment, which is for people to be armed to be able to overthrow the government. The government mandating central storage would be blatantly unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] I thought it was a decent idea. If it worked at Lexington or Concord when the revolutionaries stole guns from the armory, it could work today, in theory. But I also can't think of a single developed nation that has as many mass shootings as we do either.

[QUOTE=adamsz;49918066]it could work today, in theory.[/QUOTE] Not even close. The last time someone proposed a similar concept here, [I]everyone[/I] went against it because it would have been a massive nightmare for safety, logistics, economy, and bureaucracy. First you'd have to make room for all those guns. Then you'd have to burden some poor sod with the legal responsibility of storing the guns of a bunch of strangers. Imagine being put in charge of such a massive armory, with so many guns in a single place, and consider the risks of those weapons getting stolen. Heck, consider their [I]maintenance[/I]. Is your armory going to have a public-accessible workshop for the owners to clean and fix up their firearms (with the added safety issues and legal troubles that come with it), or are you going to hire (and pay) some experienced gunsmiths for that? Plot twist, the guy you hired made a small mistake while cleaning an old and obscure rifle, and as a result the firing mechanism is now lodged into the user's cranium. Ha ha, incoming lawsuits! (and funerals) And most of all, home defense. It's a thing. "If I hadn't had my gun, my family would be dead" is something you can hear from many people, including various FP users. Now guess what happens if you make public gun storage mandatory. All this, just to restrict firearm access from the ones who went through all the legal hurdles to prove they were fit for firearm ownership. A category that is the least likely to commit crimes in the first place. And this is why a tiny European country with a tiny fraction of America's guns opposed public armories. Should you still want to go through with your idea, take all the issues above and multiply them by several millions. I think I've made my point.

[QUOTE=adamsz;49918066]I thought it was a decent idea. If it worked at Lexington or Concord when the revolutionaries stole guns from the armory, it could work today, in theory. But I also can't think of a single developed nation that has as many mass shootings as we do either.[/QUOTE] I can't think of a single developed nation that has an almost 1:1 ratio of guns to citizens like we do.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49913209]NYC still has a homicide rate of 4.0/100k. I'm not implying you'll get shot walking outside randomly or that it's necessarily because of their restrictions on guns, but 4.0/100k is by no means a "very safe" city. That murder rate is terrible.[/QUOTE] Have you ever even been to NYC? I've lived here for almost 20 years, it's really safe here. You have a right to be skeptical about it but considering you're persistent on trying to make the city seem horrible, maybe you shouldn't shit on it for its murder rates, especially when it's obviously lower than most.

[QUOTE=SonicHitman;49924056]Have you ever even been to NYC? I've lived here for almost 20 years, it's really safe here. You have a right to be skeptical about it but considering you're persistent on trying to make the city seem horrible, maybe you shouldn't shit on it for its murder rates, especially when it's obviously lower than most.[/QUOTE] 4.0 is slightly higher than the 3.8 of the United States overall, possibly lower though because those stats are from 2012. Neither of these numbers are great though as they put the US behind Canada, the UK, France, and most Western European countries, and even some Asian and African ones. I don't know what metric "very safe" is supposed to quantify, personally I think 4/100k is still an admirable rate, but it's certainly not the safest.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49918420] All this, just to restrict firearm access from the ones who went through all the legal hurdles to prove they were fit for firearm ownership. A category that is the least likely to commit crimes in the first place.[/QUOTE] You are referring to mentally unstable kids who steal their parents' weapons right? That's what this solution was trying to solve. [QUOTE=jimhowel33t;49918420] I think I've made my point.[/QUOTE] Yes. Serves me right for trying to think of a different solution than adding more laws. Silly me.

[QUOTE=adamsz;49930087]You are referring to mentally unstable kids who steal their parents' weapons right? That's what this solution was trying to solve.[/QUOTE] You did not specify whether the public armories would be opt-in, or mandatory for everyone. Given that some politicians actually tried to implement the latter, I automatically assumed the worst. And even if they were an opt-in service, just get a safe and hide the key from your kids. There, saved you a few million in taxpayer money. [QUOTE]Yes. Serves me right for trying to think of a different solution than adding more laws. Silly me.[/QUOTE] You proposed a nightmare in terms of practicality, and I pointed that out. Fuck me, right?