Obama says fight for gun laws 'ought to obsess us' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42283844] I'm gonna throw you a bone though guys since you missed the big one: Timothy McVeigh. His whole campaign was to show how much destruction one man could cause, with bombs. Now I'd argue that not everyone is a Timothy McVeigh, who was military trained, and calculating rather than impassioned and troubled. I'd also argue that bombs are constructed from materials with variable uses which don't involve killing, whereas a gun is a single tool literally designed to kill stuff better.[/QUOTE] People like him are my biggest fear. People who know what they're doing with bombs can obliterate a city. Look at the boston bombing, those two didnt know what they were doing. It was an amateur bomb. If they had planned a larger, more professional bomb, the causalities would be immense.

[QUOTE=areolop;42285532]People like him are my biggest fear. People who know what they're doing with bombs can obliterate a city. Look at the boston bombing, those two didnt know what they were doing. It was an amateur bomb. If they had planned a larger, more professional bomb, the causalities would be immense.[/QUOTE] McVeigh didn't know what he was doing, he simply took the tactic of putting a massive amount of explosives in the back of the truck rather than doing any real planning with the explosives.

Woo! Gun control thread! [highlight](User was banned for this post ("why reply?" - Megafan))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=butre;42285774]McVeigh didn't know what he was doing, he simply took the tactic of putting a massive amount of explosives in the back of the truck rather than doing any real planning with the explosives.[/QUOTE] Erm, what more planning could he have done? He blew up the federal building he wanted to blow up pretty damn effectively.

[QUOTE=butre;42280465][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre[/url][/QUOTE] 3 killed with a truck, 2 injured. 4 killed with knife, 8 injured [QUOTE=butre;42280465][url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/china-knife-attack_n_3815300.html[/url][/QUOTE] 4 killed, 11 injured [QUOTE=butre;42280465][url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/10/us-usa-stabbing-texas-idUSBRE9380Y420130410[/url][/QUOTE] 14 injured, 2 critically [QUOTE=butre;42280465][url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-stabbing-spree-hurts-22-schoolchildren-1.1169054[/url][/QUOTE] 22 injured, 2 critically --- This is being compared to [QUOTE]Virginia Tech[/QUOTE] 32 killed, 17+6 injured [QUOTE]Aurora[/QUOTE] 12 killed, 70 injured [QUOTE]Sandy Hook[/QUOTE] 28 killed, 2 injured [QUOTE]Washington Navy Yard[/QUOTE] 12+1 killed, 3+5 injured --- [QUOTE=butre;42280465]bonus [url]http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx[/url][/QUOTE] I wish these stories were more common.

These types of things are bound to keep happening in our country because of the current level of firearm saturation, the wide geographic borders, the uncountable amount of nonregulated firearm transactions, and the ability of the drug cartels to move guns as well will always ensure the ability of someone who is sick to get a firearm. If we really want to address gun crime as a whole, we need to sit down and seriously address things like urban poverty and gang culture. I'm skeptical over whether improving conditions for the mentally ill would have a significant impact on these freak occurrences. Let's remember that Aaron Alexis did have a known history of mental illness.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;42286386]These types of things are bound to keep happening in our country because of the current level of firearm saturation, the wide geographic borders, the uncountable amount of nonregulated firearm transactions, and the ability of the drug cartels to move guns as well will always ensure the ability of someone who is sick to get a firearm. If we really want to address gun crime as a whole, we need to sit down and seriously address things like urban poverty and gang culture. I'm skeptical over whether improving conditions for the mentally ill would have a significant impact on these freak occurrences. Let's remember that Aaron Alexis did have a known history of mental illness.[/QUOTE] Widespread, urban crime is an issue that is separate from mass killings.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42286419]Widespread, urban crime is an issue that is separate from mass killings.[/QUOTE] Right, and I'm explaining that we should be focusing on that instead. Our attempts at quelling things like mass shootings, which do seem like are at epidemic levels, but are relatively uncommon, are futile and won't raise our national standards of living by a significant measure.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;42286386] If we really want to address gun crime as a whole, we need to sit down and seriously address things like urban poverty and gang culture.[/QUOTE] Exactly. "Gun crime" is obviously crimes using guns, not about guns or because of guns. They are the tools or the facilitators of crime. Work to solve the problems of why people do crime in the first place and there will be less crime in general, let alone crimes committed specifically with a firearm. [QUOTE=Derubermensch;42286386]I'm skeptical over whether improving conditions for the mentally ill would have a significant impact on these freak occurrences. Let's remember that Aaron Alexis did have a known history of mental illness.[/QUOTE] Improving mental health diagnosis and treatment is just a general boon to society itself that might tangentially decrease shootings. It's not something that should be done in lieu of anything else and the only people who actually argue against it are the Republicans and conservatives who use it as way to stifle discussions about gun crime.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42280861]Well I could think of a way to do chemical disease may be more unlikely but its a definite possibility. Especially since not all of these kinds of people are disturbed [B][I]kids.[/I][/B][/QUOTE] Oop, just remembered the Sarin gas attacks. And anthrax. The anthrax I know was a researcher so he obviously had a good deal of access to the stuff he wouldn't otherwise. Anyone know how the Sarin attackers got their hands on the stuff? Can't imagine it's easy.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42286419]Widespread, urban crime is an issue that is separate from mass killings.[/QUOTE] Mass shootings don't make up a very large percentage of total gun crime in the US, contrary to what the mass media wants you to think and prepare for. You're more likely to get hit by a stray bullet in a driveby on your way home from school, than you are to actually get shot while you're in school.

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;42282702]The fact that he assaulted a military base and got 12 kills before being taken down is not a show of "OH WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS" the pro-restriction argument has always been that "CITIZENS DONT NEED GUNS, THATS WHAT POLICE IS FOR" but this guy literally ATTACKED THE MILITARY and got 12 people before they got him. If the police/military can't even protect themselves, how are they supposed to protect us?[/QUOTE] Military personnel are not armed. It is prohibited on base. The only people that are armed are the military police and a couple gate guard contractors. That's it. Military bases are some of the largest gun free zones in the world, ironically enough.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42287259]Mass shootings don't make up a very large percentage of total gun crime in the US, contrary to what the mass media wants you to think and prepare for. You're more likely to get hit by a stray bullet in a driveby on your way home from school, than you are to actually get shot while you're in school.[/QUOTE] you're more likely to be struck by lighting twice than you are to be killed in a mass shooting

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;42282702]The fact that he assaulted a military base and got 12 kills before being taken down is not a show of "OH WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS"[/QUOTE] In the case of a military base, perhaps letting them carry guns would be a good idea. They're trained to use them and its kind of their job to be using them. The NRA guy is an idiot who blames games but I don't see why people completely reject the idea of having school security for example . It might actually be a good idea if the government doesn't push it too far.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42290398]In the case of a military base, perhaps letting them carry guns would be a good idea. They're trained to use them and its kind of their job to be using them. The NRA guy is an idiot who blames games but I don't see why people completely reject the idea of having school security. It might actually be a good idea if the government doesn't push it too far.[/QUOTE] Considering the military's main PTSD treatment is a good hardy laugh and telling the troop to go back to his fuckin' post, that may not be wise.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42285938]Erm, what more planning could he have done? He blew up the federal building he wanted to blow up pretty damn effectively.[/QUOTE] parking on the other side of the building would have trapped the people who survived, since the stairs were all on one side. figured that up from just looking at a single picture of the building [QUOTE=Raidyr;42286196]3 killed with a truck, 2 injured. 4 killed with knife, 8 injured 4 killed, 11 injured 14 injured, 2 critically 22 injured, 2 critically --- This is being compared to 32 killed, 17+6 injured 12 killed, 70 injured 28 killed, 2 injured 12+1 killed, 3+5 injured --- I wish these stories were more common.[/QUOTE] to be perfectly honest the numbers don't really matter that much when mass killings of any nature are such a statistical anomaly, all the numbers make for is a better story

[QUOTE=butre;42290428]parking on the other side of the building would have trapped the people who survived, since the stairs were all on one side. figured that up from just looking at a single picture of the building to be perfectly honest the numbers don't really matter that much when mass killings of any nature are such a statistical anomaly, all the numbers make for is a better story[/QUOTE] Then why bring it up in the first place? If you really want to go this route, we can bring up how guns are used in [URL="http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html"]70.3% of murders[/URL] and that [URL="http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full"]owning a firearm increases your chance of dying.[/URL] Knives only consist of [url=http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html]14.1% of murders[/url], for good reason. It's much harder to kill somebody with a knife. I agree that mass killings (while terrible) are not the major source of violence, but rather crime committed by handguns in more isolated incidents. Maybe we should be asking ourselves why we have a very higher murder rate per capita, despite being less urban (as many claim is the reason) than many other countries. [URL="http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2013.xls"](Source, mind you, it downloads a .pdf. It's from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)[/URL]

[QUOTE=Zally13;42291022]Then why bring it up in the first place? If you really want to go this route, we can bring up how guns are used in [URL="http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html"]70.3% of murders[/URL] and that [URL="http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full"]owning a firearm increases your chance of dying.[/URL] Knives only consist of [url=http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html]14.1% of murders[/url], for good reason. It's much harder to kill somebody with a knife. I agree that mass killings (while terrible) are not the major source of violence, but rather crime committed by handguns in more isolated incidents. Maybe we should be asking ourselves why we have a very higher murder rate per capita, despite being less urban (as many claim is the reason) than many other countries. [URL="http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2013.xls"](Source, mind you, it downloads a .pdf. It's from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)[/URL][/QUOTE] owning a firearm doesn't increase your chance of dying, having a high chance of dying increases your chance of owning a firearm. suburban soccer mom doesn't own a gun, poor guy in a high crime area keeps a mossberg maverick between his bed and nightstand

Can't wait to see how many boxes I get but this might provide some of you with a bit of a wider perspective. Continue to suggest how gun control doesn't work (you know, from your vast source of highly credible studies on the subject), but Australia has been doing pretty well without guns for quite some time now. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA[/media]

[QUOTE=butre;42291063]owning a firearm doesn't increase your chance of dying, having a high chance of dying increases your chance of owning a firearm. suburban soccer mom doesn't own a gun, poor guy in a high crime area keeps a mossberg maverick between his bed and nightstand[/QUOTE] It's a good thing the study I linked took that into account. [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] There's also this to take into account: "The majority of victims knew their assailant, suggesting that the assailant was either a family member or was acquainted with the victim or victim’s family and less likely to be an unknown intruder."

[QUOTE=butre;42290428] to be perfectly honest the numbers don't really matter that much when mass killings of any nature are such a statistical anomaly, all the numbers make for is a better story[/QUOTE] the numbers mattered when you you made your post but they don't matter when I destroy your main point? I mean, I agree that mass killings are a statistical drop in the bucket but why even bother?

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42277612]Media is the only reason why there is such a backlash against current gun laws. Stop giving gunmen attention or more people will copycat the shootings.[/QUOTE] Not US but relevant: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4[/media]

Gun control, the great political red herring.

[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;42277670]why dont you focus on the real issue obama, mental health. that guy was completely nuts and received zero treatment but no, of course fixing our mental health system cant be solved by banning something so thats far too much effort for you huh[/QUOTE] Because you can't afford it given all the other things your nation is spending its money on.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;42277641]thanks for the advice obama do you think we should fight for information privacy too?[/QUOTE] Nah But srs tho guys let me disarm you first, then we can talk about the big things.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;42288372]Military personnel are not armed. It is prohibited on base. The only people that are armed are the military police and a couple gate guard contractors. That's it. Military bases are some of the largest gun free zones in the world, ironically enough.[/QUOTE] It's funny that some people don't understand or know about this. One of the larger military bases I was at had anywhere between ten and twenty armed individuals at one time, and that was it. That many armed individuals for an area the size of a small city.

[QUOTE=skyms2663;42291165]Can't wait to see how many boxes I get but this might provide some of you with a bit of a wider perspective. Continue to suggest how gun control doesn't work (you know, from your vast source of highly credible studies on the subject), but Australia has been doing pretty well without guns for quite some time now.[/quote] Australia is a coincidental example of guncontrol, not a consequential one. Their crime rates were already on a decline when they had a knee-jerk reaction and enacted severe gun control, and the rates continued to drop at the same rate. And I hope you aren't claiming that the [URL="http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf"]Harvard study on gun control[/URL] isn't at all credible, because that would be silly.

[QUOTE=Doom14;42293290]It's funny that some people don't understand or know about this. One of the larger military bases I was at had anywhere between ten and twenty armed individuals at one time, and that was it. That many armed individuals for an area the size of a small city.[/QUOTE] average for police, at least around where i am, is one officer per 1000 people... so I guess I dont find this weird or strange at all

Lol nobody says anything about gun control on the T.V. because the next step that could have possibly avoided this would be to ban shotguns and nobody has the balls to say it. As long as it's just "assault weapons" then it's fine but nope, can't say shit about pistols or shotguns because too many people think they're "normal" weapons.

[QUOTE=areolop;42293343]average for police, at least around where i am, is one officer per 1000 people... so I guess I dont find this weird or strange at all[/QUOTE] As a non-officer, I never thought about that. I always thought cops just sorta materialized to scare the shit out of me when I realize I haven't seen a speed-limit sign in awhile.