[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49235725]That's a major problem when it comes to "assault weapons" laws in the US. They're feel-good and ineffective.
The most infamous was the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which failed to do anything to stop the Columbine shooting in 1999, which all of the weapons were considered legal by the AWB.[/QUOTE]
My great-aunt is a total gun-nut, owned tons of fire-arms when she lived in Arizona. She told me they tried banning assault rifles, but after she went through the check-list of what was and wasn't allowed (they didn't just say "assault rifles", they described characteristics they thought belonged to assault rifles), the ONLY legal gun she owned according to the list... Was her AR-15. :v:
[QUOTE=AntonioR;49235786]My bet would be higher social stability and overall quality of life in NZ. No gun will start killing people by itself. USA is all fancy from the outside, but when you scratch the surface it has all these issues that should be reserved for third world countries, and is no wonder some people start to "rot" in this system and snap. Gun violence is just one of the symptoms, not a core problem I would say.[/QUOTE]
Guns are a tool to commit crime. If we remove or restrict guns, we will see a drop in gun-crime, but see a negligible drop in violent crime. The countries that people often compare the US to when it comes to guns ignores the crime issue we have in the US. Hampering legal gun ownership will treat a symptom, not a cause.
I don't care how a person gets murdered. I don't even really care about how many people get murdered per incident. I care that people get murdered at all. I don't think we should be focusing so hard on one part of that murder rate, but the whole thing in general. I think if we put all this effort into fixing the broken prison system or inner-city poverty, we would see a drastic drop in gun-violence that restrictions or blanket bans could never reproduce.
I have a gun, and I've never killed anyone with it. It stands to reason that if everyone was just as privileged as me and every other gun owner thats never killed anyone, there would be a lot less murder. I've never had a reason to kill or mug or rob or fight in turf wars because I was never stuck in that situation. I've never had to resort to crime to survive.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;49235786]My bet would be higher social stability and overall quality of life in NZ. No gun will start killing people by itself. USA is all fancy from the outside, but when you scratch the surface it has all these issues that should be reserved for third world countries, and is no wonder some people start to "rot" in this system and snap. Gun violence is just one of the symptoms, not a core problem I would say.[/QUOTE]
As someone from the middle of the US in Indiana, surrounded by low income people in a city of 80,000 I can say that I've never witnessed even a fist fight in public, let alone gun violence. One time I saw a homeless man brandish a knife at a Chinese restaurant cashier only to be shooed out by the cook. My city has no visible homeless, I've seen a few people begging for money at interstate off ramps, but I've never seen someone sleeping on the street, not to say they don't, but there's not enough to even witness in your daily life. I know my experience isn't that of an inner-city Chicago citizen, but I've been to 40 states and my experience is pretty much what most Americans experience. It's not some gun brandishing hell hole of cracking rifle shots and sirens. Maybe in select ghettos in major urban centers, but the violence there is almost exclusivly reserved for people participating in that way of life by choice.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49235798]The suspects are dead. Just google the news if you have to.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, sorry if I came across rude though just kinda on edge whenever I hear stuff like this. Just wondering now when the next shooting is going to happen and can't shake the feeling there's going to be one in regards to star wars or something.
[QUOTE=OvB;49235826]Guns are a tool to commit crime. If we remove or restrict guns, we will see a drop in gun-crime, but see a negligible drop in violent crime. The countries that people often compare the US to when it comes to guns ignores the crime issue we have in the US. Hampering legal gun ownership will treat a symptom, not a cause.
I don't care how a person gets murdered. I don't even really care about how many people get murdered per incident. I care that people get murdered at all. I don't think we should be focusing so hard on one part of that murder rate, but the whole thing in general. I think if we put all this effort into fixing the broken prison system or inner-city poverty, we would see a drastic drop in gun-violence that restrictions or blanket bans could never reproduce.
I have a gun, and I've never killed anyone with it. It stands to reason that if everyone was just as privileged as me and every other gun owner thats never killed anyone, there would be a lot less murder. I've never had a reason to kill or mug or rob or fight in turf wars because I was never stuck in that situation. I've never had to resort to crime to survive.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, if all guns vaporized today and were never seen again, there's a good chance the death rate from violent crimes would go down. But I bet violent crimes would go up overall - it'd just be a festering wound while ignorant liberals pat each other on the back for destroying the gun menace (UK) after having solved nothing.
Also it's worth pointing out that according to the FBI armed citizens are only responsible for stopping 3% of active shooter situations. So either armed citizens aren't actually responding or the shootings aren't happening near armed citizens.
[url]https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013[/url]
[QUOTE=Sift;49235833]Fair enough, sorry if I came across rude though just kinda on edge whenever I hear stuff like this. Just wondering now when the next shooting is going to happen and can't shake the feeling there's going to be one in regards to star wars or something.[/QUOTE]
posted this on last page
- The investigation of at a home in Redlands continues, with more than two dozen FBI agents combing the home and its garage, according to federal officials. FBI officials say it is likely the home will yield answers as to what motivated the shooting.
-- Dozens of federal agents and local police are scouring the mass shooting scene in the Inland Regional Center.
-- The scene where police shot the shooters remains blocked off and a smashed SUV is still in the middle of San Bernardino Avenue. Forensic experts are still examining the scene.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235839]shootings aren't happening near armed citizens.[/QUOTE]
I wonder why.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49235789]What is your definition of gun control? Not picking on you particularly, but every argument for control I hear always throws the turn around without elaborating on just how exactly they plan on getting rid of a 1 to 1 gun-to-person ratio without having fifty years worth of protests and rioting by just banning the concept of a gun.[/QUOTE]
Good question. I'll try and give you a useful answer.
I see stuff as pros and cons.
you need to make people want to do "the right thing"
Ie making guns harder to get will probably lead to more illegal dealing to bypass restrictions.
So:
Stricter limits on who can have a gun at home, forms, home gun database, possibly some kind of tax
Let people have easier access to much more interesting weaponry than they currently do, on the condition that the guns are kept inside the club meeting certain security requirements. (so you can play with a 50 cal or full auto ak or auto shotgun or sawed off relatively easily but you can't take it home; something similar for hunting where hunting firearms are kept at a club and returned at end of trip in some way) People like the tacticool, automatic, qwerky stuff so this is like a postive incentive.
Start up a "gun owners database" with mandatory registering of firearms + require declaring when a firearm changes hands with regular checkups to make sure those people still own those guns. Only apply to guns kept at home (The hassle/paranoid factor will mean hobbyists and hunters might decide to keep their guns at the club) people hate this stuff so it would be like a disincentive
Gun hand in schemes + arrest people illegally selling arms (ie not informing the database, selling to people not in the database or criminals).
Give and take/carrot and stick etc etc
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235839]Also it's worth pointing out that according to the FBI armed citizens are only responsible for stopping 3% of active shooter situations. So either armed citizens aren't actually responding or the shootings aren't happening near armed citizens.
[url]https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013[/url][/QUOTE]
Keep in mind it's a pain in the ass to carry a firearm legally in most states (or impossible, ie Cali) and many people can't be bothered. These mass shootings though have a pattern of occurring in locations where people are likely to be fully disarmed and vulnerable. They aren't random.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49235843]Good question. I'll try and give you a useful answer.
I see stuff as pros and cons.
you need to make people want to do "the right thing"
Ie making guns harder to get will probably lead to more illegal dealing to bypass restrictions.
So:
Stricter limits on who can have a gun at home, forms, home gun database, possibly some kind of tax
Let people have easier access to much more interesting weaponry than they currently do, on the condition that the guns are kept inside the club meeting certain security requirements. (so you can play with a 50 cal or full auto ak or auto shotgun or sawed off relatively easily but you can't take it home; something similar for hunting where hunting firearms are kept at a club and returned at end of trip in some way) People like the tacticool, automatic, qwerky stuff so this is like a postive incentive.
Start up a "gun owners database" with mandatory registering of firearms + require declaring when a firearm changes hands with regular checkups to make sure those people still own those guns. Only apply to guns kept at home (The hassle/paranoid factor will mean hobbyists and hunters might decide to keep their guns at the club) people hate this stuff so it would be like a disincentive
Gun hand in schemes + arrest people illegally selling arms (ie not informing the database, selling to people not in the database or criminals).
Give and take/carrot and stick etc etc[/QUOTE]
Just because it "works" in your country (it doesn't) doesn't mean you can apply it here.
[QUOTE=OvB;49235842]I wonder why.[/QUOTE]
If they have a concealed weapon it's not exactly a deterrent. Not unless the shooter shies away from every person with a slight bulge in their pants.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235849]If they have a concealed weapon it's not exactly a deterrent. Not unless the shooter shies away from every person with a slight bulge in their pants.[/QUOTE]
There will not be any CCW holders in schools or hospitals or Christmas parties for the disabled. That's why these locations are obvious targets for someone planning a mass casualty event.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235839]Also it's worth pointing out that according to the FBI armed citizens are only responsible for stopping 3% of active shooter situations. So either armed citizens aren't actually responding or the shootings aren't happening near armed citizens.
[URL]https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013[/URL][/QUOTE]
With the percentage of conceal carry permits issued, 3.45% of the population (11.1m issued permits, 318m citizens) in the US have permits to carry, not everyone who has a permit carries, like me for example. So that number is even lower, so to say that 3% of all active shooter situations have been stopped by civilians carrying, that's saying that basically, if there's someone with a concealed weapon who's witness to the shooting, there's a high chance they would intervene and be successful in diffusing the situation. It's not saying that only 3% of people carrying intervene in that situation.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235839]Also it's worth pointing out that according to the FBI armed citizens are only responsible for stopping 3% of active shooter situations. So either armed citizens aren't actually responding or the shootings aren't happening near armed citizens.
[url]https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013[/url][/QUOTE]
3% is pretty fucking good considering that in 2007 only 1.4% of americans had concealed carry permits
Armed citizenry wouldn't have stopped this attack. iirc the Inland Regional center is one of those "gun free zones"
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49235753]I'll say again, I love guns as much as the next bubba, but would it not make sense to have firearms require a training course and license to own and operate? Banning pistol grips and bayonet lugs is just a ridiculous method to get more easy votes from the left for politicians without actually solving the problem.[/QUOTE]
"A license?! That's GUN REGISTRATION! You know who else required gun registration?! HITLER!"
This sounds like a grossly exaggerated stereotype, but I actually know someone like this, worked with them in a whey plant some years back. I've seriously had conversations with him where he's said such things, it's surreal.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49235876]"A license?! That's GUN REGISTRATION! You know who else required gun registration?! HITLER!"
This sounds like a grossly exaggerated stereotype, but I actually know someone like this, worked with them in a whey plant some years back. I've seriously had conversations with him where he's said such things, it's surreal.[/QUOTE]
He sounds like a bit of a birdbrain but he's not entirely off-base. Registries have historically been used as shopping lists when the government turns on gun owners, in the US and elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235823]Clarify your question, the "tens of millions of licensed holders" is confusing me because it seems to be there for literally no reason. Find an example of someone causing confusion in an active shooter incident or just people with guns in general being confused for an active shooter?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how you can be confused by that.
Despite millions of CCWs, there is no evidence that they have made shootings worse when they intervene.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49235845]These mass shootings though have a pattern of occurring in locations where people are likely to be fully disarmed and vulnerable. They aren't random.[/QUOTE]
Look at the study I posted again, most shootings don't happen in schools, they happen in commercial areas and areas with generally high traffic. Granted a lot of them happen in schools (~25%) but compare that to commercial areas where it's nearly 50% of shootings.
[QUOTE=download;49235881]I'm not sure how you can be confused by that.
Despite millions of CCWs, there is no evidence that they have made shootings worse when they intervene.[/QUOTE]
There is substantial evidence to support the fact that when civilians intervene in any crisis situation they put themselves and other people in more risk, there isn't any reason to think they would suddenly be a benefit in one specific situation.
I already posted a study about how people with CCW barely have any impact on mass shootings because it seems like they barely are even involved in them.
[QUOTE=butre;49235861]3% is pretty fucking good considering that in 2007 only 1.4% of americans had concealed carry permits[/QUOTE]
Not really considering that 3% of situations only boils down to about 5 incidents, in one of them the shooter committed suicide. Also that 3% isn't just CCW holders, but armed security guards.
All those far left Twitter counts were like "take guns away from white males aged 15-65" and now silence from them and deleted tweets
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49235880]He sounds like a bit of a birdbrain but he's not entirely off-base. Registries have historically been used as shopping lists when the government turns on gun owners, in the US and elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
How would you trace a gun back to its owner if it was involved in crime otherwise?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49235880]He sounds like a bit of a birdbrain but he's not entirely off-base. Registries have historically been used as shopping lists when the government turns on gun owners, in the US and elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
Registries have been used by despots as part of confiscation but not all registries lead to confiscation or dictatorships.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235885]Look at the study I posted again, most shootings don't happen in schools, they happen in commercial areas and areas with generally high traffic. Granted a lot of them happen in schools (~25%) but compare that to commercial areas where it's nearly 50% of shootings.[/QUOTE]
There are more disarmed locations than just schools. There's a pile of reasons contributing to the unlikelihood that a CCW holder will be on-scene when some nut pops off. It has to do with relatively low CC licensing, combined with the low odds of a mass shooting occuring in a given location, and amplified by the fact that shooters generally pick places where they are unlikely to be shot.
I'd also be willing to bet that the FBI's statistic doesn't include situations where a CCW holder was able to defuse a situation without killing the shooter, since those are typically not reported any differently than if you had defused the same situation any other way.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49235813]Waiting periods haven't been shown to have a meaningful impact on anything, not even suicides.
Licensing is a bit eeh - I think you should be required to take a free safety/basic operations course and receive a little laminated plastic card verifying you've done so. Licensing systems always become convoluted and wind up being used to effectively ban ownership (UK, and US with automatics).
Our current background checks are really shitty and only required for FFL transfers, and the FBI doesn't even have to comply, in which case the sale goes through anyway. Like I said earlier in this thread, I think the FBI should be obligated to respond to the check within 3 days, and you should be able to run them for private sales, and if you didn't do one on the guy you sold the gun to and he winds up committing a crime with it, you're held as an accomplice for negligent sale.
What's wrong with a 1:1 gun to person ratio? You should be interested in reducing the crime rate, not the legal ownership rate. Most gun owners aren't criminals, and having lots of guns in circulation isn't inherently a bad thing as long as those guns aren't in the hands of people who will commit crimes with them.[/QUOTE]
I'm not against a 1:1 gun ratio. In fact I am helping that ratio boost even higher. The point is that "gun control" as a concept gets thrown around as a panacea from people who don't quite know how to solve the problem on a detailed level or even have proof that it will work. Other than the previous guy's British solution which was at least more thoughtful than the usual "gun owners are insane retards fuck em all" I hear on this place, the things I usually hear are "guns are scary and kill people get rid of them now" which isn't much better than the former.
I like it when gun debates, if we absolutely must waste our time arguing on an internet forum about it, at least have some reasoning behind them besides people hating people for things they disagree on.
newest batch of news
[quote=whole article]Police say Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, were killed in a shootout with officers hours after the attack on the Inland Regional Center that left 14 dead and over a dozen others injured. Initial reports indicated a third shooter was involved, but San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan [B]said at an evening press conference that authorities are now "reasonably confident" that there were only two suspects.[/B]
[B]Farook was an environmental health specialist with the county health department who inspected restaurants and hotels, and police say he had been attending an office holiday party in the building where the shooting occurred. Investigators believe he left the party angrily for some reason, returned with Malik, and opened fire.[/B]
According to police, they were wearing tactical gear and armed with semi-automatic hand guns and rifles. CNN [B]reported that two of the guns were legally purchased by Farook, and two rifles were legally purchased by someone else who is currently not believed to be involved in the shooting.[/B]
[B]Investigators found a bag in a conference room in the building after the shooting that contained rudimentary explosive devices rigged to a remote-controlled toy car[/B], according to CNN.
No motive has been identified at this point, and the FBI said Wednesday night that there is not yet enough information to determine whether this was an act of terrorism.
According to the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, [B]the couple had a 6-month-old daughter who they left with relatives before the shooting, claiming they had a doctor's appointment.[/B]
Farhan Khan, the husband of Farook's sister, told reporters Wednesday that the family has "absolutely no idea" why they did this.
Co-workers told the Associated Press that Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia at some point, returned with a wife, and later grew a beard. According to the Washington Post, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles CAIR chapter, said Farook and Malik had been married for two years.
Farook is an American citizen who was born in Illinois. Ayloush said Malik was born in Pakistan.
[B]According to the Los Angeles Times, co-workers said Farook generally seemed quiet but happy and appeared to be "living the American dream." He was known to be a devout Muslim, but former co-worker Griselda Reisinger told the paper he "never struck me as a fanatic."[/B]
"He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back," Farook's father told the New York Daily News.
Online profiles that appear to belong to Farook provide a few additional details. In one, he describes himself as religious but modern, and says he enjoys working on vintage and modern cars, reading religious books, and "doing target practice" with his sister and friends. Another profile under the same user name on a site devoted to people seeking spouses from the United Arab Emirates lists Farook as a Sunni Muslim born in Chicago in 1987.
A baby registry on TheBump.com in Malik's name indicates a baby due date of May 17, 2015, but it only has a few items on it. Little else has been reported about her.
A home where the couple is believed to have lived in Redlands, California was searched by police on Wednesday night. Officers entered the house very cautiously out of fear that explosives may have been planted there.
Neighbors told reporters they were surprised the shooters lived in the area. One man who had been working in the area told KCAL he noticed several Middle Eastern men in the neighborhood recently, but he had not reported it to authorities.[/quote]
[url]http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/suspects-in-san-bernardino-shooting-what-we-know[/url]
[QUOTE=Billy-Bobfred;49235886]All those far left Twitter counts were like "take guns away from white males aged 15-65" and now silence from them and deleted tweets[/QUOTE]
it makes sense considering white culture is just shooting up people
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
So that's it then? Are they hinting that it was an Islamist fanatic? This is going to make life miserable for so many people.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49235923]So that's it then? Are they hinting that it was an Islamist fanatic? This is going to make life miserable for so many people.[/QUOTE]
It's not known/ they don't want to jump the gun. authorities think the investigation of the main shooters house will show motive
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49235798]The suspects are dead. Just google the news if you have to.[/QUOTE]
Sorry he derailed this gun control thread to ask about the shooting.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235839]Also it's worth pointing out that according to the FBI armed citizens are only responsible for stopping 3% of active shooter situations. So either armed citizens aren't actually responding or the shootings aren't happening near armed citizens.
[url]https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013[/url][/QUOTE]
Well, so far, a lot of the mass shootings have taken place in gun free zones, where law abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
