• Mass Shooting Season 2014 still going strong as four+ are wounded at Seattle Pacific University
    474 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45011657]Yet their was an increase in kidnappings, sexual assault, and general assault. Their was also a massive spike in Robberies which went from 16,000 in 1996 to 26,000 in 2001, which is slowly coming down in time, but has small surges as well. [/QUOTE] I live in Australia and yes there has been a surge in robberies (our house got broken into unfortunately with the suspect never found) but honestly I don't think the gun reforms contributed to it but more the fact that for some people its a real struggle to survive with their economic situation
I think the first step the US should take would be to restrict carrying round a gun in public with you. Why do you need to take your gun to the cinema? Yeah people will go on about self defence or whatever but trying to be a have a go hero might make the situation even worse. I don't know if you need some sort of license to conceal carry so if there isn't why not make one? The days of the wild west are over.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45012152]tackle the things that cause violence instead of trying to take away the tools to cause them. a high rate of violent crime is a symptom of a sick society, and taking away the guns is just mitigating the damage instead of solving the issues. so here are some things we can do to reduce violent crime that i posted in another gun-related thread: most of these aim to tackle poverty, because poverty is very well correlated to crime.[/QUOTE] Improving life quality and destroying social barriers is a big plus in any country, which also mitigates the damage but doesn't solve anything of, in this case, gun problems. People can still easily get guns, people will still have difficulties regardless their status in life, people will still kill.
"The shooter began to reload his shotgun and the student building monitor inside the hall confronted the shooter and was able to subdue individual," Fowler said. "Once on the ground, other students jumped on top of them and they were able to pin the shooter to the ground until police arrived." Amazing courage right there. I mean that decision to act saved lives. Fucking despise shooters who just randomly take out people for no reason other then their own twisted views of society or how they are perceived. We as a society need to, Like that video showed, not give these shooters hours and hours of coverage and other crazy in-depth looks into their lives. That is for the police to do and figure out. They can release their info when they know it as public record and then move on. I'm seriously getting pissed off about the amount of these "random sprees". Something is going to have to give before this reaches a weekly thing where these people think that they will be glorified for what they do and just want to "go out with a bang". Fuck man. I just had to say all of that.
I got scared because one of my good friends goes to school there but luckily she did not have classes today. I'm normally pro gun but something really needs to be done about the gun laws. Its not even that mentally ill people can buy them its that people do not secure there weapons and they are easily grabbed by family members or stolen.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45012160]I live in Australia and yes there has been a surge in robberies (our house got broken into unfortunately with the suspect never found) but honestly I don't think the gun reforms contributed to it but more the fact that for some people its a real struggle to survive with their economic situation[/QUOTE] I believe the same things, namely because of the 2008 Recession. Which reminds me... Could it be possible that any surge in murders and suicides is in part to the economic recessions?
[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;45012125]Can you show us a non-biased graph instead[/QUOTE] are you saying the graph is incorrect?
[QUOTE=aydin690;45011188]The solution is simple, no citizen should be allowed to own guns. Fuck the 2nd amendment, it was written for a world that doesn't exist now. Just look at Australia. Give people a year to hand in all of their weapons or else face imprisonment or other harsh punishments. Of course that's never going to happen because the average pro-gun american values their weekend hobby more than people's lives.[/QUOTE] Australia thinks approximately 1/3rd of the guns known to be owned at the time of the ban were turned in. [editline]5th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Thlis;45011460]Yeah its not like laws should change over time. [sp]Gay Marriage[/sp] [sp]Racial Segregation[/sp] [sp]Slavery[/sp][/QUOTE] Where in the Bill of Rights does it say anyone has the right to those things? The BoR is a set of laws that is directed at the federal government, so they can't just stomp over the populace at their whim.
[QUOTE=Complifused;45012170] I don't know if you need some sort of license to conceal carry so if there isn't why not make one? The days of the wild west are over.[/QUOTE] Because there is one, that's why
oh, no guns, what about the people who HUNT FOR THEIR FOOD or protect themselves from wild animals in the wilderness? not everywhere in america is just fucking cities. we're not china. we have mountain settlements with no access to the outside world, mountain men who hunt for their food and protect themselves from fucking bears and wolves. Appalachia ring a bell? what the fuck do you do when a bear corners you when you're working outside, throw fucking spears at it? Hobbies, people have been competitively shooting for years, hell there's a few TV shows based off of shooting. Self defense is another key point simply because if someone breaks into my house with a weapon that they illegally acquired (WHICH WILL HAPPEN) I'm not just going to let them kill my entire family and take what they want, I'm going to defend my land with my god given fucking right to that was given to me by my founding fathers for a GOD DAMN REASON. Weapons are tools that can be used in several ways, much like a knife. they aren't meant for mentally unstable people, and the manufacturer didn't make the gun in order to fucking kill innocent people, it was for RECREATION OR HUNTING, if it was a contractor for the military, a TOOL OF WAR thank you /rant
[QUOTE=Starce;45012294]oh, no guns, what about the people who HUNT FOR THEIR FOOD or protect themselves from wild animals in the wilderness? not everywhere in america is just fucking cities. we're not china. we have mountain settlements with no access to the outside world, mountain men who hunt for their food and protect themselves from fucking bears and wolves. Appalachia ring a bell? what the fuck do you do when a bear corners you when you're working outside, throw fucking spears at it? Hobbys, people have been competitively shooting for years, hell there's a few TV shows based off of shooting. Self defense is another key point simply because if someone breaks into my house with a weapon that they illegally acquired (WHICH WILL HAPPEN) I'm not just going to let them kill my entire family and take what they want, I'm going to defend my land with my god given fucking right to that was given to me by my founding fathers for a GOD DAMN REASON. Weapons are tools that can be used in several ways, much like a knife. they aren't meant for mentally unstable people, and the manufacturer didn't make the gun in order to fucking kill innocent people, it was for RECREATION OR HUNTING, if it was a contractor for the military, a TOOL OF WAR thank you /rant[/QUOTE] china is more rural than America sorry you couldn't be right also about the other things too oops
[QUOTE=Gentry;45011609][IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-story-top.jpg[/IMG] thank god you're a part of a backwards, old dying breed that is holding everything back and eventually the country can move on and join the rest of the civilised world[/QUOTE] It's absolutely [i]shocking[/i] that fewer people would publicly proclaim themselves to be a member of a group that has been seeing increasing public demonization of them. People who have done nothing wrong, but are labeled as future mass murderers or fetishists simply because they choose to partake in a harmless hobby or defend themselves from threats in a world where the police have no legal requirement to protect you from criminals, and where the government continues to ignore the will of the people and restrict their rights in order to please their corporate overlords.
[QUOTE=Starce;45012294]oh, no guns, what about the people who HUNT FOR THEIR FOOD or protect themselves from wild animals in the wilderness? not everywhere in america is just fucking cities. we're not china. we have mountain settlements with no access to the outside world, mountain men who hunt for their food and protect themselves from fucking bears and wolves. Appalachia ring a bell? what the fuck do you do when a bear corners you when you're working outside, throw fucking spears at it? Hobbys, people have been competitively shooting for years, hell there's a few TV shows based off of shooting. Self defense is another key point simply because if someone breaks into my house with a weapon that they illegally acquired (WHICH WILL HAPPEN) I'm not just going to let them kill my entire family and take what they want, I'm going to defend my land with my god given fucking right to that was given to me by my founding fathers for a GOD DAMN REASON. Weapons are tools that can be used in several ways, much like a knife. they aren't meant for mentally unstable people, and the manufacturer didn't make the gun in order to fucking kill innocent people, it was for RECREATION OR HUNTING, if it was a contractor for the military, a TOOL OF WAR thank you /rant[/QUOTE] literally retarded
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45012188]Improving life quality and destroying social barriers is a big plus in any country, which also mitigates the damage but doesn't solve anything of, in this case, gun problems. People can still easily get guns, people will still have difficulties regardless their status in life, people will still kill.[/QUOTE] But laying down a slew of ineffective gun laws such as banning certain guns because they look scary and making it so that guns have to have special mechanisms on them to release the magazine or clip isn't going to solve the problem either.
Reform guns laws? Force everyone to get a permit, which you can only obtain if you have absolutely no felony history or and kind of mental issues. you also have to pass a lot of tests regarding the aspects of how the guns work (how to disassemble them, how to properly hold a gun etc) only then you will get a permit. Force everyone to register their guns, and keep records of all the guns everyone has. Guns can only be bought at dealers, which are of course regulated (no buying/lending guns off friends). Ban open carry. Force everyone to renew their licence every 3 years. that should do it
[QUOTE=darunner;45012317]It's absolutely [i]shocking[/i] that fewer people would publicly proclaim themselves to be a member of a group that has been seeing increasing public demonization of them. People who have done nothing wrong, but are labeled as future mass murderers or fetishists simply because they choose to partake in a harmless hobby or defend themselves from threats in a world where the police have no legal requirement to protect you from criminals, and where the government continues to ignore the will of the people and restrict their rights in order to please their corporate overlords.[/QUOTE] Is what you're going to be using to argue against the statistics? where is [I]your[/I] data buddy [editline]6th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BFG9000;45012323]But laying down a slew of ineffective gun laws such as banning certain guns because they look scary and making it so that guns have to have special mechanisms on them to release the magazine or clip isn't going to solve the problem either.[/QUOTE] but they only exist because they're the only little things that ever get passed the gun lobby
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45012326]Is what you're going to be using to argue against the statistics? where is [I]your[/I] data buddy [editline]6th June 2014[/editline] but they only exist because they're the only little things that ever get passed the gun lobby[/QUOTE] His data is right here. I hold that exact sentiment.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;45012107]If you're doing this shit in absolutes, yeah of course it will fail. The idea isn't to clean up every gun ever, that is logistically impossible and any self-respecting gun control advocate knows that. The idea is to minimise the supply, slowly draining the black market to prevent criminals from obtaining them in the future. It's a slow process, but it's totally manageable with collection schemes such as amnesties. Considering that almost every gun used in a crime was legal at some point (either stolen from a legitimate owner, straw purchased (questionably legal in that case), or vanished from the production line) removing the supply of legal firearms will eventually diminish the illegal arms. It doesn't mean every single gun ever is banned, you just need a legitimate reason for the firearm (work, hunting, recognised sports) and the gun must fall within certain restrictions. Basically no handguns outside of specific sports, no rifles outside of most shooting sports, and no home ownership for self defence because it becomes lesser required. Why should we have to provide the means to enact the controls? We aren't the legislators, we don't have access to all the information required to take up the task of the multi-year long process of designing a system for the controls. We can say "you guys should probably restrict those things more" as much as we damn please, we don't have to have all the answers, just ideas to get the ball rolling.[/QUOTE] i was originally responding to a person who outright said 'let's just ban guns' without any additional context. scaling back production doesn't sound like something that can be practically done in the united states; this isn't to say that i'm not in favor of it, but the gun manufacturing sector already has too much power in the legislatures, and there's an entire political party that's dedicated to stonewalling any form of government intervention in any form of enterprise. as far as subsequent laws go following the scale-backs in production, the question then comes down to the success of prohibition programs in general. we can hardly keep drugs from moving into our country and guns from moving out; bans and scalebacks could simply incentivise companies to take their manufacturing elsewhere, and then we end up having the same problems as the war on drugs. will there be less guns available? sure. but there will be a much larger proportion of volatile people with their hands on that kind of equipment, and the sale of that equipment will go to supporting volatile organizations. [QUOTE=Gwoodman;45012188]Improving life quality and destroying social barriers is a big plus in any country, which also mitigates the damage but doesn't solve anything of, in this case, gun problems. People can still easily get guns, people will still have difficulties regardless their status in life, people will still kill.[/QUOTE] what i'm trying to say is that the problem is of violent crime, not the guns. the guns are the tools that facilitate the violent crime, and the focus should be on reducing the crime itself, not the tools. the tools aren't the problem. fixing the problems that cause crime will make life better for everyone, and the privilege of owning a weapon becomes less of a danger, because the populace has a lower propensity toward violent crime in the first place. i'd also like to disagree with the "people will still kill" notion; of course individuals are still going to do things of that nature, but the amount and proportion fluctuates with circumstance, and it comes down to understanding why people commit crimes. human beings don't just go out and murder others for no reason; most murders are committed against someone that they know, and most of the time it's because of some unresolved conflict, esp. a financial or sentimental one (such as marriage). the fact that someone is willing to go out and shoot their wife over being cheated on is a potential sign that the way that our culture handles conflict resolution is kind of whacked. i mean, compare american culture's view of violence to that of scandinavian countries, and you tend to find that americans are a lot less averse to it. it can't possibly help that people who are seen as "heroes" and "strong" in the united states are people who stubbornly "stick to their guns" and end the story by punching the bad guy in the face. we're somewhat averse to reasonable discussion and empathetic thought towards those that we disagree with, and that hurts us much more than guns does. it also doesn't help that the financial ills of most people of today (combined with the way that our culture views money) puts individuals in situations where desperation or aspiration end up getting in the way of ethics and empathy. the point that i'm trying to make here is that the reasons for america's comparatively higher violent crime rates are complex and are attributable to cultural, social, and psychological factors, ones that run deep into the collective consciousness and identity of its citizens. understanding the people that commit these crimes and the reasons for it will help us create a safer society, one where guns are not used as tools of murder so often. that, i think, is a more sustainable and practical long-term goal.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45012333]His data is right here. I hold that exact sentiment.[/QUOTE] lmao this cannot be happening you two should go join a retard militia or something because this is unbearable
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45012326]Is what you're going to be using to argue against the statistics? where is [I]your[/I] data buddy [editline]6th June 2014[/editline] but they only exist because they're the only little things that ever get passed the gun lobby[/QUOTE] But the "gun lobby" doesn't want it either We need more "gun laws" that focus on the person rather than the gun [editline]5th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;45012342]lmao this cannot be happening you two should go join a retard militia or something because this is unbearable[/QUOTE] Calling me a retard doesn't support your argument anymore than a piece of straw. Unbearable? Get out, because it seems to me that you can't hold a proper debate without flipping the table.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45012344] Calling me a retard doesn't support your argument anymore than a piece of straw. Unbearable? Get out, because it seems to me that you can't hold a proper debate without flipping the table.[/QUOTE] I'm not calling you a retard.
also, a couple articles i found on the subject, given they're old; food for thought, really. an abstract from a book written by an associate policy analyst at the CATO institute: [url]https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=152273[/url] [QUOTE]The author explores the gun-control laws and policies of Japan, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Switzerland. The gun-control and violent-crime patterns in these countries are explored in their historical, criminological, and cultural contexts. The author concludes that, contrary to the claims of the American gun-control movement, gun control does not account for the low crime rates in the nations examined. Despite strict and sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily available on the criminal black market. Gun control has not reduced crime; in fact, it has encouraged burglary. Gun registration has proven itself valueless in solving or preventing crime. The author further argues that social control is far more important than gun control. A realistic American gun policy must accept the permanence of guns in American life. The encouragement of nature, responsible gun use is the policy best suited to the United States. Chapter notes and a subject index[/QUOTE] an abstract from an article from the quantitative journal of criminology: [url]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/Kleck_Patterson.pdf[/url] [QUOTE]What effects do gun control restrictions and gun prevalence have on rates of violence and crime? Data were gathered for all 170 U.S. cities with a 1980 population of at least 100,000. The cities were coded for the presence of 19 major categories of firearms restriction, including both state- and city-level restrictions. Multiple indirect indicators of gun prevalence levels were measured and models of city violence rates were estimated using two-stage least-squares methods. The models covered all major categories of intentional violence and crime which frequently involve guns: homicide, suicide, fatal gun accidents, robbery, and aggravated assaults, as well as rape. Findings indicate that ( 1 ) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence, (3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and (4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates. There were, however, some possible exceptions to this last conclusion—of 108 assessments of effects of different gun laws on different types of violence, 7 indicated good support, and another 11 partial support, for the hypothesis of gun control efficacy.[/QUOTE] ultimately what we need is more research. it's stupid and upsetting that the NRA stonewalls against gun control research, because finding some sort of objective truth on the matter would really help legislation.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45012293]Because there is one, that's why[/QUOTE] Make them harder to get then. In fact I don't see why you need to carry a gun everywhere you go but I guess someone will see taking that as taking their guns away and winge about it.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45012362]I'm not calling you a retard.[/QUOTE] I beg to differ [quote]you two should go join a retard militia or something because this is unbearable[/quote] [editline]5th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Complifused;45012370]Make them harder to get then. In fact I don't see why you need to carry a gun everywhere you go but I guess someone will see taking that as taking their guns away and winge about it.[/QUOTE] Nothing wrong about making them harder to get as long as normal people aren't being stopped.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45012372]normal people aren't being stopped.[/QUOTE] What is normal? Who defines what normal is?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45012372]I beg to differ[/QUOTE] hey the retard militia doesn't discriminate anyone can join
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45012396]hey the retard militia doesn't discriminate anyone can join[/QUOTE] Hope you're first in line then :)
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45012372] Nothing wrong about making them harder to get as long as normal people aren't being stopped.[/QUOTE] By normal people I assume you mean even the guy who works at the teddy bear making factory 9-5? I just fail to see why your everyday person needs to have a gun on them in the 21st century. I'm not talking about the keeping the guns at home here, just the carrying one around with you.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45012326]Is what you're going to be using to argue against the statistics? where is [I]your[/I] data buddy[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/zvumamcapkcvqcxbn-xf4a.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dpo7h0egbeq-uquadkndmq.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/total-guns.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/7/25/1343236485032/FBI-background-checks-gun-001.jpg?width=620&height=-&quality=95[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45012395]What is normal? Who defines what normal is?[/QUOTE] a person who doesn't commit violent crime, i think. though anyone can become a violent criminal in the right circumstances.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.