At least five dead in California elementary school shooting - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52890379]There is no point to thoughts and prayers, so take action - actual action - instead of whining on internet forums. Push your lawmakers to attack sources of violence and unrest. Volunteer in social programs to help struggling kids and impoverished people. If you can't be bothered to do those things, don't bother complaining about how numb you feel, either. Even something as simple as listening to someone on the edge vent and being there for them can prevent pointless violence like this.[/QUOTE] You mean like pushing for gun control? And trying to challenge/change the American culture that is so obsessed with guns?

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891611]You mean like pushing for gun control? And trying to challenge/change the American culture that is so obsessed with guns?[/QUOTE] You mean like reading the post I made after that one?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52891662]And what "magical gun control" solution do you have that isnt going to get eaten alive by the supreme court? Licenses? (banned unless 100% free, SCOTUS ruling states you cant be charged to exercise a right) Manditory classes? as above. More extensive background checks (you mean like the ones already in place, that fail because people dont do their jobs), or how about weapon bans? (too bad SCOTUS has ruled against those)..hmm, have I missed any of the other typical "solutions" from the guncontrol crowd?[/QUOTE] Just because the SCOTUS made a ruling doesn't make it "right." The Supreme Court can say "banning guns is unconstitutional," but that has no bearing on whether or not it'll work. It's just them saying "nope, not trying that solution." Like I said, American culture that's obsessed with guns. We see gun ownership as a [I]right.[/I] Some snarky "gotcha, you have no gun-control solution" misses the entire point. There are gun-control solutions, it's just that no one wants to do them, nor do they want to amend the constitution to allow them, if need be. We can. We just won't. I'm not saying it's a process that can be done within a month or even 3 years. But we keep forgetting that we [I]can[/I] say "the Bill of Rights is flawed."

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891769]Just because the SCOTUS made a ruling doesn't make it "right." The Supreme Court can say "banning guns is unconstitutional," but that has no bearing on whether or not it'll work. It's just them saying "nope, not trying that solution." Like I said, American culture that's obsessed with guns. We see gun ownership as a [I]right.[/I] Some snarky "gotcha, you have no gun-control solution" misses the entire point. There are gun-control solutions, it's just that no one wants to do them, nor do they want to amend the constitution to allow them, if need be. We can. We just won't. I'm not saying it's a process that can be done within a month or even 3 years. But we keep forgetting that we [I]can[/I] say "the Bill of Rights is flawed."[/QUOTE] Answer this question directly and do not attempt to move the goalposts or the context: Has banning firearms had a noteworthy positive impact on violent crime rates in any country in the history of the world? Not gun crime rates, violent crime rates overall. The object of the question is to determine whether banning guns solves the violence problem. If you ban guns and violence continues at the same rate via other means you've just moved your spinach to a different plate.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891759]You mean like reading the post I made after that one?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52890587]Even if you really feel like guns need to be banned or heavily restricted or whatever you have to know that the war on violence doesn't end there. Why not take other steps while you work on larger goals?[/QUOTE] I don't see how this and gun control/bans are mutually excusive. We [I]can[/I] take care of mental health issues and drug issues while also saying "guns need to go, too."

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891776]I don't see how this and gun control/bans are mutually excusive. We [I]can[/I] take care of mental health issues and drug issues while also saying "guns need to go, too."[/QUOTE] Why do guns need to go if you address the underlying violence problems that cause people to use them in crimes? At that point you are just taking them away from lawful users to be spiteful. Lots of countries have guns and have neither a general violence problem nor the attendant gun crime. According to your approach, this should be impossible. You are hung up on a specific method by which violence is carried out rather than the fact that violence is being carried out to begin with, which is the real concern in my eyes. I offered a number of ways individuals can help reduce violence in their communities without waiting for the government to get its shit together.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891774]Answer this question directly and do not attempt to move the goalposts or the context: Has banning firearms had a noteworthy positive impact on violent crime rates in any country in the history of the world?[/QUOTE] Australia. The National Firearms Agreement was introduced, and firearm related deaths plummeted. A [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/"]researcher [/URL]even noted that after that agreement was introduced, there hasn't been a mass shooting in a decade. The U.S. has gone barely a month. Two weeks, the church shooting. Less than a month before that, Las Vegas. A little over a year before that was Pulse. Compared to Australia's decade.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891798]Australia. The National Firearms Agreement was introduced, and firearm related deaths plummeted. A [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/"]researcher [/URL]even noted that after that agreement was introduced, there hasn't been a mass shooting in a decade. The U.S. has gone barely a month. Two weeks, the church shooting. Less than a month before that, Las Vegas. A little over a year before that was Pulse. Compared to Australia's decade.[/QUOTE] Obviously Australia has fewer firearm related deaths - they took hundreds of thousands of guns out of circulation. Yet overall violence remained unaffected; other types of violence spiked to compensate and the overall rate of violence continues to decline at the same rate it had been long before the ban. Not only is an Australia-style confiscation out of the question in the United States for obvious reasons, Australia is a perfect example of how little impact gun bans actually have. 1) As mentioned, violence in Australia is now performed with alternate means at the same rate. 2) The guns they took out of circulation are now being replaced in criminal hands by homemade MAC-10s, Luty subguns, and so on which are being manufactured for the sole purpose of meeting that illicit demand. These guns are arguably more effective than the legal ones they replaced. Also to say Australia doesn't have mass shootings, let alone mass killings, is fairly dishonest.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52891784]If we're gonna start tossing out SCOTUS rulings based on feelings, then why have a SCOTUS at all? Whats the point if you can just say "yea but i dont agree, so i dont care"[/QUOTE] Missing the point. SCOTUS interprets the constitution. As long as we keep the constitution saying "guns are a right," they're going to say "can't ban guns." Like I said, the constitution can be ammended, though. It's not tossing them out based on "feelings." You can't reasonably say "if the SCOTUS has declared it, then it is the absolutely right way to go." I'm saying that statement isn't true, and you seem to be arguing against that. [quote]And your right, no one wants to edit the constitution to make your solutions legal, weird, right? Almost like we live in a democracy or something.[/quote] I mean I don't see how amending the constitution contradicts democracy, but okay. It's not like we haven't made amendments that repeal past amendments, before. [quote]So, again I ask, whats your solution? Something unconstitutional? Something illegal? Or do we want to push these feel good measures aside and start attacking root causes of violence.[/quote] Ammending the constitution. Like I said. [editline]15th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891803]Obviously Australia has fewer firearm related deaths - they took hundreds of thousands of guns out of circulation... ...Australia is a perfect example of how little impact gun bans actually have.[/QUOTE] So, which is it? Violence is an issue, yeah. I already said "yes lets work on that, as well." If you take away a gun from a violent person, they're going to cause a lot less damage.

These just... really don't have the same impact they used to. I can't believe I'm shrugging this off because the amount of dead children isn't super high but that's what I'm automatically doing.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891805]So, which is it? Violence is an issue, yeah. I already said "yes lets work on that, as well." Gun if you take away a gun from a violent person, they're going to cause a lot less damage.[/QUOTE] Those statements do not contradict each other. They took hundreds of thousands of guns out of circulation, so the gun death rate dropped. Now people die by other means at the same rate. It had no impact. You moved the spinach to another plate, you didn't eat it. Guns were obviously not a root cause for violence in Australia, because banning them didn't affect the violent crime rate. (technically it caused it to increase, but I'm not going to be cruel - it definitely didn't lower it, however)

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891816]Those statements do not contradict each other. They took hundreds of thousands of guns out of circulation, so the gun death rate dropped. Now people die by other means. It had no impact. You moved the spinach to another plate, you didn't eat it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891805]Violence is an issue, yeah. I already said "yes lets work on that, as well." If you take away a gun from a violent person, they're going to cause a lot less damage.[/QUOTE]

So what was the point of the ban if it demonstrably had no effect on violent crime? What would the point of the same ban in the US be? Would it have an effect here that it did not have in Australia?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891820]So what was the point of the ban if it demonstrably had no effect?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891803]Obviously Australia has fewer firearm related deaths - they took hundreds of thousands of guns out of circulation.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891805]If you take away a gun from a violent person, they're going to cause a lot less damage.[/QUOTE] Like dude how often am I going to have to pointing back to things already said.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891829]Like dude how often am I going to have to pointing back to things already said.[/QUOTE] I'll keep repeating myself - I don't mind. Australia removed guns. Other types of crime spiked to compensate. The rate of violence at the end of the day is the same. It had no meaningful impact. You deprived law abiding citizens of their stuff and people are still killed and injured at the same rate as before and now to make matters worse your criminals are armed with actual machine guns. How was this a worthwhile endeavor if it didn't actually fix anything? It sounds like to me the actual violence and crime is an ancillary issue for you - primarily you just don't like guns.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52891826]We made amendments against things that were universally unliked and impossible to enforce, ala prohibition amd the repeal thereof, if thats your solution to make gun control legal then thats the weakest suggestion i've ever heard. That solution would take FAR more effort than combatting the causes of violence ever could.[/QUOTE] I know American culture is already so entrenched in guns that no one would agree to do it, now. That's why I said challenge/change that culture. I never said "it'll be an easy process and a quick appeal." And like I've constantly said, gun control and combatting the causes of violence [I]aren't mutually exclusive.[/I] I'm not saying "we should ban guns instead of focusing on causes of violence." I'm saying take care of guns [I]as well as[/I] focus on the cause for violence. Again.

[QUOTE=Amplar;52891094]Today in minneola FL, another possible shooting happened about 2 miles from me, but the boy took his own life with a gun instead of shooting anyone.[/QUOTE] Eh.. "Guy commits suicide" isn't the same as "Guy targets multiple people on mass murdering rampage" and seems very irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing they have in common are "a shooting of a weapon was involved"

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891843]I know American culture is already so entrenched in guns that no one would agree to do it, now. That's why I said challenge/change that culture. I never said "it'll be an easy process and a quick appeal." And like I've constantly said, gun control and combatting the causes of violence [I]aren't mutually exclusive.[/I] I'm not saying "we should ban guns instead of focusing on causes of violence." I'm saying take care of guns [I]as well as[/I] focus on the cause for violence. Again.[/QUOTE] What is the purpose/expected goal of a gun ban when we can see based on statistics that banning guns at best doesn't impact the overall rate of violent crime? Is getting killed with a gun worse than getting killed with other means?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891835]I'll keep repeating myself - I don't mind. Australia removed guns. Other types of crime spiked to compensate. The rate of violence at the end of the day is the same. It had no meaningful impact. You deprived law abiding citizens of their stuff and people are still killed and injured at the same rate as before and now to make matters worse your criminals are armed with actual machine guns. How was this a worthwhile endeavor if it didn't actually fix anything?[/quote] I've provided a study for my claim. May I ask for a source for yours? [quote]It sounds like to me the actual violence and crime is an ancillary issue for you - primarily you just don't like guns.[/QUOTE] Alright this bit honestly really bothers me, because it's stated in the sense of what [I]you're[/I] saying is fact, and that I'm making my statements based on what you're providing. Instead of, rather, I'm making my statements based on what I'm saying, and genuinely believe that if we controlled guns, violence would decrease. "Primarily you just don't like guns" sounds like some kind of "gotcha," as if I was caught being racist; like it's some "bad thing." Of course I don't like guns, because I feel they help and augment violence in this country, as well as failing to see any proper reason to own one sans hutning.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/zpEnifD.png[/img] Keep in mind that Australia's homicide rate was already so low compared to its population that individual murders are enough to make a noticeable impact on the graph. Here is another interesting graph: [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2013/figure_03.png[/img] [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/[/url] Here's the source on the black market guns. 10% of confiscated guns in NSW are homemade. I am suggesting your insistence on a gun ban stems from an emotional reaction to guns rather than a concern for facts or any real interest in solving the violence problem.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52891848]And again i'll ask, if you get rid of the majority of the causes of violence, then why do you need to "tackle guns". if you've reduced crime rates without touching someones rights (which you are extremely dismissive of), then why should you also infringe on their rights? Because guns are scary? You tell me man.[/QUOTE] The idea of a parent telling their child "I'm taking this away until you learn to play far" comes to mind as an analogy. And yes, I am dismissive of the idea that owning a gun is seen as a "right." I think it's ludicious that gun ownership is seen as a right amongst freedom of speech.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891861][img]https://i.imgur.com/zpEnifD.png[/img] Keep in mind that Australia's homicide rate was already so low compared to its population that individual murders are enough to make a noticeable impact on the graph.[/quote] Sans a spike in 2001, it looks like an overall decline, to me. Though I will admit there's an interesting drop in 95, before the ban. I don't know what caused that. [quote]I am suggesting your insistence on a gun ban stems from an emotional reaction to guns rather than a concern for facts or any real interest in solving the violence problem.[/QUOTE] [I]Where do you think these reactions come from[/I] [quote]Of course I don't like guns, because I feel they help and augment violence in this country, as well as failing to see any proper reason to own one sans hunting.[/quote]

The point is that it's the same rate of decline as it had been prior to the ban, which is to say it had no real effect.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52891873]Then, forgive me for completely dismissing your argument as it boils down to "I dont care how you do it, just ban guns, they're evil". You've no respect for the courts, and no respect for the legislature, and no respect for the will of the people. As such, it matters not the evidence brought forwarth, because your argument is always going to boil down to "ban guns", you get proven wrong? doesnt matter, ban guns. Your argument is illegal, doesnt matter, ban guns. Your argument isnt statistically supported? doesn't.... matter... ban... guns.[/QUOTE] [I]Y i k e s[/I] What part of "ammend the constitution" is illegal, and shows no respect for legislature/will of the people? I feel like you're intentionally ignoring what I'm saying. Ammending the constitution is legally adjusting the law. You can boil my argument down to whatever you want, when I've elaborated plenty of times beyond that.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891886]I feel like you're intentionally ignoring what I'm saying. Ammending the constitution is legally adjusting the law.[/QUOTE] Well I could tell you what I feel like you're doing but I'd probably get in trouble. Why don't we continue to avoid the topic of feelings and worry about facts and critical thinking instead?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891891]Well I could tell you what I feel like you're doing but I'd probably get in trouble. Why don't we continue to avoid the topic of feelings and worry about facts and critical thinking instead?[/QUOTE] We're honestly at a point where no one is convincing anyone of anything. I still believe there's no need for guns, period (sans hunting). I say they're unnecessary and un-right-worthy. You feel non-criminal gunowners should be untouched. It's a fundamental difference that'll never let you convince me, nor me convince you.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891905]We're honestly at a point where no one is convincing anyone of anything. I still believe there's no need for guns, period (sans hunting). I say they're unnecessary and un-right-worthy. You feel non-criminal gunowners should be untouched. It's a fundamental difference that'll never let you convince me, nor me convince you.[/QUOTE] Is this where you check out instead of acknowledging the statistics do not support your claims only to go on making those claims later? You know who else argues like that? Anti-vaxers. Climate change deniers. Flat earthers. Trump supporters. There are valid arguments for gun control. There are even good measures we could take which involve regulating ownership/transfer. Too bad none of those arguments will be made by your side and no useful bills will be drafted because it isn't about reducing crime, it's about punishing gun owners. That's why gun owners have dug their heels in and will continue to give no ground for the forseeable future. Whatever "gun problem" you think exists, your line of thinking created. The idea of a child, a six year old suffering gunshot wounds sickens me to my core. I want to fix this. The first step toward fixing the real problem is a reality check. I've done mine. Your turn.

God i'm so fucking tired of gun control debates. Its never, [i]ever[/i] going to go anywhere. Ever. And anything you could even remotely try to do in reality would take such an incredibly long time without even a guarantee of it working in the end that its not worth it. And thats assuming nobody would go fucking mental over people trying to take them away, which would absolutely happen. That effort would be, and [I]SHOULD[/I] be better spent on the root causes of crime and violence to begin with, social inequality, poverty, mental illness, etc. At least theres some semblance of a possibility of doing shit from that angle. Cause the reality is, theres enough firearms in this country for almost every man, woman, and child, so they're already here, and the right to them is in the bill of rights, so banning them just isnt going to ever happen given the already immense difficulty of actually trying to go about the act of amending the constitution coupled with how polarizing the topic is. No matter how anti-gun or pro-gun or whatever-gun you are, thats just how it is. Its a functionally useless argument to have, because its purely hypothetical in the end. In practical terms, it always seems like people who want to look like they care about wanting to see change but not bothering to really think out how that would ever work in practical realistic terms.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52891905]We're honestly at a point where no one is convincing anyone of anything. I still believe there's no need for guns, period (sans hunting). I say they're unnecessary and un-right-worthy. You feel non-criminal gunowners should be untouched. It's a fundamental difference that'll never let you convince me, nor me convince you.[/QUOTE] I think the point they're trying to get across is that they're willing to try to introduce the kinds of social safety nets and healthcare measures that Europe and Australia have and think that is a much more intelligent move, than to ban firearms which they have said (and shown through statistics) doesn't actually cause any sort of difference in violent crime trends. essentially they don't want to give up a right they use in a law abiding way or might use in a law abiding way for essentially no reason.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52891906]Is this where you check out instead of acknowledging the statistics do not support your claims only to go on making those claims later?[/QUOTE] No, it's where I check out because when I say "I don't think guns are necessary," I'm met with "guns... evil... bad..." I check out because I read one study that said how gun violence went down in Australia post-ban, and was met with another from you that said "no it didn't," and don't feel like doing more late-night research for a forum argument.