Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
We haven’t even identified what medical history is relevant, let alone a way to ensure such a database wouldn’t be misused. I realize some of the same issues may apply to a gun registry, but the potential for abuse is far greater for health info IMO.
I'm asking a serious question. But you can't send me to that link and expect me to spend all day reading it. I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything like that. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the ideas.
Every gun owner believes they are proficient, safe etc. etc. etc. Just like every dog owner thinks their dog is safe and under control right up until they eat someone's face off (FTR I voted Dog). The only point is you can do everything right and the result could still be innocent deaths.
You are trying too hard to make whatever point you are after, while not reading my posts which might clue you in that I am 90% on the same page.
It is an abstract... like 4 paragraphs are all you need to read?
Pretty sure I am reading your posts just fine.
cherry picking the quotes.. im not even reading this block of text my friend.
That is a summary of a study on state gun regulations that have proven to reduce gun fatalities. Unless you are an extremely slow reader, it won't take all day to read. But to spoon feed it to you:
To restate it for the statistically challenged:
Granted the stats apply to all gun deaths, including suicides, which somehow are less important in the eyes of many. They do not specifically address mass shootings, but I'm in the camp who believes the shooters are incredibly difficult to identify prospectively and shouldn't be the focus of our efforts.
I haven't pushed for anything. I'm trying to post actual data and concrete solutions, rather than empty rhetoric. Sorry if that doesn't fit your standards of fairness.
I am a slow reader. It's been stated on here many times.
I doubt any of us have earth-shattering new ideas to solve the problem of gun violence, so I thought it would be helpful to see if any objective data existed. The proposed gun regulations seem far more reasonable to me than pie-in-the-sky ideas like solving mental health problems contributing to mass shootings.
I'd say that last paragraph says more about your opinion than anything else you've posted in here.
Do I think many of the reasons offered for needing a semiautomatic rifle are ridiculous? Yes.
I think it's like anything else. If you've had something your whole life, you're going to get defensive if someone comes and tries to take it away. Again, I'm not a "gun guy" by most definitions. I own a 9mm that I bought while in the police academy. It sits locked in my house most of the time, but I like to go shooting at the range several times a year. If someone knocked on my door tomorrow and said they were there to confiscate my gun, I'd probably be upset. But to be fair, I'd be just as upset if they came to say they were there to confiscate my laptop. Or my PS4. Or my books. Especially since I've done nothing wrong with any of those things. Well, maybe with the laptop. And by maybe, I mean definitely.
While I'm replying to your post, I'm not talking about you. I think what a lot of people who oppose gun control miss is that people who support gun control like freedom too. My wife, son, and I were at a city festival this past weekend. My wife did not want to stand too close to the vendors by the entrance, because if some nut came in with a gun shooting up the place, she figured that would be where it would start. So, it is to the point where we are not doing things out of fear.
I think this is a really underrated feeling. I went to an outdoor concert at an amphitheater a few years back and felt vulnerable for the precise reason of a mass shooting. Was it a rational fear? Probably not. But the chances of survival at one of these things is x<1 for sure, so it no longer behooves me to a be a victim of somebody's crazy manifesto or copycat crime. Like I've said over in the PSF, my attitude towards guns is not fleshed out, but this is a very astute comment about the mindset of at least some of us.
Fair enough but the talk of banning has been focused on military style assault weapons, which is a far cry from the government coming to confiscate all of your guns. There are limitations to freedom for all kind of things but any time there is discussion on regulations on guns Americans go crazy.
My personal experience may be a bit clouded because my son's daycare is about 1000 feet from where Rep. Scalise was shot. I was in a lockdown with my son there in the immediate aftermath of that shooting. I think my wife still has a bit of PTSD from that. I also play fantasy football with someone who was shot (but survived) in Virginia Beach.
Agree. But one of the big sticking points I keep trying to get across is that the terminology is confusing people. You say military style assault weapons. But what are those? Because a lot of people keep saying that semi automatic weapons fall into that category. And if so, that would include my 9mm pistol.
This may not be entirely true. There are some states that are already looking at banning semi automatic rifles that "could" accept a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. By that description, there are a lot of guns that people use for hunting that would suddenly become illegal. The deer rifle that I used for 20 years, the gun that passed down to my son, is a Remington 7400. It has a 4 round removable magazine. But, it could accept a magazine that holds 10, 20 or 100 rounds. It doesn't have a pistol grip or a scary looking profile. But, because of over reaching legislation, it's considered something that needs to be banned.
I totally get that. And I always try to see things from both sides. But crazy people are driving cars into crowds to kill people. I'm sure people worry about being at a festival and having a car come plowing into the crowd, too. More people own cars than guns and anyone can buy a car. I don't think fear should dictate what we allow people to own. I don't think it should be totally discounted, but fear should not be our main focus. In reality, getting shot at a festival is something that is extremely rare.
I have (or had) a greater fear of being plowed into with a car while in Vegas. I spend roughly 15-20 days in Vegas each year. The area I stay is the Planet Hollywood, Bellagio, Paris area. Whenever you're standing at the crosswalk, there are 50-75 people waiting for the crosswalk signal. A few years ago, a woman did drive into a crowd of people at that exact location. Vegas is currently putting up 3000 bollards along the strip to prevent this from happening in the future. I was in Vegas the week after the shooting. I had never been afraid of being in a mass shooting in Vegas before or after that. In a town that plays the odds, it just isn't a logical bet.
I commented upthread about cars- if/when they are used as weapons, changes are made locally to limiting what they're able to access to minimize these kinds of attacks. from a perception standpoint, the same hasn't happened with these mass shootings.
Not changes to the cars, though. Changes to other things. But cars stay the same. They may add barriers or things like that, but the car stays the same.
There were some portable jersey barriers at the event that I was at, so that was a bit less of a risk. A car attack can certainly happen, but it seems like protecting against that is becoming a bit more of a standard security precaution. I don't think protecting against car attacks and gun attacks are mutually exclusive activities. And there are some places where gun attacks have happened that are not as susceptible to car attacks (office building, school, Walmart, movie theatre, etc.).
I really dislike this argument. The idea that mass murderers will just choose another weapon implies all killing tools are created equal. Clearly they aren’t. Nobody thinks every death can be avoided, but the idea is to minimize the carnage while still allowing law abiding citizens access to firearms.TheIronSheik said:
This is just the beginning. Many liberals stepped away from the study.
Also according to that study:
haha, crazy manipulative politically motivated effort to get those three laws more attention. But just laughable really.
How do you explain the stabbing rampage in LA? Known gang member with prior violent history = inability to purchase a firearm in California. Use knives to kill 4 people and injure 2 more.
And in Japan last month, a guy killed more than 20 via arson. Coverage of that tragedy? Little to none, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Why are we trying to eliminate the tool rather than those that use the tool because they are nuts? Think about that for a minute. We are being led around by an agenda driven media who no longer report news. They simply report anything that falls within their belief system and in the end, will probably be the end of us and US.
I’m not sure I follow. It sounds like your blogger is criticizing the study because...well, because. Same goes for the Hopkins public health guy (it’s not hard to find many other public health officials who praise the study, btw). The authors of the study make no statement regarding causality - they’re clear their findings just reflect an association between the laws and gun deaths. Sometimes the nature of the association is obvious, other times less so, but the statistical analysis is in-line with typical medical journal fare.
Nobody is saying killers have no alternative weapons. People are saying guns are more effective at killing many people quickly in most settings.
Nobody is saying arsonists don’t exist either. We’d love to eliminate all the criminals in the world who use guns for nefarious reasons, but there is no prospective way to identify them all. Meanwhile, we have evidence some gun control laws work, and they don’t invalidate 2a’s call for a well regulated militia.
When you take away one weapon, and the desire to kill remains, what will that person do?
Not necessarily. You are discounting the role impulsivity plays in some acts; “crimes of passion” and suicide are classic examples. Even mass shootings aren’t entirely premeditated. If you make killing more difficult, less killing will likely result.
I saw that news about the knifer in LA and thought of this thread immediately. one thing I thought- thank god that guy didn't have a semi auto weapon and just had a knife. sounds like the numbers increased because he moved around by car before the police could respond... not because the knife was a weapon of mass-killing.
Exactly. Most laws suggested after one of these mass shootings would've done nothing to stop the shooter and only punish gun owners and prospective gun owners that have done nothing. If we did the same thing in response to DUI's we would all be driving very small four cylinders with no power and getting one would be very difficult.
I understand you're points here. But, would the victims and the families of victims care whether or not the death was caused by a knife or a gun? It's been said in these threads that gun owners wouldn't support guns if it was their family member involved in these mass shootings. I wonder if a bullet wound would cause a quicker death than a knife wound. So if you can't eliminate all deaths, and you have to die, would you rather die quickly from a bullet or bleed out slowly from a knife wound?
if/when bridges are crossed and new weapons can kill 20 people in less than a minute, I'll happily revisit. I don't see semi-automatic knife ranged weapons in the immediate future- I'm not worried about knives... even if one could kill me. and as mentioned, local jurisdictions are trying to make pedestrians safer from these kind of car attacks- so the response has already happened there. I really don't see it at as this slippery slope you're implying.
