Mass Shootings Thread (3 Viewers)

[-fish-]

much of the NRA's intentional deception and media manipulation was confirmed through a 3 year sting operation.  these talking points have been parroted throughout this topic, since the NRA is the source material for many of the false arguments made against gun control.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019/3/26/how-to-sell-a-massacre-nras-playbook-revealed

 

[-fish-]

I'll rely on Harvard studies over anecdotes collected on a pro-gun website.   Many of those anecdotes include people acting illegally, as well.   One of the posters in the previous version of this topic bragged about scaring away his neighbor who was complaining about his barking dog by showing him his gun.   That's a felony in most states ("brandishing a weapon"), but these "good guy with a gun" sites would call it an instance of a defensive use of a gun.   

For every anecdote about some person's wild west moment, there's one of these:

https://wgme.com/news/local/absolute-crisis-maine-toddler-shoots-parents-prompting-gun-safety-concerns

It is so easy to shoot people, a toddler can do it.  

 

[-fish-]

One of the most egregious falsehoods spread by the NRA and repeated by at least one poster in this topic relates to domestic violence.  

Around 4.5 million women in the United States have been threatened with a gun, and nearly 1 million women have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner.  Over half of all intimate partner homicides are committed with guns. A woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a gun. 

76% of female homicide victims and 85% of female attempted homicide victims experienced stalking in the 12 months leading up to their murder or attempted murder.

Nearly 92% of all women killed by guns in high-income countries were American women, and American women are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed than women in other high-income countries.

link with citations

Yet the NRA opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act  and closing the "boyfriend loophole"   A poster on this site actually repeated the NRA argument that it would make women unsafe to confiscate guns from their abusive partners because it would remove a gun that they could potentially use for self-defense.

NRA opposes VAWA.

This is utter nonsense.

 

[Stealthycat]

The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms. The Chicago law does not prevent us from bearing arms.

Are there Turkey's to hunt in Chicago? Are we allowed to hunt any animals within the city limits?

I noticed that you change the subject from MASS killings to killings quite often. Why do you do that?

no, there are no turkeys in Chicago but IL has great hunting for many species of animals - if I have a lease 90 minutes from Chicago I would need me semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns in my house in my safe, that only makes sense doesn't it ? Not to mention home protection/defenses

Your second question - why do I talk about murders and mass killings in the same threads? Because I'm showing how media manipulates what people think, how the delivered information is done in such a way as to twist the reality of what's really going on.

Link below -  news/media LOVES "mass shootings" .... they take an incident like the King Soopers in Boulder and they run it into the ground, making it look like people with AR15's are killing mass amounts of people daily and hey, we need to address and stop that and make people safe.

But that's not the truth. Truth is, semi-auto rifles are used to kill fewer people every year than hands/fists. A few hundred are killed yearly in "mass shootings". The other 14-15,000 murders using guns? they're crimes that nobody wants to talk about who's doing them, what color of skin or what motivations are behind them and certainly not what kind of guns are being used. 

Why? Its totally ignoring the vast majority of murders to focus only a small %. Why ? 

in my mind, I think its all political and using media as a weapon to manipulate people into thinking a certain way without nearly all the information on the subject

how many people die every year in "mass shootings" ? of course that depends on the definition used but

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

In 2017, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 39,773 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. 

In 2017, six-in-ten gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (23,854), while 37% were murders (14,542), according to the CDC. The remainder were unintentional (486), involved law enforcement (553) or had undetermined circumstances (338).

The FBI collects data on “active shooter incidents,” which it defines as “as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Using the FBI’s definition, 85 people – excluding the shooters – died in such incidents in 2018.

The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people – excluding the shooter – are shot or killed. Using this definition, 373 people died in these incidents in 2018.

Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year.

 

[Stealthycat]

Around 4.5 million women in the United States have been threatened with a gun, and nearly 1 million women have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner.  Over half of all intimate partner homicides are committed with guns. A woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a gun. 

76% of female homicide victims and 85% of female attempted homicide victims experienced stalking in the 12 months leading up to their murder or attempted murder.

Nearly 92% of all women killed by guns in high-income countries were American women, and American women are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed than women in other high-income countries.

Democrats believe women should call police when threatened, when abused, let the "authorities" handle it and place restraining orders and pieces of paper to stop violence.

The NRA and pro-gun people believe in the Right to protect yourself and that Right included arming yourself. 

https://thewellarmedwoman.com/ is one of many sites where women are empowered to protect themselves and enable women to have the ability to fight back when assaulted

that anyone would remove them of those Rights ..... it astounds me

what did the NRA oppose what you posted ?   instead of how you posted it, lets look deeper at your link because as we know, little snippets and words can be very misleading can't they ?

(from your link)

The GOP and NRA oppose the provision because they say it infringes on gun rights and is "too broad and ripe for abuse," respectively.

"The NRA did not oppose VAWA for its first 25 years. And today, we only oppose the gun control provisions contained within."

So the NRA didn't oppose the VAWA for 25 years.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and anti-gun lawmakers of inserting gun control provisions into the bill in 2019 "to pit pro-gun lawmakers against it so that they can falsely and maliciously claim these lawmakers don't care about women."

ahhhhh so something was ADDED .... Democrats Pelosi and others .....

In 2019, then-NRA spokesperson Jennifer Baker told The New York Times that the provision could prevent someone from owning a gun if they were ever "convicted for a misdemeanor stalking offense for a tweet that causes someone emotional distress."

so if the wording was actually like that - and something I said on facebook hurt someone's feelings and there was some kind of conviction for it, I'd lose a Constitutional Right ?

that does seem way beyond doesn't it ? (note Jennifer Baker is female too)

But, David Keck, director of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and Firearms, told the Times that "a single tweet or Facebook message without significant other conduct" wouldn't ordinarily be enough to convict someone of stalking.

ahhh but David Keck admitted it WAS possible ... and that is what the NRA was standing against, wasn't it ?

 

[Stealthycat]

Sure, I'll read it.  But citing "facts" from the Center for American Progress website is like citing "facts" from DJT.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/?page=0&state=0&startDate=&endDate=&search=&contentBuckets=&tgt=latest-news

496 pages of people defending themselves - and that's a fraction IMO

 

[-fish-]

I'll rely on Harvard studies over anecdotes collected on a pro-gun website.   Many of those anecdotes include people acting illegally, as well.   One of the posters in the previous version of this topic bragged about scaring away his neighbor who was complaining about his barking dog by showing him his gun.   That's a felony in most states ("brandishing a weapon"), but these "good guy with a gun" sites would call it an instance of a defensive use of a gun.   

For every anecdote about some person's wild west moment, there's one of these:

https://wgme.com/news/local/absolute-crisis-maine-toddler-shoots-parents-prompting-gun-safety-concerns

It is so easy to shoot people, a toddler can do it.  

The father has now been arrested and charged with child endangerment.   

 

[The Z Machine]

But that's not the truth. Truth is, semi-auto rifles are used to kill fewer people every year than hands/fists. A few hundred are killed yearly in "mass shootings". The other 14-15,000 murders using guns? they're crimes that nobody wants to talk about who's doing them, what color of skin or what motivations are behind them and certainly not what kind of guns are being used. 

Why? Its totally ignoring the vast majority of murders to focus only a small %. Why ? 

Good.  As I said, let's get rid of the vast majority of guns then.  Just like most other modern democracies have done.  Color the skin of murderers or their victims don't matter.

We can reduce murders, violence against women, inner city crime, credible threats against police, and many other ailments.  There are people talking about this, but you don't want to listen to them because you want to keep your guns in whatever way you want, without limitations on their capacity.

That is not a good tradeoff for our society.

 

[-fish-]

Good.  As I said, let's get rid of the vast majority of guns then.  Just like most other modern democracies have done.  Color the skin of murderers or their victims don't matter.

We can reduce murders, violence against women, inner city crime, credible threats against police, and many other ailments.  There are people talking about this, but you don't want to listen to them because you want to keep your guns in whatever way you want, without limitations on their capacity.

That is not a good tradeoff for our society.

he has been told repeatedly why our court decisions prevent a significant amount of legislation that would affect handguns. states regulate assault weapons because the supreme court says they can be regulated. it has nothing to do with the talking points he keeps repeating

 

[Stealthycat]

Good.  As I said, let's get rid of the vast majority of guns then.  Just like most other modern democracies have done.  Color the skin of murderers or their victims don't matter.

We can reduce murders, violence against women, inner city crime, credible threats against police, and many other ailments.  There are people talking about this, but you don't want to listen to them because you want to keep your guns in whatever way you want, without limitations on their capacity.

That is not a good tradeoff for our society.

ok so, Chicago and Baltimore and CA has gotten rid of a lot of guns haven't they ? if "getting rid of" = reducing murders/violence/crime .... I sure don't see how its worked ?

the red - in my lifetime I've conceded as a gun owner to age limits, not allowing guns in many places, bump stock bans, ammo bans, gun bans (like city bans that have been passed), background checks, registrations in some places, many many laws have been passed in the name of common sense gun laws ............ so don't tell me gun owners haven't given

I have a different idea. I say don't focus on the 75 million gun owners who do nothing wrong. I say focus on the 15,000 who want to murder other people. 

Doesn't that seem more logical? 

If you got your wish and your gun ban impacted all 330 million American's .... you'd not done a dang thing to stop a murderer. He's still a violent murderer and you've ignored the core problem 

btw we're not a Democracy, we're a Republic 

 

[Stealthycat]

he has been told repeatedly why our court decisions prevent a significant amount of legislation that would affect handguns. states regulate assault weapons because the supreme court says they can be regulated. it has nothing to do with the talking points he keeps repeating

why are you pointing that at me ?

The Z Machine is talking mass gun banning not me - and as you've stated, handguns are not going away, they're protected by SC rulings right ?

so .... knowing that, what makes more sense? Continuing to pour resources and focusing on guns used in 2-3% of all murders or, focusing on the people doing these crimes ?

 

[KarmaPolice]

why are you pointing that at me ?

The Z Machine is talking mass gun banning not me - and as you've stated, handguns are not going away, they're protected by SC rulings right ?

so .... knowing that, what makes more sense? Continuing to pour resources and focusing on guns used in 2-3% of all murders or, focusing on the people doing these crimes ?

now that you've acknowledged that, going forward can we at least do away with : 

1. "why aren't they focusing on the most used weapons in shootings??!" posts?

2. "they are coming for all guns" posts? 

 

[The Z Machine]

I have a different idea. I say don't focus on the 75 million gun owners who do nothing wrong. I say focus on the 15,000 who want to murder other people. 

Doesn't that seem more logical? 

If you got your wish and your gun ban impacted all 330 million American's .... you'd not done a dang thing to stop a murderer. He's still a violent murderer and you've ignored the core problem 

Ok, tell me your proposal.  What is the "core problem" and how would you address it?

 

[Stealthycat]

now that you've acknowledged that, going forward can we at least do away with : 

1. "why aren't they focusing on the most used weapons in shootings??!" posts?

2. "they are coming for all guns" posts? 

well no because anti-gun people are still not focusing on the core problem and point to banning the least used weapons as life saving measures and because the new laws as some of them are written take away my hunting guns - which was promised over and over to never be the case

 

[Stealthycat]

Ok, tell me your proposal.  What is the "core problem" and how would you address it?

Lets pretend in 2019, 18,000 people killed other people. If we could have stopped just those 18,000 ..... there would have been almost no homicides, agreed ?

So we have to determine who those 18,000 are and we have to agree on WHY those 18,000 kill other people to determine a solution don't we?

Why do you think people kill others? Drugs? Gangs? Crimes of passion/domestic violence? Just meanness ?

If we could determine THAT .... then we could potential solve the problem without banning anything couldn't we ?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Lets pretend in 2019, 18,000 people killed other people. If we could have stopped just those 18,000 ..... there would have been almost no homicides, agreed ?

So we have to determine who those 18,000 are and we have to agree on WHY those 18,000 kill other people to determine a solution don't we?

Why do you think people kill others? Drugs? Gangs? Crimes of passion/domestic violence? Just meanness ?

If we could determine THAT .... then we could potential solve the problem without banning anything couldn't we ?

Where in there is a proposal about how to handle the mass shooting problem like he asked? 

Almost seems like you are proposing that we wait for some Minority Report pre-crime tech or something.  

 

[The Z Machine]

Lets pretend in 2019, 18,000 people killed other people. If we could have stopped just those 18,000 ..... there would have been almost no homicides, agreed ?

So we have to determine who those 18,000 are and we have to agree on WHY those 18,000 kill other people to determine a solution don't we?

Why do you think people kill others? Drugs? Gangs? Crimes of passion/domestic violence? Just meanness ?

If we could determine THAT .... then we could potential solve the problem without banning anything couldn't we ?

Can you please be more succinct?  Try not answering my question with more questions.

Core problem: <fill in the blank>

Action to take to address core problem: <fill in the blank>

 

[Terminalxylem]

Can you please be more succinct?  Try not answering my question with more questions.

Core problem: Not interested in meaningful dialogue about the hazards of widespread access to firearms.

Action to take to address core problem: Ignore function.

 

[Stealthycat]

Where in there is a proposal about how to handle the mass shooting problem like he asked? 

Almost seems like you are proposing that we wait for some Minority Report pre-crime tech or something.  

again, we have to establish what is behind the murders don't we ?  

Can you please be more succinct?  Try not answering my question with more questions.

Core problem: <fill in the blank>

Action to take to address core problem: <fill in the blank>

do you know why people murder other people ? is it drugs? is it crimes of passion? monetary gain? is it an argument that escalated between people who don't control their tempers or is it domestic disputes ?

I mean you can't ask me to solve the problems without identifying them. ( lust, love, loathing or loot) aka financial greed, lust or the pursuit of power are a common "top 3" of reasons but I disagree, I think that's too limited.

Have you ever really deeply thought about ? its isn't natural to want to kill another human being

https://time.com/3816212/brain-murder-morality/

Evil isn’t easy. Say what you will about history’s monsters, they had to overcome a lot of powerful neural wiring to commit the crimes they did. The human brain is coded for compassion, for guilt, for a kind of empathic pain that causes the person inflicting harm to feel a degree of suffering that is in many ways as intense as what the victim is experiencing. Somehow, that all gets decoupled—

In all of us it’s clear that murder’s neural roots and moral roots are deeply entangled. Learning to untangle them a bit could one day help psychologists and criminologists predict who will kill—and stop them before they do.

but that said, look at other studies

https://qz.com/1348203/a-neuroscientist-who-studies-rage-says-were-all-capable-of-doing-something-terrible/

This raises the question: If we’re incapable of knowing what others are capable of, do we know what we could potentially do? Most of us, after all, have thought about committing murder. David Buss, professor of psychology at the University of Texas-Austin,  surveyed 5,000 people for his book, The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill, and found that 91% of men and 84% of women had thought about killing someone, often with very specific hypothetical victims and methods in mind.

wow 

So even though for humans its not easy to kill others, we've all thought about it pretty much ? Lets assume that's semi-correct .... if it is, what sets off someone then?

Opportunity? Being pushed by music or video games or social pressures etc? traumatic event ? drugs (prescription or illegal) ?

See all that matters - the whole " well what would you do" question is of course difficult to answer and because its difficult, many people just want to ban something and say "hey look at us, we did something !" when in reality nothing was done to stop the violence. 

If statistics showed 30% of all murders being done while illegal drugs were involved (either by buying, dealing, under influence etc) than we could really crack down on illegal drugs.

Domestic violence is a tough one, because some people are just angry and do not control their violence. A man finding his wife cheating take a gun and kills her. If there isn't a gun, he'll beat her to death or he'll use a knife etc. The weapon really is irrelevant for such a crime. I won't mention suicides because that's exceptionally deep topic and best for another thread and has nothing to do with mass shootings. Murders from robberies etc I don't think are really high but its as easy for guys to use shotguns as handguns in robberies, I don't see those being impacted by gun control.

How to stop people from being mean and evil and violent is really a hard question to answer. We could impose death by firing squad and 2 week trials and people like the King Soopers shooter would be dead right now. exceptionally harsh penalties and a society that doesn't accept violent acts like that - do ya'll think that would send a message? Quadruple the penalties for domestic violence, would that help?

I think juvenile records should be made public and used in background checks. I think mental records could be better used as well and anyone on FBI watch lists could be better flagged. I'm not sure how to navigate the above and still preserve privacies but ya'll want brainstorming I'll give it. 

I think we have millions more gun owners today, and tens of millions more guns and yet murders have stayed about the same. I think when I see 75 million gun owners doing nothing wrong, and every year about 17-18,000 people being violent doing things wrong, I think focusing on those 17-18,000 should make far more sense than focusing on the people not doing anything wrong. 

I like citizens being armed. Those who want to get training, know their weapons and carry is a positive in this country. They can protect themselves and in extreme situations others as well. I see no need for more gun laws, we have plenty of common sense gun laws right now.

I would like to see the Fed Govt prosecute anyone lying on background checks and felons who are found with guns. Why they don't baffles me and should anger anyone who wants a safer society.

I'd like to see Hollywood stop using fully auto weapons and producing movies with murdering and glamourizing it all. TV too. Video games too. I don't see anything positive in any of it. Rap music too. Imagine if all those outlets switched from violence and death towards other things?

Nobody can fully stop others from killing. If someone decides to do it, nobody will stop them. Right now, if any of ya'll wanted to go out and use your car to plow through 20 people on a sidewalk, nobody could stop you. Fact. 

However IMO everything leading UP to you starting your engine that day could have. We prevent many drunk drivers by preaching do not drink and drive. Do not text and drive. You hear it all the time. How many programs are initiated on "don't be violent" ? I would love to see some kind of national "personal responsibility" movement, instead of this blame everyone else culture.

Now, how would ya'll tackle stopping the 17-18,000 people every year that choose to kill others? 

 

[Stealthycat]

Core problem: Not interested in meaningful dialogue about the hazards of widespread access to firearms.

there are 210 million adults old enough to buy guns in the USA in 2019

around 17,000 people used guns to kill others - not including suicide

why didn't another 500,000 people grab guns and kill other people? Or 1,000,000 ? if the problem truly was guns, and we all have access to them ............ why is it such a small % of guns being used in murders? I've posted and proven many times guns being "hazards" are far less than other "hazards" we face in our society

that's a meaningful dialogue right there isn't it ?

Every year nationwide approximately 135,000 individuals are injured in ATV-related accidents. There are between 300-400 people killed annually in these accidents with one-third of them children under the age of 16

Did you know that? More are injured / killed with ATV's than with rifles

that's a meaningful dialogue right there isn't it ?

 

[The Z Machine]

That's a lot of question marks. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

That's a lot of question marks. 

You new to a SC conversation? 

He doesn't know what the core problem is, or offer any ideas how to solve it, but somehow wants everybody else to focus on that and not his guns.  

 

[The Z Machine]

You new to a SC conversation? 

He doesn't know what the core problem is, or offer any ideas how to solve it, but somehow wants everybody else to focus on that and not his guns.  

I think he offered some ideas, but they were hard to parse out of that post.

He gave the following problem statements and solutions, which I've edited for brevity.

If statistics showed 30% of all murders being done while illegal drugs were involved ... we could really crack down on illegal drugs.

We could impose death by firing squad and 2 week trials ... exceptionally harsh penalties ... Quadruple the penalties for domestic violence

I think juvenile records should be made public and used in background checks. I think mental records could be better used as well and anyone on FBI watch lists could be better flagged.

I think focusing on those 17-18,000 should make far more sense than focusing on the people not doing anything wrong. 

I would like to see the Fed Govt prosecute anyone lying on background checks and felons who are found with guns.

I'd like to see Hollywood stop using fully auto weapons and producing movies with murdering and glamourizing it all. TV too. Video games too. I don't see anything positive in any of it. Rap music too.

I would love to see some kind of national "personal responsibility" movement, instead of this blame everyone else culture

Some interesting ideas in there.  

 

[BladeRunner]

You new to a SC conversation? 

He doesn't know what the core problem is, or offer any ideas how to solve it, but somehow wants everybody else to focus on that and not his guns.  

Absurd. 

He's providing relevant links and stats - which is what has been DEMANDED from your side.  Now it's not good enough?  I mean, he's raised some pretty damn good questions that you guys refuse to answer.

Why is that?  Is it because getting to the truth will invalidate YOUR arguments?  Theories?

Don't be afraid of the truth.  It really will set you free. 

 

[Stealthycat]

He doesn't know what the core problem is, or offer any ideas how to solve it, but somehow wants everybody else to focus on that and not his guns.  

I 100% can tell you that the 16-18,000 people killing people in 2019 was the problem

I can 100% tell you that 75,000,000 gun owners were not

You are really good at demanding answer - how about you provide some? what do you think the core problem is? Ideas on how to solve the people with those problems? 

You're right, we've focused on "my" guns for 50 years and "we" have passed laws after laws and still we see violent people murder others. Why do you think people murder others? What do you think society can do to stop those people ? 

Not make them use shotguns instead of rifles - man that's not a solution and you know it. What's your REAL solution ? I'm eager to hear

 

[Stealthycat]

That's a lot of question marks. 

yes, lots of questions because (using the 18,000 number) .... they all don't murder for the same reasons

the USA is different than most countries because of our freedoms. I don't know if our urban area's are simply more violent or not, but what i do know is that IF guns were the problem, gun owners (tens of millions of us) would be killing a whole lot of people every day 

but we don't, because the guns is not the problem, not the core problem, violent people are and so we go back around to WHY people are violent, why hurt others and I tried to hit on all that - drugs, crimes of passion/lust, monetary gain etc. 

I promise you this - if Biden and anti-gun Democrats ban "assault" weapons, whatever that means ..... murders will not go down even by one. Mass murders won't either because instead of a legal gun they'll get illegal ones, or they'll use handguns, or shotguns etc

The core problem is being ignored - and lets be honest, we all realize that don't we? 

 

[The Z Machine]

Core problem: too many murders and suicides

Solution to core problem: Buy back program for nearly all firearms, followed by strict training, registration, and storage requirements for all firearms that remain legal.

Result: Far fewer guns in circulation, leading to fewer gun deaths and lower overall homicide and suicide rates.

You posit that people and their violent tendencies are the problem, and you seek to address that through increased penalties for violent acts, reduced privacy for juveniles, and increased government involvement in the media (limitations on speech).

Yes, my solution requires amending the Constitution, and writing many new laws, but your solutions do as well.  I suggest that the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments are more valuable and necessary than the 2nd. 

 

[squistion]

I promise you this - if Biden and anti-gun Democrats ban "assault" weapons, whatever that means ..... murders will not go down even by one. Mass murders won't either because instead of a legal gun they'll get illegal ones, or they'll use handguns, or shotguns etc

Didn't they go down after the last "assault" weapons ban? (I don't have the figures in front of me and don't have time to look it up, so I could be wrong, but I thought the prior assault weapons ban had some sort of impact)

 

[Stealthycat]

Didn't they go down after the last "assault" weapons ban? (I don't have the figures in front of me and don't have time to look it up, so I could be wrong, but I thought the prior assault weapons ban had some sort of impact)

homicides were already trending down

https://cdn.mises.org/homiciderate.PNG

if the "assault weapons" ban mattered that much, then when it expired in 2004 murders would have went UP right ?

but they really didn't

 

[Stealthycat]

Core problem: too many murders and suicides
Solution to core problem: Buy back program for nearly all firearms, followed by strict training, registration, and storage requirements for all firearms that remain legal.

Result: Far fewer guns in circulation, leading to fewer gun deaths and lower overall homicide and suicide rates.

You posit that people and their violent tendencies are the problem, and you seek to address that through increased penalties for violent acts, reduced privacy for juveniles, and increased government involvement in the media (limitations on speech).

Yes, my solution requires amending the Constitution, and writing many new laws, but your solutions do as well.  I suggest that the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments are more valuable and necessary than the 2nd. 

ok

several problems with your "buy back nearly all" - lets pretend for a minute that SC would allow the rewriting of what the 2nd means

how many tens of millions wouldn't sell back? I wouldn't, and I don't think many would. Such a move would create literally 10's of millions of criminals - is that smart ?

but assuming such a thing happened .......... those 17-18,000 every year would use knives or some other weapon. Surely you see that right ?

of course, the Constitution will never be amended in such a way, and States have passed layers of gun protection laws for their citizens as well as Supreme Court rulings.

so knowing that, what REAL WORLD solution to the core problem of violence can you offer ?

 

[The Z Machine]

ok

several problems with your "buy back nearly all" - lets pretend for a minute that SC would allow the rewriting of what the 2nd means

how many tens of millions wouldn't sell back? I wouldn't, and I don't think many would. Such a move would create literally 10's of millions of criminals - is that smart ?

but assuming such a thing happened .......... those 17-18,000 every year would use knives or some other weapon. Surely you see that right ?

of course, the Constitution will never be amended in such a way, and States have passed layers of gun protection laws for their citizens as well as Supreme Court rulings.

so knowing that, what REAL WORLD solution to the core problem of violence can you offer ?

I disagree with nearly every point you've made here.

Buy back programs followed by severe regulation has worked in other countries.  If people want to risk sanctions in keeping their (now illegal) firearm, then they will deal with the consequences.  I think most people would go along with it and you'd have maybe a few million people that defied the (new) laws.  Many others would find a way to get trained, licensed, register, and store the legal, but restricted weapons. 

Knives, fists, baseball bats are less deadly than firearms.  Victims have some opportunity to either survive the attack or flee before the attack.  Therefore SOME of the murders would be reduced.  We've seen that in other countries too, and the prevalence of firearms is WHY the US has such a high murder rate.

Your proposed solutions would also require amending the constitution and lots of re-written laws.  So the legislative hurdles are similar between both proposals.  Both would take enormous political will and require the support of an overwhelming % of the population to enact.

So my question: which proposal, yours or mine, do you think would do more to reduce the number of murders and suicides in this country?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Absurd. 

He's providing relevant links and stats - which is what has been DEMANDED from your side.  Now it's not good enough?  I mean, he's raised some pretty damn good questions that you guys refuse to answer.

Why is that?  Is it because getting to the truth will invalidate YOUR arguments?  Theories?

Don't be afraid of the truth.  It really will set you free. 

This is truly tired shtick.  

 

[BladeRunner]

This is truly tired shtick.  

And yet, fits like a glove EVERY time.

 

[squistion]

homicides were already trending down

https://cdn.mises.org/homiciderate.PNG

if the "assault weapons" ban mattered that much, then when it expired in 2004 murders would have went UP right ?

but they really didn't

But mass murders using assault weapons did, right?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I 100% can tell you that the 16-18,000 people killing people in 2019 was the problem

I can 100% tell you that 75,000,000 gun owners were not

You are really good at demanding answer - how about you provide some? what do you think the core problem is? Ideas on how to solve the people with those problems? 

You're right, we've focused on "my" guns for 50 years and "we" have passed laws after laws and still we see violent people murder others. Why do you think people murder others? What do you think society can do to stop those people ? 

Not make them use shotguns instead of rifles - man that's not a solution and you know it. What's your REAL solution ? I'm eager to hear

Do you not read my posts?  

IMO the problem is, there is not one "core" problem, which makes it hard to come up with a universal solution and it's makes it easy for people to move goalposts, talk about "mass killings" instead "shootings", etc, etc.    

So off the top of my head we have swirling around in this debate - mass shootings (then does that include inner city as well, or is the person you are talking referring more to mall/school shootings??,  gun deaths in general, suicides, etc.  

I have said multiple times that's why I think both the guns and people need to be addressed.  

Guns  - because, well, one thing is 100% universal in shootings and gun deaths.   And, when people decide to try to kill somebody, guns are a lot more effective to do so than other weapons a person could grab.  Access to guns is a huge factor in completed suicides too. 

People -  yep, we need to make it so people are less likely to want to kill people.  IMO part of that is ending the war on drugs, as I think that has a huge effect on inner cities and those types of shootings.    Mental health needs to be a lot bigger focus in this country - access to drs/theapists, decreased stigma, hell even SM is a big factor with this, but that's not changing.  

 

[-fish-]

But mass murders using assault weapons did, right?

increased 183%.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration

 

[-fish-]

unfortunately, no one who simply parrots the NRA will ever acknowledge the simple, incontrovertible fact that stricter gun regulations result in decreased gun violence.  it would gut all of the NRA arguments to recognize this truth.  so the NRA lies about the laws and manufactures bogus numbers from non-credible sources.  

if this wasn't true, the NRA would support at least some gun control regulations, like expanded background checks that 84% of voters, 77% of republicans, and 77% of gun owners support.  because if they did, their whole narrative falls apart.  they would have to admit that gun laws work.  so they and their zealots are left with repeating the same false arguments to justify allowing gun violence to continue.

 

[BladeRunner]

unfortunately, no one who simply parrots the NRA will ever acknowledge the simple, incontrovertible fact that stricter gun regulations result in decreased gun violence.  it would gut all of the NRA arguments to recognize this truth.  so the NRA lies about the laws and manufactures bogus numbers from non-credible sources.  

if this wasn't true, the NRA would support at least some gun control regulations, like expanded background checks that 84% of voters, 77% of republicans, and 77% of gun owners support.  because if they did, their whole narrative falls apart.  they would have to admit that gun laws work.  so they and their zealots are left with repeating the same false arguments to justify allowing gun violence to continue.

Chicago says "Hi".

 

[KarmaPolice]

I get why it keeps getting pointed out, but I really don't understand how people would expect a city trying to do something different with gun control would have a great impact.   Kinda like the covid thing - it probably helps, but doing it city by city or county by county isn't an effective way to handle the issue.  

 

[-fish-]

another NRA talking point...but Chicago's gun laws were gutted by Heller, and gun violence got worse after that ruling struck down the law.   additionally,  studies have shown that many of the guns are coming from neighboring states with looser gun laws.  

but this does help prove my point that there is an imperative to claim gun laws don't work, even though the talking points are easily disproven.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

another NRA talking point...but Chicago's gun laws were gutted by Heller, and gun violence got worse after that ruling struck down the law.   additionally,  studies have shown that many of the guns are coming from neighboring states with looser gun laws.  

but this does help prove my point that there is an imperative to claim gun laws don't work, even though the talking points are easily disproven.  

@-fish- - could you unpack that a little more please? 

 

[-fish-]

@-fish- - could you unpack that a little more please? 

In 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller held that restrictions on handgun ownership violated the second amendment (it also essentially rendered the first half of the second amendment meaningless).   Heller only applied federally, so two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment applied to state and local governments, striking down Chicago's ban on handguns.   Gun violence in Chicago spiked the next year and continues to rise.   Chicago's laws are relatively restrictive, including a citywide assault weapons ban, but when the handgun ban was overturned it immediately resulted in an increase in gun violence.   The NRA loves to say Chicago has restrictive gun laws but high gun violence, but that's a distortion of the facts.   And studies have shown that many of the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago are purchased out of state in neighboring states with loose gun laws.   

 

[BladeRunner]

In 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller held that restrictions on handgun ownership violated the second amendment (it also essentially rendered the first half of the second amendment meaningless).   Heller only applied federally, so two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment applied to state and local governments, striking down Chicago's ban on handguns.   Gun violence in Chicago spiked the next year and continues to rise.   Chicago's laws are relatively restrictive, including a citywide assault weapons ban, but when the handgun ban was overturned it immediately resulted in an increase in gun violence.   The NRA loves to say Chicago has restrictive gun laws but high gun violence, but that's a distortion of the facts.   And studies have shown that many of the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago are purchased out of state in neighboring states with loose gun laws.   

Who did the study? Chicago?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Who did the study? Chicago?

Yeah, I would guess as police confiscate weapons they would trace where they came from.  

LINK

DOES CHICAGO HAVE THE TOUGHEST GUN LAWS IN THE NATION?

No. Trump and his administration have wrongly made this assertion . Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982. Those who’d already purchased and registered their handguns were allowed to keep them. In 2010, the ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2013, Illinois became the last state in the nation to approve concealed carry.

Illinois is considered to have fairly tight gun laws. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks. It also imposes waiting periods on purchases. But unlike New York and California, Illinois, among other things, does not ban assault weapons or large-capacity magazines and does not require a state license for firearms dealers or one to sell ammunition, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF ILLEGAL CHICAGO GUNS?

According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons, followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10 source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana.

 

[Stealthycat]

I disagree with nearly every point you've made here.

Buy back programs followed by severe regulation has worked in other countries.  If people want to risk sanctions in keeping their (now illegal) firearm, then they will deal with the consequences.  I think most people would go along with it and you'd have maybe a few million people that defied the (new) laws.  Many others would find a way to get trained, licensed, register, and store the legal, but restricted weapons. 

Knives, fists, baseball bats are less deadly than firearms.  Victims have some opportunity to either survive the attack or flee before the attack.  Therefore SOME of the murders would be reduced.  We've seen that in other countries too, and the prevalence of firearms is WHY the US has such a high murder rate.

Your proposed solutions would also require amending the constitution and lots of re-written laws.  So the legislative hurdles are similar between both proposals.  Both would take enormous political will and require the support of an overwhelming % of the population to enact.

So my question: which proposal, yours or mine, do you think would do more to reduce the number of murders and suicides in this country?

worked how?  violence and murders still happen - don't they ?

but to stop 17-18,000 people you'd impose severe restrictions and unConstitutional laws on 75 million gun owners ?

really ?

actually knives, ball bats and hands/fists are used to kill more people every year than rifles - you do know that, right ?

I actually don't think murders/violence would go down much at all. Your proposal would disarm people, making everyone sitting ducks/victims for people who'd want to do them harm. We've tried the putting up signs that says "gun free" and that worked great for law abiding people .......... but criminals walk right by those signs. 

But look towards the big cities and places that have no guns allowed - there's your template for how well removing guns works. 

How does it look ?

 

[Stealthycat]

But mass murders using assault weapons did, right?

what is an assault weapon ?

 

[Stealthycat]

increased 183%.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) released the following statement 

oh well, that's not going to be a one sided slanted report is it ? Can I respond with something from Wayne LaPierre then ?

 

[Stealthycat]

unfortunately, no one who simply parrots the NRA will ever acknowledge the simple, incontrovertible fact that stricter gun regulations result in decreased gun violence.  it would gut all of the NRA arguments to recognize this truth.  so the NRA lies about the laws and manufactures bogus numbers from non-credible sources.  

if this wasn't true, the NRA would support at least some gun control regulations, like expanded background checks that 84% of voters, 77% of republicans, and 77% of gun owners support.  because if they did, their whole narrative falls apart.  they would have to admit that gun laws work.  so they and their zealots are left with repeating the same false arguments to justify allowing gun violence to continue.

why are you so fixated with the NRA ?

literally nobody else mentions them in these threads except you

 

[Stealthycat]

studies have shown that many of the guns are coming from neighboring states with looser gun laws.  

so you're saying criminals are going to get their guns anyway illegally ?

which is exactly what I've said over and over - these 17-18,000 people that want to harm others every year and the feq dozen mass killers, they're going to get their weapons one way or the other

thank you for finally admitting that !

 

[Stealthycat]

In 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller held that restrictions on handgun ownership violated the second amendment (it also essentially rendered the first half of the second amendment meaningless).   Heller only applied federally, so two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment applied to state and local governments, striking down Chicago's ban on handguns.   Gun violence in Chicago spiked the next year and continues to rise.   Chicago's laws are relatively restrictive, including a citywide assault weapons ban, but when the handgun ban was overturned it immediately resulted in an increase in gun violence.   The NRA loves to say Chicago has restrictive gun laws but high gun violence, but that's a distortion of the facts.   And studies have shown that many of the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago are purchased out of state in neighboring states with loose gun laws.   

so you are saying that since Heller, murders have gone UP UP AND UP in Chicago ?

do you have a link to a chart showing that ?

because what I see is this

https://miro.medium.com/max/875/1*L_3cKRjLaZ_u7g7SUjqRWg.png

it really didn't change much until 2016/2017   ... but if what you said is true, then every year would be "massacre" as Feinstein says right ?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/chicago-homicide-spike-2016/514331/

nobody knows but that article suggests that liberals getting their way and police scaling back was maybe a big contributer

what -fish- isn't saying, is that many states have allowed concealed carry and/or open carry now. Tens of millions more guns are in the hands of law abiding people.  if guns were REALLY the problem .... we'd see tens of thousands more murder from a wild wild west type situation. 

we don't though

sorry -fish- ..... your claims just don't add up