|
Bug Bill Murray posted:Gun advocates apparently all live in that city from Deathwish 3 where armed thugs are breaking into their apartments every single day No, they just fantasize that they are.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Subyng posted:LOL that you're comparing having guns to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. Self defense is more important than any of those other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:We can still be totally smug, mostly because the 350+ number was called bullshit by an author from the ultra conservative mother jones news. Who cares what the gently caress mother Jones says? They simply decided to use a different definition for "mass shooting" than most other people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Who is "most other people"? Because the FBI was the standard before whatever Reddit burped up gained traction. And that was four fatalities, not wounded, in an indiscriminate attack, in a public place. Really the numbers on shootingtracker are not useful for understanding what most people think of as a mass shooting event. Including crime/gang related events as well as domestic murder-suicides doesn't make any sense as they are all distinct types of events. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
It seems like America has a Chicago problem rather than a mass shooting problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
I'm curious as to what others thing should constitute a mass shooting. Off the top of my head, this is what I would go with:
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Khizan posted:I'm curious as to what others thing should constitute a mass shooting. Including gang violence is pretty dishonest because most of the frenzy to restrict gun ownership isnt spurred by gang violence. That would require people who don't like guns to acknowledge that restricting guns isn't the best way to resolve the issue. San Bernardino, Colorado springs, roseburg (Oregon), Charleston, isla vista, newtown, Aurora: none of these were gang related. There wasn't a massive push for gun control after the Waco bar brawl involving biker gangs. Gun control advocates are trying to conflate a bunch of other crime with a small number of incidents that the public cares about in order to make gun violence seem like an imminent threat to every single person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Who is "most other people"? Because the FBI was the standard before whatever Reddit burped up gained traction. And that was four fatalities, not wounded, in an indiscriminate attack, in a public place. You're right, I was wrong to say it's the definition that "most other people" use, but it is a pretty widely accepted definition, and one that I've known about personally for a couple years now. For example, it's the definition at the top of this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting quote:Mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. Mass shooting is commonly defined as the shooting, but not necessarily murder, of four or more people with no cooling off period. Yeah I know, wikipedia. In fact, that same article claims that the FBI defines a mass shooting as having at least 4 deaths, but as far as I can tell the FBI actually has no definition for "mass shooting". They do have one for "mass murderer" (as quoted in the motherjones article in question), which requires at least four killings in one incident, and many people (such as the people at motherjones and some wikipedia editors) appear to now be conflating that with "mass shooting", despite the fact that a shooting doesn't always end in a death. And confusingly, the FBI also appears to define a "mass killing" as having 3+ deaths. So if the FBI definition of "mass" in regards to murder is four (or maybe 3), then it sounds very reasonable that people could define a mass shooting as having at least four victims too (not necessarily dead, of course). There is no single agreed upon definition which is why this debate exists, but I can't shake the feeling that some people are purposely using a definition that requires a bunch of dead people, simply so they can say "actually america has very few mass shootings  ".[quote="LogisticEarth" post=""453552514"]Really the numbers on shootingtracker are not useful for understanding what most people think of as a mass shooting event. Including crime/gang related events as well as domestic murder-suicides doesn't make any sense as they are all distinct types of events. [/quote] I disagree. How do you know what most people consider a mass shooting? Personally, I consider any time a bunch of people get shot to be one (and i go by the 4+ victim definition...gotta have some kind of standard). What difference does it make if it was domestic terrorism, domestic violence, a crazy dude rampaging around, gang warfare, drug related, robbery, or due to a drunken argument or whatever? If a mass of people get shot, that's a mass shooting. But motherjones seems to only want to include incidents where people die (why not call it mass murders then?), and which involve terrorists and psychos randomly gunning people down (no gang/robbery/domestic violence related stuff), and they also "generally" excluded incidents with more than one shooter...except for the ones they decided to include, like San Bernardino. They can't even stay consistent with their own definition, but this is supposedly the more accurate definition we should now use? It just doesn't make sense to me to define it like that. Earlier this year four people were shot dead in a parked car in my city. But because it's suspected to be related to gangs/drugs, I'm not supposed to call it what it is?  Now if you want to talk about mass murder, of course there's gonna be a lot less of them than there are mass shootings. Rah! fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Effective gun control restricts who can own guns or why people can own guns. Useless gun control restricts what kind of guns one can buy. Because of the 2nd Amendment, almost all gun control laws in the US are of the latter type which is why conservatives are right to call them worthless. Assuming you're going to allow widespread gun ownership in the first place, there is absolutely no reason to ban automatic weapons or assault weapons. If you're going to have a mass shooter, you want him to have an automatic weapon. You can't hit anything with an AK47 on full automatic, he'll kill one or two people before running out of ammo, instead of 15. Gun control is just a waste of time while the 2nd Amendment exists. You can't do anything effective without running afoul of it. Effective gun control starts with you needing to provide a reason and proof that you need to own a gun, and "reasons" that apply to everyone like self defense don't count.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Xequecal posted:Effective gun control restricts who can own guns or why people can own guns. Effective idiot control also starts with needing to provide a reason and proof that you need to own an internet connection. Which will be very effective once that pesky First Amendment is inevitably repealed. Gun control theory based around removing the Second Amendment is purely in the realm of magical thinking. It isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Since sensible forms of GUN control will never happen in America, I'm waiting for someone to propose a federal ban on private flamethrower ownership, a thing that is legal in many states. Given the lack of mass burnings involving flamethrowers it won't actually accomplish anything useful, but everyone can pat each other on the back about a job well done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 09:42
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
i dont bloody understand them either op but anyone who thinks the us had 350+ mass shootings this year is a goddamn moron with no critical thinking skills and soft runny stool where pink and grey fatty brain matter should be. it's really not relevant to you or anyone for that matter and you should be more worked up about the way your country treats its indigenous ppls if you really feel the need to feel strong political emotions about something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:i dont bloody understand them either op but anyone who thinks the us had 350+ mass shootings this year is a goddamn moron with no critical thinking skills and soft runny stool where pink and grey fatty brain matter should be. Sounds like you don't know what a mass shooting is. Edit: let me help you out, as you seem to be pretty dumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting quote:Mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. Mass shooting is commonly defined as the shooting, but not necessarily murder, of four or more people with no cooling off period. Rah! fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
shootings with less than two-digit fatalities: the new US normal
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Maybe I'm some kind of Brit wuss but in the situation described earlier with the road-rage guy pulling a gun, I'd much rather nobody involved had a gun than being able to call on a neighbor to act the hero, or even pulling a gun out of my own glove-box to ward off the attacker. Apparently I'd be safer if everyone had guns but I just don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Okay I appreciate everyone's replies I really do. And the mostly civil tone we've been able to maintain. I have asked this but I don't know if I missed the answer. Even if the stats say these kind of shootings are rare and they're going down, they still occur. And I've now given 2 statements to police this week on shootings. Obviously I think here it's gang and drug related and retaliations and retaliations for retaliations. Putting the reasons aside, can we not all agree that SOMETHING has to change? If not the kind of measures that've been suggested, what would be ok in the eyes of most conservatives or republicans?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Miranda posted:Okay I appreciate everyone's replies I really do. And the mostly civil tone we've been able to maintain. I don't think you'll get a lot of people with this but focusing on poo poo like hi-points and these .32 pocket pistols that actually end up being used for most gun crime as opposed to things like AR-15s which are almost never used for this would be a start. I remember about 10 to 15 years ago the thing to do for cheap handguns in West Virginia was to buy a $100 Mosin-Nagant rifle from ww2, and then chop the thing down to a bare minimum size to make a 'handgun' out of it. I imagine that it's just a recipe for wrist destruction, though. Just hearing people go on about how every bubba with an AR or AK has modified it to be full auto makes me want to tune you out. Also, by the way, the reason you see people buy ammunition in lots of 1000 is because it's cheaper that way. It's not because everyone's stocking up for the apocalypse. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Sounds like you don't know what a mass shooting is. Thanks Wikipedia for comparing pellet gun attacks to an elementary school full of dead children. That's very helpful. Useful numbers, if you're a pedantic moron trying to score political points but less so if you want to actually understand he phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:Thanks Wikipedia for comparing pellet gun attacks to an elementary school full of dead children. That's very helpful. Useful numbers, if you're a pedantic moron trying to score political points but less so if you want to actually understand he phenomenon. What phenomenon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't think you'll get a lot of people with this but focusing on poo poo like hi-points and these .32 pocket pistols that actually end up being used for most gun crime as opposed to things like AR-15s which are almost never used for this would be a start. "A lot less frequently" doesn't mean "almost never"...just saying. Handguns may be way more common, but I can remember quite a few incidents just from my city alone, in the past decade, where criminals were caught with a rifle like an AR, AK, or SKS (which they used to shoot people in some cases). And it's not like I'm religiously paying attention to the news/police blotters either. "Almost never" suggests to me that it would happen like once per decade or something, like one step up from being a unicorn. But I agree that the focus on "scary assault rifles" like AR-15s and such is pretty dumb when handguns make up the vast, vast, majority of weapons used. And even more so, because the real things to address in order to combat gun violence, are poverty (working on this would fight all violence/crime, of course), poor mental health care (would also help against all crime), inadequate background checks, the gun show loophole, and straw purchases. A mandatory gun safety class for any first-time buyer might be a good idea too, to help keep retards from accidentally shooting themselves/their friends in the nuts. I think people who want an AR should be able to buy one. People who are insane or have a violent criminal record should not be able to buy any gun though. wiffle ball bat posted:Thanks Wikipedia for comparing pellet gun attacks to an elementary school full of dead children. That's very helpful. Useful numbers, if you're a pedantic moron trying to score political points but less so if you want to actually understand he phenomenon. The 350+ number doesn't include a single pellet gun incident. Maybe if you actually read the thread you would know that. Also, "mass shooting" and "mass murder" are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Effective idiot control also starts with needing to provide a reason and proof that you need to own an internet connection. Which will be very effective once that pesky First Amendment is inevitably repealed. Again, loving LOL at this guy comparing the "right" to gun ownership to the rights to free speech and religion and such. Just stop. It's not a slippery slope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
guns should not be banned, but anyone with an interest in owning a gun or any affiliation with 'gun culture' should be banned from owning one
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't think you'll get a lot of people with this but focusing on poo poo like hi-points and these .32 pocket pistols that actually end up being used for most gun crime as opposed to things like AR-15s which are almost never used for this would be a start. this is one firearm restriction that might have a meaningful impact on the crime rate, since it's pretty hard to go undetected wandering around town looking to bushwhack someone with an AR stuffed down the front of your pants, but given that basically every federal gun law stems directly from dancing around this issue way back in the 30s and concealable arms have largely been pushed out of contention by the battle over spooky looking Rambo guns that give yuppies the vapors when they see em on TV don't expect it to ever reenter serious discourse in your lifetime
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Shootingtracker's numbers do indeed include pellet gun attacks and people injured in car accidents by drivers spooked by gunfire. Feel free to look it up. It's on their website.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
The 2nd amendment isn't carved into stone, people. Wasn't the 18th amendment the prohibition of alcohol?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Miranda posted:Okay I appreciate everyone's replies I really do. And the mostly civil tone we've been able to maintain. No, we can't, because your 'something' that needs to be changed is limiting the constitutionally-protected rights of your neighbors to make yourself feel good because you've done 'something'. You might as profitably suggest that gays not be allowed to marry because it would cut down on people being upset about the sanctity of marriage. Panzeh posted:I don't think you'll get a lot of people with this but focusing on poo poo like hi-points and these .32 pocket pistols that actually end up being used for most gun crime as opposed to things like AR-15s which are almost never used for this would be a start. That's gotta be apocryphal. The receiver alone on a Mosin is.... 7 inches long, now that I put a measuring tape on it. Even cut down as far as possible (which is a felony, by the by, if you don't have the proper forms filed with the BATFE), it's still going to be a massive, heavy, lovely single shot pistol that cost more than a used Hi-Point or Lorcin and shoots worse than something cobbled together out of pipe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Again, loving LOL at this guy comparing the "right" to gun ownership to the rights to free speech and religion and such. Just stop. It's not a slippery slope. I'm sorry you don't understand the American legal system, where the right to gun ownership is, in fact, quite literally as important as the right to free speech, free religion, and free association. Don't like that? Get organizing and make repealing the Second a political cause. I'll wait, although I'll probably have to pass my guns on to my next of kin when I die of old age before it ever comes to even a half-assed vote in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Subyng posted:The 2nd amendment isn't carved into stone, people. Wasn't the 18th amendment the prohibition of alcohol? And the process of repealing an amendment is written into the Constitution, so go ahead and try that. However, it's also one of the amendments making up the Bill of Rights. Those are supposed to be sacrosanct and basic, fundamental limits on the power of the state. Repealing a portion of the Bill of Rights would be unprecedented, and in many ways extremely disturbing. Also, can we not use Wikipedia to define "mass shooting". The definition has already been edited to something far less conclusive since Rah! cited it yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm sorry you don't understand the American legal system, where the right to gun ownership is, in fact, quite literally as important as the right to free speech, free religion, and free association. A better way to frame the issue, to get people to at least understand it in context of speech, religion, etc. is to explain it as the right to self defense. The unimpeded ownership and use of personal weapons is a key part of that. Why firearms? Because they are in many ways a great equalizer when it comes to physical force. Telling someone facing a significantly stronger attacker, or multiple attackers, that they can only defend themselves in hand to hand combat is notably cruel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
I hope nobody is sitting around going "I don't bloody understand liquor store robberies or interpersonal conflict or gang warfare" because these are very well understood things. The thing that confuses and terrifies everybody is Adam Lanza and James Holmes and other scary white dudes with no sane motive. Nobody understands it, op. Especially not when there's so many people so emotionally invested in confusing the issue for you. Here I'll break it down: Why is America so violent? Because of poverty. What's up with motiveless spree killers? Nobody really knows. It's hosed up tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:
Well that's not surprising. The fact remains that there is no single agreed upon definition of "mass shooting", so we might as well make up ridiculous criteria for it, just like motherjones. Let's make the definition at least 500 people shot dead by a paraplegic rodeo clown. See, America has never had a mass shooting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Subyng posted:The 2nd amendment isn't carved into stone, people. Wasn't the 18th amendment the prohibition of alcohol? yeah, and it was a loving disaster the country's still suffering from the effects of, so people are kinda leery about a squad of moral panic vanguardists carving new sumptuary laws into the Constitution 'for your own good' It'd be completely possible to amend the constitution in whatever manner, as has been done right up to the 90s, if strong popular and political-class support were behind it. It's not, gun control advocates can't even get support for currently-constitutional bills at the Federal level and current signs point to even more of them being voted out of office next election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Yeah I understand that from a pragmatic perspective it's never going to happen but the idea that the Constitution or any such document is un-malleable is...well, wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
yeah, it is, which is why there's a bunch of amendments to it. It's just very, very hard to pass an amendment to the Constitution by design, so it's not really on the table for political point-scoring on wedge issues. Nobody's going to remove the Second Amendment for the same reason nobody's going to amend the constitution to outlaw abortion. The Bill of Rights is sort of commonly held sacrosanct because that's a list of, basically, most of the freedoms the American people have the legal standing to defend against a hostile government. Taking peoples rights away because after 200 years you've decided they're inconvenient to your political objectives generally doesn't go over well, though over the decades and especially in the last few the Feds have managed to quietly chip away the 2nd and 4th through 9th amendments to near meaninglessness without provoking much more than some intense grumbling. On the plus side, the first amendment's made a big comeback since the days the Supreme Court ruled it didn't apply to war protestors A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:I hope nobody is sitting around going "I don't bloody understand liquor store robberies or interpersonal conflict or gang warfare" because these are very well understood things. The thing that confuses and terrifies everybody is Adam Lanza and James Holmes and other scary white dudes with no sane motive. Nobody understands it, op. Especially not when there's so many people so emotionally invested in confusing the issue for you. It's pretty cool to live in a country where robberies and interpersonal conflict and gang warfare tend to involve fewer firearms, though. It results in less dying, which I like. If a guy comes to steal the cash out of my till with a knife, even if he's pretty twitchy it's unlikely he'll panic and stab seven people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:It's pretty cool to live in a country where robberies and interpersonal conflict and gang warfare tend to involve fewer firearms, though. It results in less dying, which I like. If a guy comes to steal the cash out of my till with a knife, even if he's pretty twitchy it's unlikely he'll panic and stab seven people. You can still legally buy guns in Australia tho. Restrictions are much harsher in Mexico, which currently enjoys the lowest murder rate in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
A combination of Pandora's Box, culture, cognitive dissonance, and a lack of human empathy. There are a whole bunch of gun owners in the USA, and the vast majority are responsible and law abiding. So when anybody tables gun control, most of them get defensive because they don't view themselves as part of a problem, and therefore by extension the guns they own are not problematic either. The problem is with bad people in their eyes, and the buck stops there. Thus they need guns to defend themselves. What the rest of the world sees, and too many Americans don't, is that making the possession of machines that can kill other human beings in an instant is dangerous and asking for trouble. It is irrelevant that even 99% of gun owners never do anything bad with them, even enjoy them, if 1% are negligent (leaving them lying around) or malicious, or emotionally unstable. Killing just becomes too easy. And personally, I don't see almost any good reason for owning a firearm beyond hunting. Seems mostly like a dick-waving thing to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Canada has I believe looser gun laws than both Australia and Mexico and that's why the streets run red with blood in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and places like that. It's the same reason why the chicago south side is extremely safe while the suburbs of chicago with laxer gun laws regularly report hundreds of shootings every week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Jeza posted:What the rest of the world sees, and too many Americans don't, is that making the possession of machines that can kill other human beings in an instant is dangerous and asking for trouble. It is irrelevant that even 99% of gun owners never do anything bad with them, even enjoy them, if 1% are negligent (leaving them lying around) or malicious, or emotionally unstable. Killing just becomes too easy. And personally, I don't see almost any good reason for owning a firearm beyond hunting. Seems mostly like a dick-waving thing to me. One point that I will continually credit the founders of America for accidentally putting into place is making it drastically hard for manufactured moral panic and disdain to let the few restrict the rights of the many. We failed to heed that once, and as has been noted, we're still fighting the results of Prohibition on the nature of criminal enterprise in the US. Nice touch on the 'but it's not important to -me- so clearly those it is important to are dickless cuckolds' smugness, though. You'll fit right in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Altho maybe, maybe! Canada and Australia are rich nations with strong social safety nets while America and Mexico both enjoy grotesque socioeconomic stratification. Lol who knows! Violence is a mystery
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:53
|
|