Today in mass shootings

[Confluence]

LOL, the two-terms have been weighing on you guys. Only another year to go, hold on tight. I know the feeling. I remember the tail end of George W's presidency, it was like pulling teeth, excruciating.

It was for all. Just like the end of Slick Willy's term, the next year will be nauseating. Luckily, Marc Rich is still free, and Bomma isn't interested in gals like Monica, so we'll expect more "first among equals" fun.

 

[deljzc]

So now we're really going to argue with each other as to whether there is a correlation between the number for firearms in a society and how often those are used in crime?

Really?

God... it really is like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

And I never once said "more regulations" or "more safe zones". Don't put me in the same box as Tibs on this.

All I asked was if there is a way to REDUCE the total number of firearms in this country and do it under the Constitution. That's it.

Because I do strongly feel that gun violence will continue to be prevalent as long as guns exist in the numbers they do. Having more people with concealed carry permits is not going to change that just as having more safe zones or more background checks won't.

And not only do I think there is a correlation of guns to gun events, but I actually think it might be non-linear. In might be exponential. So if you double the guns, you quadruple the violence/crime that use a gun.

And maybe, we can make everyone happy in this country, allow anyone who wants to own a gun have them, but still reduce the total number of firearms from 300 million to 150 million and I think we'd see a pretty significant drop in violence/crimes that use a firearm. That's all.

 

[BAS]

So now we're really going to argue with each other as to whether there is a correlation between the number for firearms in a society and how often those are used in crime?

Really?

God... it really is like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

And I never once said "more regulations" or "more safe zones". Don't put me in the same box as Tibs on this.

All I asked was if there is a way to REDUCE the total number of firearms in this country and do it under the Constitution. That's it.

Because I do strongly feel that gun violence will continue to be prevalent as long as guns exist in the numbers they do. Having more people with concealed carry permits is not going to change that just as having more safe zones or more background checks won't.

And not only do I think there is a correlation of guns to gun events, but I actually think it might be non-linear. In might be exponential. So if you double the guns, you quadruple the violence/crime that use a gun.

And maybe, we can make everyone happy in this country, allow anyone who wants to own a gun have them, but still reduce the total number of firearms from 300 million to 150 million and I think we'd see a pretty significant drop in violence/crimes that use a firearm. That's all.

How do you intend to cut down the number of guns in the US that are already out there?
Are you also going to tell gun manufacturers that they are to stop production of guns immediately?

Pandora's box was opened a LONG time ago... putting the 'released evil' back isn't ever going to happen.

 

[21STEELERS21]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bo...bor-with-shotgun/ar-AAf8sfs?ocid=ansmsnnews11

In the good old USA a terrorist can be the 11 year old next door.

 

[deljzc]

How do you intend to cut down the number of guns in the US that are already out there?
Are you also going to tell gun manufacturers that they are to stop production of guns immediately?

Pandora's box was opened a LONG time ago... putting the 'released evil' back isn't ever going to happen.

Well... that's the question.

Can it be done? If not, then this whole issue is pointless. Gun restrictions don't work. Having everyone carry around a concealed weapon won't work. Having "school safe zones" won't work. Debating whether our recruiting offices have weapons or not is idiotic.

It all doesn't matter.

Gun violence is as ingrained into American culture as the guns themselves. They go completely hand-in-hand. It is Budweiser, apple pie, baseball, Chevrolet, owning a gun and accepting gun violence.

When you enamor gun ownership along with individual freedom, gun violence just is what it is. There is no way to separate the two things unless you want to give up the right to unilaterally own as many guns as you want or you want to restrict freedoms.

And believe me, I'm not against gun ownership. I'm not being facetious or making fun of gun owners. I'm not.

I just want to understand if there could ever be middle ground on the idea of reducing the total number of firearms in this country or not.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

When in the entire history of man kind has there never been murders and mass killings? Ever? There where and always will be, it's what humans do and no enlightened lefty or politician will change millions of years of behavior. If it's not an AK-47 then it will be with machete's and then what? Ban sharp objects? Not joking when I say 5 years from now you will not even need to go to a gun store when you can simply "print" a plastic gun with your grand spankin' new Lexmark 3D printer. Then what? Ohhhhhhh, ban bullets. Then we print bullets....then what? Ohhhhh, ban shells....then what? Ohhhh, ban gunpowder. Wake up and stop chasing unicorns.

 

[deljzc]

Are you trying to say their no correlation to the number of deaths at a mass-murder event and whether firearms were used or not?

Is that the next straw pole argument?

Again.... brick meet head.

You guys really are lost. The denial is just amazing.

 

[Superman]

I tell you what, delz...

Remove ALL the guns being carried around illegally. It should be rather simple. Find a murder, then backtrack to see who caused it and why. If the murderer using a gun did not kill the person out of self defense, then remove the gun from circulation. A good place to start is the gun-free Liberal Utopia of Chicago. Guns are illegal there, so finding them should be like finding a pyramid sized diamond in the desert at 12PM on a cloudless sky from an airplane.

Once all the criminals have their guns removed, I'd believe that all gun-crime would dip to zero, or close to it.

Then you can focus on the background of each of those people and review the psychiatric drugs they were taking at the time. Cross-referencing them with their potential side effects and comparing them to others would likely yield a surprising common denominator.

Then, and only then, would you be able to remove guns from "legal" gun owners, and/or those who, unlike myself, have not lost them in bird-watching excursions in the Everglades during a hurricane.

 

[BAS]

Well... that's the question.

Can it be done? If not, then this whole issue is pointless. Gun restrictions don't work. Having everyone carry around a concealed weapon won't work. Having "school safe zones" won't work. Debating whether our recruiting offices have weapons or not is idiotic.

It all doesn't matter.

Gun violence is as ingrained into American culture as the guns themselves. They go completely hand-in-hand. It is Budweiser, apple pie, baseball, Chevrolet, owning a gun and accepting gun violence.

When you enamor gun ownership along with individual freedom, gun violence just is what it is. There is no way to separate the two things unless you want to give up the right to unilaterally own as many guns as you want or you want to restrict freedoms.

And believe me, I'm not against gun ownership. I'm not being facetious or making fun of gun owners. I'm not.

I just want to understand if there could ever be middle ground on the idea of reducing the total number of firearms in this country or not.

I'm not sure it's as simple as just the idea that gun ownership is the ingrained culture in the US. I still think that one of the biggest issues is the news and entertainment industries making gun violence commonplace, desensitizing the population to it's impact and glamorizing the perpetrators.

How many movies and tv shows....
...promote gang violence?
...promote civil disobedience?
...promote war?
...promote end of the world?
...promote the zombie apocalypse?

And this is in TV shows and the news, Movies, video games, online content, etc. Tibs mentions the insanity of so many guns per number of US households, but in the face of all that information overload, I can see people who are stockpiling arsenals to 'protect themselves'.

It's not just here in the US, it's global.

And there's a realism to it, so much so that there are people that can't or won't see the difference between reality and fantasy.

But the truth of the matter is... it sells. Billions upon billions of dollars go to producers of these shows. It's all about the bottom line.

And those celebrities that people idolize? They're making bank on portraying roles where violence and gunplay IS the answer.
What's worse is the many actors, actresses and directors making films where their characters are killing scores of people yet believe we need to get all guns off the streets. Meanwhile many go through life with armed guards.

 

[Vader]

From the Oregon shooting... "Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines.." That's what's wrong with it, but clearly that escapes you and many others, for whatever reason(s).

Didn't escape me at all. It makes NO DIFFERENCE. I understand you want to stir **** and just say bullshit. I get it man. You nor anyone on your side know how to "fix" this. The number of guns has NOTHING to do with what happened in Oregon. AT ALL. If he had 10,000 guns what would it have changed? NOT ****.

 

[ark steel]

All I asked was if there is a way to REDUCE the total number of firearms in this country and do it under the Constitution. That's it.

Easy peasy. Enforce the gun laws we have on the books. Even with that, our border is so porous getting guns across it will be no harder than getting the illegal immigrants across it.

 

[Superman]

I'm not sure it's as simple as just the idea that gun ownership is the ingrained culture in the US. I still think that one of the biggest issues is the news and entertainment industries making gun violence commonplace, desensitizing the population to it's impact and glamorizing the perpetrators.

How many movies and tv shows....
...promote gang violence?
...promote civil disobedience?
...promote war?
...promote end of the world?
...promote the zombie apocalypse?

And this is in TV shows and the news, Movies, video games, online content, etc. Tibs mentions the insanity of so many guns per number of US households, but in the face of all that information overload, I can see people who are stockpiling arsenals to 'protect themselves'.

It's not just here in the US, it's global.

And there's a realism to it, so much so that there are people that can't or won't see the difference between reality and fantasy.

But the truth of the matter is... it sells. Billions upon billions of dollars go to producers of these shows. It's all about the bottom line.

And those celebrities that people idolize? They're making bank on portraying roles where violence and gunplay IS the answer.
What's worse is the many actors, actresses and directors making films where their characters are killing scores of people yet believe we need to get all guns off the streets. Meanwhile many go through life with armed guards.

agree and it's shitheads like Sean Penn who do this.

Penn shared his new disdain for personal firearms during his star-studded Help Haiti Home benefit over the weekend.

A strong woman who happens to be from South Africa” convinced Penn to unload his weapons, Penn said at the gala, according to E! Online….”Being provoked by this aforementioned strong woman and considering how liberating of bulls**t and ugliness it would be not only get rid of the guns I have in the continental United States but also to destroy them, Jeff Koons and I had a chat the other day,” Penn said. “The highest bidder gets every single one of my guns put in the hands of this iconic artist and sculptor…Koons will decommission [and] render inactive all of my cowardly killing machines.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2014/01/14/sean-penn-gun-statue/

so I guess my question to Sean Penn would be "If you hate and loathe guns so much, why do you even have ONE, let alone 'every single one' which implies far more than just one?"

If you're so against guns, why have one? If you have one and don't want it, get rid of it.
but don't mock and try to remove the right to bear arms from others.

 

[Sarge]

I have 5 guns. One is an AR-15 Bushmaster (oooo scary, I know). None of these weapons has been used in the commission of any crime. Explain that, guns being inherently evil and all.

 

[SteelChip]

Sign the petition to President Obama to tell him you support him in taking executive action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Dear Mr. President,

88 Americans are killed by gun violence every day in this country, with hundreds more injured

We know you are open to addressing this issue without Congress, and we therefore encourage you to consider the five following actions your administration can take without Congressional approval:

1. Remove exemptions that let dangerous people carry guns near our children's schools
2. Make sure high-volume gun sellers become licensed dealers and are required to conduct background checks for all gun sales.
3. Ensure that federal law enforcement notifies local law enforcement when dangerous criminals try to illegally buy guns at dealers in their community
4. Help states that require background checks for all gun sales to enforce existing laws on the books
5. Don't let convicted domestic abusers buy guns just because they're not married to the person they abused

You can learn more about these important measures here: http://every.tw/1VyIDWj

Thank you for speaking so passionately about this issue and for your dedication to saving lives by strengthening our nation's gun laws.

That would be a good idea if the Federal Gubmint wasn't busy sweeping illegal gun sales under the carpet...how hypocritical can this administration get ? Do as they say, not as they do...again and again and again.

“Dontray Mills, 24, purchased a total of 27 firearms, mostly handguns, between December 2012 and April 2014 and pleaded guilty to one of the charges on April 22, 2014, after an ATF deal investigation,” jsonline.com reports. “As a result of the conviction, Mills will never again be able to buy firearms legally.” Result? Yes and no. “In giving probation with no jail time to a Milwaukee man charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake identification and dealing them without a license, a federal judge delivered a message: ‘People kill people,’ U.S. District Rudolph Randa [above] said, echoing a common gun rights slogan. ‘Guns don’t kill people.'”
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...-in-arms-about-illegal-gun-dealers-probation/

So a banger supplies guns illegally to his homies and the Feds cut him a deal and release him, but we NEED more stringent guns laws ...cute.
Hey, I know this is only one case ( as far as we know) but it shows the grass on the other side is not all that green either.

 

[Vader]

Mark Levin talking about guns. From the CDC 2/3 of all shootings are suicide. He breaks it down even further. So you can see all the liberal lies and bullshit about gun stats. Banning guns of any type, changing the constitution, and having more background checks wouldn't change a damn thing. It just makes liberals feel better why they are trying to ban all guns.

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin...-says-theres-no-such-thing-as-gun-free-zones/

 

[deljzc]

See, I'm listening. I'm trying.

And I sort of think the "compromise" does have to do with enforcement and going hard after illegal guns.

Can pro-gun advocates endorse automatic increases or mandatory jail time when committing crimes with a gun? Would you endorse all convicted domestic violence criminal (even misdemeanors) have to turn their guns over to police (not be able to sell them)?

Would you endorse domestic violence happening WITH A GUN IN THE HOUSE (used or not) result in greater punishment?

Should we be allowed to TAKE legal guns (not allow them to be sold or handed down) from convicted felons even if they were not used in a crime?

Should psychologists be able to break patient/client privilege if the doctor notices the "mix" of psychological issues AND gun ownership?

If the mantra from the gun-right is all about the actions of bad people and not the guns themselves, can we agree to punish actions when guns are around harsher than without? Is that legal? Would the Constitution allow this? Would gun manufacturers and the NRA be okay with it?

I really don't know. I'm just throwing ideas against a wall really.

 

[Superman]

My understanding, and this may have changed recently, is in many states, anyone involved in a domestic disturbance has their guns removed by the sheriff's office until a hearing is completed.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

My understanding, and this may have changed recently, is in many states, anyone involved in a domestic disturbance has their guns removed by the sheriff's office until a hearing is completed.

In my county the State Police confiscated the sheriff's guns because he's a nutcase.

 

[Steeltime]

So now we're really going to argue with each other as to whether there is a correlation between the number for firearms in a society and how often those are used in crime?

Really?

God... it really is like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

Learn to read.

I showed that correlation ≠ causation. Your entire analysis rests on the proposition that the correlation proves causation, where your premise is demonstrably wrong. Otherwise, who gives a **** about the correlation. If the number of guns (correlation) does not CAUSE an increase an crime (causation), then the number of guns has no relevance to preventing crime.

Get it?

 

[SteelChip]

Banning guns of any type, changing the constitution, and having more background checks wouldn't change a damn thing. It just makes liberals feel better why they are trying to ban all guns. ]

 

[Rod Farva]

The question to ask any gun rights activist is "Can you propose a method of reducing the number of firearms on U.S. soil while maintaining your belief the Constitution is being followed?". My answer to that as a "gun rights activist (which is a false characterization of 2nd amendment supporters as the right(s) already exist....a better characterization would be "gun rights defenders") would be 'no....why would I want to'?That's the ONLY question we need to reach with debate that makes both sides happy. I don't want more gun restrictions. You obviously do by given premise of your first posit. I don't want to defy the Constitution. Again, yes, you do. I just want less guns out there in America because I KNOW less guns means less gun violence. You may believe that but you don't "know" it. If you did it would have to be provable and you can't prove any such thing. No other bullshit correlation exists other than that. It's not drugs. It's not gun laws. It's not safety zones. It's not dealing with depression. Those are all cover ups to the real issue.

We just have WAY too many guns floating around our country. If we can approach gun owning Americans with this simple idea, there has to be a solution.

Unfortunately, I worry the "gun fight" has just been used by as a propaganda machine by gun manufacturers to encourage MORE gun ownership. And really it's not even more people owning guns. It's just gun owners own more guns now.

Again, your opinion and conjecture and very likely false. I personally know many more people who own and carry handguns now than 10-15 years ago.

VERY massaged numbers..........from your own article;

As shown, when considered from a global perspective, there is no correlation between the number of guns per capita in a country and the number of firearm-related homicides. Note that the United States has, by far, the most number of guns per capita, at 89 per 100, but a homicide by firearm rate of only 3 per 100,000. Compare that to Honduras, which has only 6.2 guns per 100 people but a sky-high homicide by firearm rate of 68 per 100,000.

And from a link within the article used to "bolster" the article;

If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state. There were 77 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 22% on 2009

DC with the strictest gun laws in the country.

So now we're really going to argue with each other as to whether there is a correlation between the number for firearms in a society and how often those are used in crime?

Really?

God... it really is like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

And I never once said "more regulations" or "more safe zones". Don't put me in the same box as Tibs on this.

All I asked was if there is a way to REDUCE the total number of firearms in this country and do it under the Constitution. That's it.

Because I do strongly feel that gun violence will continue to be prevalent as long as guns exist in the numbers they do. Having more people with concealed carry permits is not going to change that just as having more safe zones or more background checks won't.

And not only do I think there is a correlation of guns to gun events, but I actually think it might be non-linear. In might be exponential. So if you double the guns, you quadruple the violence/crime that use a gun.

And maybe, we can make everyone happy in this country, allow anyone who wants to own a gun have them, but still reduce the total number of firearms from 300 million to 150 million and I think we'd see a pretty significant drop in violence/crimes that use a firearm. That's all.

Are you trying to say their no correlation to the number of deaths at a mass-murder event and whether firearms were used or not?

Is that the next straw pole argument?

Again.... brick meet head.

You guys really are lost. The denial is just amazing.

See, I'm listening. I'm trying.

And I sort of think the "compromise" does have to do with enforcement and going hard after illegal guns.

Can pro-gun advocates endorse automatic increases or mandatory jail time when committing crimes with a gun? Would you endorse all convicted domestic violence criminal (even misdemeanors) have to turn their guns over to police (not be able to sell them)?

Would you endorse domestic violence happening WITH A GUN IN THE HOUSE (used or not) result in greater punishment?

Should we be allowed to TAKE legal guns (not allow them to be sold or handed down) from convicted felons even if they were not used in a crime?

Should psychologists be able to break patient/client privilege if the doctor notices the "mix" of psychological issues AND gun ownership?

If the mantra from the gun-right is all about the actions of bad people and not the guns themselves, can we agree to punish actions when guns are around harsher than without? Is that legal? Would the Constitution allow this? Would gun manufacturers and the NRA be okay with it?

I really don't know. I'm just throwing ideas against a wall really.

You're listening? You're trying? Bullshit. Unless you have me on ignore.......you seem to want to demand answers to your questions but refuse to answer others'......and when your figures and statistics are challenged you just move on to asking more questions. That's not how one debates.

Learn to read.

I showed that correlation ≠ causation. Your entire analysis rests on the proposition that the correlation proves causation, where your premise is demonstrably wrong. Otherwise, who gives a **** about the correlation. If the number of guns (correlation) does not CAUSE an increase an crime (causation), then the number of guns has no relevance to preventing crime.

Get it?

Evidently not.

 

[deljzc]

I disagree with your position that there is no correlation/causation between the number of firearms in a society and the amount of crime using a gun in that society.

You can look at the outliers of the graph (like Honduras), but as that article CONCLUDES (if you would have read down to the bottom), that when it comes to similar societies to ours (i.e. you take out countries in civil war conflicts or lack or centralized government) then there is a clear causation AND correlation to countries that have a large number of guns per capita and how often guns are then used during crimes.

I think your argument against this is kind of worthless to argue with, because I can't believe you actually believe otherwise. I think you're just arguing to argue.

The argument that Chicago is somehow an example that strong anti-gun legislation doesn't work is also misleading. There is no proof Chicago now has less guns per capita. I think the guns are still there. And when guns are confiscated in Chicago during crimes they are coming from outside the city (which has relative lax laws in buying guns).

Again, I'm not advocating (yet) the inability to purchase or own a firearm.

But I strongly believe in the causation AND correlation of firearm events during a crime and the number of firearms per capita in that society.

It just seems logical to me that if a society loosely accepts the ownership and use of firearms in non-criminal activities that it also accepts the the use of firearms in criminal activities. The two go hand-in-hand. People don't just turn off the comfort of having access to a gun when/if they want to perform a crime. And in crimes of passion, the availability of a gun certainly increases it's possibility of use during that crime of passion.

These are kind of self apparent facts, no?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

It just seems logical to me that if a society loosely accepts the ownership and use of firearms in non-criminal activities that it also accepts the the use of firearms in criminal activities. The two go hand-in-hand. People don't just turn off the comfort of having access to a gun when/if they want to perform a crime. And in crimes of passion, the availability of a gun certainly increases it's possibility of use during that crime of passion.

Guns have been legal, manufactured, and sold in this country for over 200 years. That horse left the barn and isn't going back in. I would encourage Democrats to go on a vociferous and vocal to ban and confiscate guns because it's a losing issue except in the halls of Congress and university faculty lounges.

These are kind of self apparent facts, no?

The self-apparent fact is that Democrats are bent on incrementally eliminating the Second Amendment. If they don't like it they can introduce legislation to repeal it. It's been done before. Problem is there are a lot of people who feel differently. That won't work so they have to chip away at it with regulations (instead of laws). By any means necessary, no?

 

[SCSteeler4life]

And in crimes of passion, the availability of a gun certainly increases it's possibility of use during that crime of passion.


So dumb *** grabs a knife and stabs wife/girlfriend to death. When are people like you going to understand it's not a "weapon of choice" problem it's a crazy *** problem.

 

[Superman]

know what didnt happen yesterday?
65+ million legal gun owners didnt shoot a ******.