Another day, another shooting in the US

[O. Van Bruce]

Apparently in his 'autobiography', he brags constantly about getting into bar fights and refers to the people he killed as 'savages'. That's why I'll never be able to join an army; I just don't get that mindset. Yes, war happens, and sometimes you have to kill other human beings, but they're still people fighting for what they believe (even if it's a messed up religious ideology by modern standards), and you shouldn't ever want to kill or enjoy killing. A good soldier doesn't revel in slaughter.

And most soldiers don't do that. I bet there has been lots of better soldiers in the US army before him and they never felt the need of publicize thenselves.

[BulletMagnet]

It is true that a lot of the guys who talk a big game about guns and shooting and killing and whatnot are the same ones who went to the greatest lengths to dodge the Vietnam draft back in the day (personal favorite case in point: Ted "suck on my machine gun" Nugent, who supposedly crapped his pants to avoid being drafted).

[Ganelon]

The latest surprise shooting is allegedly from an ex-Navy, ex-LAPD cop against officers (and related family) he claims wronged him:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/lapd-a ... index.html

First, sympathies go to the victims. Second, in the middle of the story, the article mentions that LAPD officers accidentally shot 2 civilian women who were in a blue truck that looked "similar" (not same model or even make) to that of the suspect's. Talk about a lawsuit in the making.

And here's the fascinating manifesto by the suspect with some very serious allegations about equality and morality (note that this is the nonredacted, full length version with references to Obama): http://www.crimefilenews.com/2013/02/fi ... r-and.html

I'm very anxious to see what happens to the suspect, whether the media tries to uncover the manifesto's claims, and (if so) how that process turns out.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

If there were really bad cops who he felt were that unethical that they were a threat to the wellbeing of the country, a professional would've had the decency to at least have targeted them specifically. Shooting down innocent people who make themselves targets of opportunity only makes this guy worse than the people who've supposedly wronged him, and nothing more than a nutjob who's completely cracked. Albeit one with a lot of weaponry.

[Lord Satori]

Earlier today, one of the Yahoo news headlines said the NRA president said he thinks congress won't do anything about gun control. The very next article was about a mom who shot 3 kids then killed herself.

I love when things line up like that.

[ncc]

Earlier today, one of the Yahoo news headlines said the NRA president said he thinks congress won't do anything about gun control. The very next article was about a mom who shot 3 kids then killed herself.

I love when things line up like that.

Regardless of his stance on gun control, it's a logical conclusion to make, given the general stances taken by politicians (republicans are pretty much hard no, and democrats that are pro-gun or in a state with lots of pro-gun constituents are also not going to support it).

Also: Unhinged, nut job mothers don't need guns to kill their kids.

[BryanM]

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2013/02/fi ... r-and.html

Astoundingly accurate journalism that fails to spell the man's name correctly a single time outside of copy and paste.

Also love how they call him a "leftist", when he explicitly states his support for Huntsman. Sigh.

Also kind of like how impossible it is to argue with how rational his political positions are. "Of course they're messed up; look at what I can do!" Everyone's gotta criticize people who actually go outside and do anything.

Anyone wanting to read that thing, read it on a grown up's website.

Edit: And I absolutely agree that Anderson Cooper needs to stop being mean to his guests. What kind of douchebag invites someone on their show to throw rocks at them? Srsly.

Edit edit: And the LAPD shooting random people afterwards who could've been this guy if they were black and male. Jesus christ.

[neorichieb1971]

Its almost as if the NRA hope that nut jobs will shoot themselves before anyone else. In which case, that local gun comes in really handy.

Lets say 1% of Americans are potentially nut jobs. Out of those nut jobs, another 1% are losing it and near the edge of insanity. Thats still a lot of guns in the wrong hands. Or guns too near the wrong hands. This is the problem. So make everyone happy with happy pills, or get rid of guns. The NRA should buy the happy pills btw.

[ncc]

Its almost as if the NRA hope that nut jobs will shoot themselves before anyone else. In which case, that local gun comes in really handy.

Lets say 1% of Americans are potentially nut jobs. Out of those nut jobs, another 1% are losing it and near the edge of insanity. Thats still a lot of guns in the wrong hands. Or guns too near the wrong hands. This is the problem. So make everyone happy with happy pills, or get rid of guns. The NRA should buy the happy pills btw.

1% of 1% is pretty generous, and also misleading. If every case of insanity manifested itself in rampages or general violence against others, then we would have a lot more dead bodies.

[DrTrouserPlank]

For all of the UK's faults that I am acutely aware of, I'm grateful that I don't live in a society that arms people and their associates almost indiscriminately and allows them to carry out impersonal acts of murder and terrorise anybody who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Americans really are a strange breed.

Columbine wasn't bad enough to cause meaningful change... OK.. thank your lucky starts the killers didn't actually achieve their goal of collapsing the roof of the cafeteria during peak-time

Virginia tech wasn't enough... just another unhinged "kid" eh?

Sandy Hook.... just another loony I suppose?

Maybe in a country where there seem to be a startling number of loonies able to cause extreme harm to so many families there ought to be a re-think on gun control.

Owning a gun doesn't make you a man; a tough guy.. It just makes you another person cowering in the corner waiting for the next loony who is better armed and trained to gun you down. Gun ownership offers no protection against those who have to intention to live past killing you.

I'm willing to consider your culture and constitution that you seemingly hold so dear to your hearts as a fundamental aspect of being "an American" but one has to wonder if Americans are willing to accept that the second amendment is an outdated and impractical piece of legislature in modern times, given the date of its inception and the development of modern arms.

The "right to bare arms" was intended for one to protect themselves from invaders using (at the time) a musket or similar device that fired a "ball-bearing" and required manual reload every round including insertion and packing of gunpowder and the round itself. How one can think that a law created in 1791 is applicable in any sense to modern firearms (even semi-automatic) where you can empty a 20 round clip in 3 seconds or so, is beyond me.

Nowadays, even with the "semi" restriction on automatic weapons in the US, the extent of one's killing potential is only limited by the speed of my index finger when firing indiscriminately into a crowd in a mall.

Let's hope your mother, wife, girlfriend, sister, brother, father, boyfriend, or anyone you care about isn't there when I decide to exercise my right to own a device whose primary function is to kill people.

[ncc]

For all of the UK's faults that I am acutely aware of, I'm grateful that I don't live in a society that arms people and their associates almost indiscriminately and allows them to carry out impersonal acts of murder and terrorise anybody who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For all of the USA's faults that I am acutely aware of, I'm grateful that I don't live in a society with roaming sword gangs and a police force so universally corrupt that crime statistics are virtually worthless.

Columbine
Virginia tech
Sandy Hook

Three incidents involving 72 deaths (not including the perpetrators) ocurring over a 13 year span. That's essentially a rounding error, and the only thing that makes these tragedies a bigger deal than 72 deaths from anything else is the sensationalist media surrounding them, both in volume and tone of the reporting. 0.00002768709% of guns in the US were used in a murder in 2011, and this figure is very liberal. It includes justifiable homicide, police shootings, and assumes that every murder was performed with a different gun.

Maybe in a country where there seem to be a startling number of loonies able to cause extreme harm to so many families there ought to be a re-think on gun control.

Maybe we ought to think about why these people go on rampages (hint: to get attention), and try fixing that instead.

Owning a gun doesn't make you a man; a tough guy.. It just makes you another person cowering in the corner waiting for the next loony who is better armed and trained to gun you down. Gun ownership offers no protection against those who have to intention to live past killing you.

Nobody claims that owning weapons makes you a tough person unless you happen to be trying to launch a rap career. Reddit has a subreddit specifically for linking such cases, and it's an easy statistic to verify that 'gun free zones', or areas with strict gun control have more crime than places that aren't. Almost every mass shooting has taken place at a gun-free zone (schools, etc). California, Chicago, and New York all have incredibly strict gun control measures, and yet enjoy some of the highest rates of crime in the nation. The potential threat of retaliation deters most shooters because they want a situation where they have absolute power.

Also for your consideration: [video]

I'm willing to consider your culture and constitution that you seemingly hold so dear to your hearts as a fundamental aspect of being "an American" but one has to wonder if Americans are willing to accept that the second amendment is an outdated and impractical piece of legislature in modern times, given the date of its inception and the development of modern arms.

Given the date of the first amendment's inception there is no way they could have anticipated the advent of radio, television, or the internet, but all of these things enjoy first amendment protection. I seem to remember a lot of people getting riled up about the risk of the internet losing it's first amendment privileges just recently.

The "right to bare arms" was intended for one to protect themselves from invaders

Wrong, but you're British so I won't judge you for it. In The Federalist Papers (#28), Alexander Hamilton explicitly states that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense, which means fighting government tyranny. By eroding the second amendment, the federal government is slowly eliminating the one absolute measure the people have against them.

using (at the time) a musket or similar device that fired a "ball-bearing" and required manual reload every round including insertion and packing of gunpowder and the round itself.

Also wrong. There was evidence supporting the development of fully automatic weapons as early as 1777. "Belton described the gun as capable of firing up to 'sixteen or twenty [balls], in sixteen, ten, or five seconds of time'" (almost as fast as you claim below that a semi-automatic firearm can be emptied by a novice shooter).

Also see: an early repeating rifle (1779), and the first automatic rifle (1887)

How one can think that a law created in 1791 is applicable in any sense to modern firearms (even semi-automatic) where you can empty a 20 round clip in 3 seconds or so, is beyond me. Nowadays, even with the "semi" restriction on automatic weapons in the US, the extent of one's killing potential is only limited by the speed of my index finger when firing indiscriminately into a crowd in a mall.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and assume that you have never shot a firearm before. Sending 20 rounds downrange in 3 seconds from a semi-automatic firearm is virtually impossible, approaching the rate of fire from a fully automatic M16. Even if you can do this, the chances of hitting anything are close to zero, since you are burdened with actuating the weapon yourself each time, unlike a fully automatic weapon.

I'm unsure about what you mean when you say "semi" restriction. If you mean the arduous and expensive process of obtaining a machine gun manufactured and registered prior to 1986, then I guess you're right. This process involves getting fingerprinted, submitting a passport photo, get your local sheriff or police chief to sign off on the purchase, a $200 tax stamp to the ATF, 6+ months of background checks, plus the tens of thousands of dollars required for the actual purchase. Even after all this they are monitored strictly and there is very little lenience on how they are handled. Any other fully automatic firearm is completely illegal unless you are a Class III Federal Firearms License holder, which essentially means that you are a frequently audited business that deals in firearms.

Let's hope your mother, wife, girlfriend, sister, brother, father, boyfriend, or anyone you care about isn't there when I decide to exercise my right to own a device whose primary function is to kill people.

Appealing to the reader's emotions isn't logical and shows a lack of ability to articulate an argument. Exercising your right to own a firearm IS NOT the same as a license to kill. Murder is still illegal.



===============================================

I realize that this is an incredibly long post, so I'll just sum it up like this: tl;dr

[DragonInstall]

That was really informative. I never really read up on either side since I really don't care much about the topic. Seems rather pointless since I doubt anything will change.

But I agree that the media, hardcore leftist, and outsiders(Europeans mainly) tend to over blow the issue on this.

[Lord Satori]

Just a theory of mine, but I think that most school shootings take place at schools for a particular reason such as revenge or something similar. Sure there are the imitating idiots who only do that to get attention, but those people will go anywhere there's a crowd. When they go after a specific target, they likely have another reason behind it.

Earlier today, one of the Yahoo news headlines said the NRA president said he thinks congress won't do anything about gun control. The very next article was about a mom who shot 3 kids then killed herself.

I love when things line up like that.

Regardless of his stance on gun control, it's a logical conclusion to make, given the general stances taken by politicians (republicans are pretty much hard no, and democrats that are pro-gun or in a state with lots of pro-gun constituents are also not going to support it).

Also: Unhinged, nut job mothers don't need guns to kill their kids.

I know that, I was just pointing out that I found it amusing that the two articles were next to each other.

[neorichieb1971]

London stabbing with swords quote -

The boy was rushed to hospital, where he died from his wounds, becoming the first teenager to be killed in London this year.

I find it confusing that any statistics about guns in America are accepted. Europe adopts a sensible policy of if something is misused it becomes instantly illegal. Unless of course if it has a primary function other than killing. The above quote requires 5 or 6 people to kill one boy. Your stories are of one person killing many. Its kind of easy to see the differences. The UK policy of gun control isn't perfect for Americans. But the fact that we tried it and accepted it shows we are willing to change. You are not. All your statistics and political baloney just states one thing "its our right to carry arms and we are proud of it because we are American". Then enjoy being American, enjoy watching the media every night that someone else has died of guns. The UK media is pretty much spot on with any crime that deserves attention and we hardly see any mass killing at all. I Can't remember a single episode of the news where it says "xxx number of people died today". The weather kills more people in the UK than guns. More people commit suicide than die from guns. Basically, if guns were not controlled in the UK, we would have more deaths here than you have there. Because of our cosmopolitan population it just wouldn't gel us together that well if everyone had guns.

I don't know about the police being corrupt. Weak and ineffective yes, corrupt... not sure.

[ncc]

I find it confusing that any statistics about guns in America are accepted.

I'm sorry that you think facts are an optional aspect of an argument for or against personal freedoms.

Europe adopts a sensible policy of if something is misused it becomes instantly illegal. Unless of course if it has a primary function other than killing.

I like the safety net you set up at the end of this quote. It's pretty clever. This prevents me from mentioning all of the horrible, violent things that are done to people while unarmed or with things that are much more common in the UK than guns, such as knives, non-knife stabbing implements, broken bottles, syringes and even rocks; All of which are individually named in the British Crime Survey.

Guns are merely tools. Their primary function isn't to kill. It's to project a small metal object from the barrel at high velocity. This can be used for any number of things. Shooting a paper target or clay pigeons are common things to do with them, as is competing against other people to see who is faster or more accurate at using them. A popular thing to do if you are against any kind of inanimate object is to treat the object as if it is more than just an object and then demonize it. That is what you are doing here. Saying that "Guns kill people" instead of "people use guns to kill other people" is the most basic example if this.

The above quote requires 5 or 6 people to kill one boy. Your stories are of one person killing many. Its kind of easy to see the differences.

'Requires' is a strong word. They didn't need that many people to kill him, but they ganged up on him anyway.

I know you kind of have a hard on for all of the heavily publicized mass shootings, but believe it or not there is violent crime outside of these large, politically convenient tragedies. The UK has one of the highest violent crime rates in the developed world, and this is after accounting for your horribly compromised record keeping. On the flip side, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, violent crime in the US has been falling since 2006, (reaching levels that are even lower than during the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban which expired in '04). I suggest you stop citing Britain as the example that we should be looking up to, because it's not helping your argument.

The UK policy of gun control isn't perfect for Americans. But the fact that we tried it and accepted it shows we are willing to change. You are not. All your statistics and political baloney just states one thing "its our right to carry arms and we are proud of it because we are American".

Here again we see an unwillingness to accept statistics and historical fact to back up a point of view. This is usually done by people who champion a stance they can't support with logic. You are boiling a complex subject (why do people in America own guns), into the simplest and most convenient answer: Because we can. Plinking, competition shooting, hunting, self-defense, and 'for fun' are all legitimate reasons to own a personal firearm, but are harder to attack so you're ignoring them and assuming that everybody in America acts like Ted Nugent.

Then enjoy being American, enjoy watching the media every night that someone else has died of guns. The UK media is pretty much spot on with any crime that deserves attention and we hardly see any mass killing at all. I Can't remember a single episode of the news where it says "xxx number of people died today". The weather kills more people in the UK than guns. More people commit suicide than die from guns. Basically, if guns were not controlled in the UK, we would have more deaths here than you have there. Because of our cosmopolitan population it just wouldn't gel us together that well if everyone had guns.

More sensationalism, also not backed up with any sort of statistics or information. Yellow journalism is indeed a huge problem (and probably even a contributing factor to the recent events), but doesn't matter in this particular conversation.

I don't know about the police being corrupt. Weak and ineffective yes, corrupt... not sure.

I don't blame you. I wouldn't want to believe my country's police force was fudging statistics to cover up that they are failing to stem the extreme levels of cultural violence either. Especially if I wasn't allowed to carry a gun to defend myself from getting glassed.

[neorichieb1971]

Britain is a different place than it used to be. Before "Europe" we had burgularies and car theft but violent crime outside of Football hooliganism was rarely reported. The violent crimes you seem to think happen here must be everywhere except where I live because the amount of crime that goes on around my neighborhood is almost non existant. I bet its the crazy Romanians, Polish, Greeks and whomever else are forming gangland warfare. But I very much doubt much of it is English people. But again, just suggesting.. nothing factual.

What you assume and what I assume are obviously two different things. You must be assuming that if the UK was like the USA and the UK had the same amount of guns on the street as the US that we would have "less" crime. Or less violent crime. I'm telling you, the opposite would be true. Most of the people attacked would be dead, not living.

What I am assuming is that if you did not have guns, you would have less violent crime. I am only following simple logic here. I don't think I need statistics.

If the USA could control the weather and stop tornadoes. Guess how many people would die from tornadoes each year? Ermm... ZERO!

I am not saying it would stop crime. But surely you should be moving towards less guns = less reportings of gun shootings. Because doing the math, it seems fairly obvious.

The UK would certainly tax the shit out of bullets. You would have to make every single one count if you went on a mass shootout expedition.


On a separate note, I hope the USA buys all the guns in the world. I don't want to see them here in any shape or form whatsoever.

[ncc]

Britain is a different place than it used to be. Before "Europe" we had burgularies and car theft but violent crime outside of Football hooliganism was rarely reported. The violent crimes you seem to think happen here must be everywhere except where I live because the amount of crime that goes on around my neighborhood is almost non existant. I bet its the crazy Romanians, Polish, Greeks and whomever else are forming gangland warfare. But I very much doubt much of it is English people. But again, just suggesting.. nothing factual.

Well since we're pulling race into this argument then I can say without feeling bad that a vast majority of gun-related deaths in America are gang-related or committed by and against people with previous criminal records. It's a shame, but this means that over 70% of all violent crime in America is committed by and against black men. If you are white then statistically your chances of getting shot are less than 10% compared to this. If you are living outside of an area of heavy crime (LA, NYC, Chicago, Detroit), your chances very nearly approach zero. Even other people of color enjoy a significantly lower rate of violence. Asians being even lower than caucasians.

The anecdotal evidence door swings both ways. I've never seen a gun murder in my city either, but apparently millions of people are in perpetual imminent danger of being shot to death every second of their lives. Crime happens in specific area for specific reasons. If you don't live in a problem area then you will likely live a safe and peaceful life, with or without guns.

What you assume and what I assume are obviously two different things. You must be assuming that if the UK was like the USA and the UK had the same amount of guns on the street as the US that we would have "less" crime. Or less violent crime. I'm telling you, the opposite would be true. Most of the people attacked would be dead, not living.

I'm not assuming anything about Britain's gun laws. I poked a little fun at the end of the last post, but overall I've refrained from judging them, only quoting statistics to point out that the UK isn't a safe haven and that violence is systemic, and not related directly to or caused by the method of assault or murder.

What I am assuming is that if you did not have guns, you would have less violent crime. I am only following simple logic here. I don't think I need statistics.

That simple logic is the problem. You are ignoring a lot of very important variables in the equation. People like to focus getting rid of guns, but the real issue is why these people are driven to kill in the first place. It's not gun ownership, because there are millions of guns in america, but millions of people don't die from them every year. You're also ignoring the majority. "It's worth it if it can save a single life" is a popular slogan, but unfortunately that's not true. Guns provide safe entertainment and self-defense to millions of Americans, and a ton of jobs and money to the economy. I don't think 72 people are worth that, and people agree with me.

If the USA could control the weather and stop tornadoes. Guess how many people would die from tornadoes each year? Ermm... ZERO!

Incomparable situations. You can't use a tornado to defend yourself or do anything productive or non-harmful. 99.99% of tornado owners are not at risk of the government confiscating their tornadoes because they are scared and don't understand them.

I am not saying it would stop crime. But surely you should be moving towards less guns = less reportings of gun shootings. Because doing the math, it seems fairly obvious.

Gun murders do not happen in a vacuum. This is by far the most common argument for gun control, but also the most easily refuted. It works off of the assumption that criminals obey the law. It doesn't work for hard drugs, and didn't work during the prohibition. It won't fucking work for guns either.

It also works off of the assumption that it is possible to eliminate guns from the country. They are far too prolific to ever be taken away now. Even declaring martial law and systematically tearing apart the entire country wouldn't work (not the least of which is because you would be up against armed citizens). All further legislation will do is make law-abiding citizens criminals for no reason.

The UK would certainly tax the shit out of bullets. You would have to make every single one count if you went on a mass shootout expedition.

I don't really have an answer for this other than I think it's a stupid idea. If I was going to gun down my fellow man and then kill myself, then why the fuck would I care how much a bullet costs? I know it was cute when Chris Rock made this joke in 1999, but it wouldn't work (and also further infringes on our 2A rights).

On a separate note, I hope the USA buys all the guns in the world. I don't want to see them here in any shape or form whatsoever.

This is the single greatest reason why you or anybody like you should never ever be given power over gun legislation. Guns aren't a machine to you. They are a magic device, and the people that use them are evil warlocks.

The recent hullabaloo about assault weapons (which in itself is an invented term with no real definition) was raised by politicians that don't understand how guns work and supported by people that have never fired or held a gun. The legislation was akin to trying to solve the problem of music piracy by limiting the amount of RAM a computer can hold.

[DrTrouserPlank]

Whilst your post is well expressed, the only true form of "strict gun control" is that which makes owning a firearm illegal. The idea that you can "control" guns, their ownership and the people who access them, is a fallacy.

It's only taken other first-world countries a couple of shooting rampages to realise that civilians owning guns is an incredibly stupid idea; and those countries already had far stricter controls on guns as it was when compared to the US.

I simply highlighted the high-profile shooting sprees that have happened in the US over the last 15 years or so. The reality of the US' gun-crime figures paint a far more morbid picture than the mere "72" people who were gunned down going about their normal lives for no reason; many of whom were children and had no part or opinion in deciding whether it was right that the lunatic who burst into their lives that day had the "right" to own a deadly weapon.

Is it any coincidence that countries who outlaw gun ownership don't live with the year-on-year fear that there will be 3-4 "school shootings"? The rest of the world sees it as an inevitability and the reports of shootings in the US don't have the same impact that they used to, such is the frequency with which they happen.

Guns provide safe entertainment and self-defense to millions of Americans, and a ton of jobs and money to the economy. I don't think 72 people are worth that...

That just exemplifies all that is wrong with your laws and views on the consequences of them. It's staggering really.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Guns provide safe entertainment and self-defense to millions of Americans, and a ton of jobs and money to the economy. I don't think 72 people are worth that...

Even if you're one of those 72 just so America can have its assault rifles for all?

That just exemplifies all that is wrong with your laws and views on the consequences of them. It's staggering really.

[greg]

ncc... welcome to the forum. I had stuff to say earlier, butI gave up on this topic long ago. I just checked out this last page out of perverse curiosity and read your posts. I'd rather live in a country that has no guns whatsoever, and I currently do, but taking guns away will not solve America's problems. As I tell people here in Japan, unless you are involved with gangs, drugs, or raging domestic violence, the chances of getting killed by random crime is smaller than the chances of getting killed in a car accident or the like.

[DragonInstall]

Why not just ban all alcohol also. Many people abuse it and go on getting people killed. If we were to eliminate all alcohol, alcohol related death would be ZERO.

I just don't see the logic in that type of thinking. Some of you anti gun people are thinking way to simplistically.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Some of you anti gun people are thinking way to [sic] simplistically.

Most of the people advocating stricter gun control aren't saying that all guns everywhere need to be banned, but better controls on access to guns like limiting or banning assault rifles (hunters can get by just fine with a single-shot rifle, a 30 round clip is clearly overkill) and ensuring that you need to pass an education course before you can have a handgun, similar to owning a driver's license. The NRA and the like seem to treat this as "taking away our guns!11one" for some reason. But by all means, continue being a hypocrite.

Alcohol also isn't designed specifically to injure/kill living things, so the comparison is rather absurd. I think some imbecile in this thread previously compared banning firearms for civilians to banning cars, which is even more inane given vehicles are used for transportation and not designed specifically to ram into and injure/kill people, whereas a gun is a tool that is serving exactly its intended purpose when it is used to injure/kill someone.

[ncc]

Whilst your post is well expressed, the only true form of "strict gun control" is that which makes owning a firearm illegal. The idea that you can "control" guns, their ownership and the people who access them, is a fallacy.

I said that ultimately controlling guns in America is impossible because of their saturation, and even banning them outright wouldn't work. For some reason you suggested it anyway.

It's only taken other first-world countries a couple of shooting rampages to realise that civilians owning guns is an incredibly stupid idea; and those countries already had far stricter controls on guns as it was when compared to the US.

I know you hate listening to numbers, but let's go over this again:
- Murder rate is declining, approaching the lowest it's been in a century.
- If you account for underclass violence (gangs, inner-city, etc), then the adjusted murder rate is so low that it approaches the levels of these European bastions of forward-thinking you crow about so much.
- And then there's this chart

I simply highlighted the high-profile shooting sprees that have happened in the US over the last 15 years or so. The reality of the US' gun-crime figures paint a far more morbid picture than the mere "72" people who were gunned down going about their normal lives for no reason; many of whom were children and had no part or opinion in deciding whether it was right that the lunatic who burst into their lives that day had the "right" to own a deadly weapon.

I'm not stupid enough to believe only 72 people died, that was just a convenient figure since it's the number of victims in the three incidents you provided. Lets go in depth:
- 195 deaths over the last 25 years in 83 school shootings (includes individual suicides with no other incidents of violence, and the perpetrator, if killed/dead). This averages out to under 8 a year.
- 30 of these resulted in nobody being killed, 43 resulted in only one or two people being killed (personal vendettas: a.k.a. unless you were involved you were fine)
- Even on a good year, you are more than 3 times more likely to be killed by lightning then at a school by a deranged madman. The usual average is more like 5 times.

Do you really want to know why guns are a big deal now? We are being systematically brainwashed to distort our opinion on guns. The video is only 32 seconds. I highly recommend you watch it. Here's the process broken down by an ex-KGB operative. He's describing what he did in Russia, but it's applicable here.

Is it any coincidence that countries who outlaw gun ownership don't live with the year-on-year fear that there will be 3-4 "school shootings"? The rest of the world sees it as an inevitability and the reports of shootings in the US don't have the same impact that they used to, such is the frequency with which they happen.

See above.

Guns provide safe entertainment and self-defense to millions of Americans, and a ton of jobs and money to the economy. I don't think 72 people are worth that...

Even if you're one of those 72 just so America can have its assault rifles for all?

That just exemplifies all that is wrong with your laws and views on the consequences of them. It's staggering really.

I linked that video with the victim's father for a reason, but apparently that reason escaped both of you so I will spell it out. There are people even that close to the tragedies that don't support gun control because they do not believe it will work and do not believe that it is worth stomping out a personal freedom that is a cornerstone of what this country was founded on.
edit: Oops. He actually wasn't the father of a victim, but his daughter was at the school during the shooting.

Legislation needs to be as cold and calculating as possible. Emotion has absolutely NO place in lawmaking and it's puzzling why you think it should be. Squishy human sentiments like "But what if YOU were one of the victims?" or "If it was YOUR DAUGHTER" are designed to break your opponent down based on their fears and don't have any kind of purpose other than to spread the irrational fear of a simple machine that evidence and statistics overwhelmingly show will not kill me or anybody i know. You are trying to break this down into a sentimental yelling match because that's the only way you can back up your argument without needing to admit any of the facts i have posted.

BareknuckleRoo: No. Just no. I don't have time to explain why no, but if you don't figure it out by the time i'm free again I'll gladly walk you through it.

[greg]

I found this website:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... world-list
You can sort the list however way you'd like.

So here are facts from there:
• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

According to this, gun ownership in the USA is 88.8% Pretty darn high. Our percentage of firearm homicides is only 60%---just over half of all murders. Switzerland and Finland have about half that amount of gun ownership, at about 45%. There seems to be a disparity with the percentage of gun homicides between these two countries though, since Switzerland's is 72% murder by guns rate (significantly higher than America's) while Finland is just under 20%.

So when you sort it by the percentage of homicides by firearm, Puerto Rico does indeed have a way higher percentage of homicides by guns. Unfortunately, the data does not include the percentage of ownership. So instead, look at other high gun murder rate countries. Sierra Leone? I don't even know where that is. Okay, so let's look at Guatemala. 84% homicide rate by gun, with only a 13% gun ownership rate. Honduras has about the same % of gun murders, with only a 6% gun ownership rate. So this may show that guns in the hands of a few people means that they are the ones doing most of the killing. However, this also shows that even when gun ownership is vastly limited as compared to the USA or Switzerland, people still do a lot of killing with guns. Perhaps this indicates that even with limited gun ownership, gun-related murders are still rampant.

Instead of comparing gun crimes within the USA to other countries, I think it's far more effective to compare the USA now with the USA back when times were simpler and less cynical. The Colombine massacre happened in April of 1999, when I was in my final year of college. Such incidents were unheard of until just before then. I graduated in 1994, and while there were school shootings, those were mostly in inner-city schools and they were gang related. Now, anywhere seems to be possible, from kindergartens to even Christian medical schools. I'm curious about the gun ownership statistics of America in the 1940s or '50s, and the number of homicides back then. I make a bet that it was a lot fewer then. Sure, there was racial turmoil then, but there is still a lot of racial turmoil now. I still say that it is the breakdown of American families, and the fact that people just don't give a crap about others or their own kids anymore. I worked at this one place and this woman was telling me that her brother in law allows his 5 year old son to watch those gruesome Saw movies, to the point where the boy even idolizes the antagonist in those horror films. We no longer live in a society where video games meant Space Invaders or Pac Man. Now it's about head shots and sawing people in half with chainsaws. I'm not saying that playing video games, listening to death metal or violent gangsta rap, or coming from a family torn apart by divorce (or multiple divorces) is going to make someone into a murderer. However, all of these point to the deterioration of society, resulting in these mass murders.

Much of American's humor is based on racism, insults, and cynicism. Look at American sitcoms. It's no longer The Cosby Show or Growing Pains, where there was always a moral lesson to be learned at the resolution of each episode. Now sitcoms are called Everybody Hates Chris, I Hate My Teenage Daughter and South Park entails little children constantly insulting and denigrating each other in each episode. Look, I enjoy watching South Park too, but you have to admit that much of our culture has the pendulum swinging in the wrong direction. (Although to that show's defense, at least it has a moral to the story in each episode, unlike most other stuff on TV). Americans thrive on conflict, whether in YouTube comments or the nightly news. I moderate my YouTube channel every day, and I am always weeding out trolls and name-callers. People online no longer have the maturity to point out another's mistakes without resorting to calling them an "idiot" or a "moron" anymore. And look at who is doing it: it's mostly younger online users from the USA. These aren't the problem; they are merely symptoms of a more elusive problem.

In Japan here at least, there are some gruesome murders, even if murder is far fewer than in the USA. I think it says something about just pointing a gun at someone and shooting them to subduing a victim's flailing arms and legs while trying to saw their head off with a sharp object. With a gun, it's possible to quickly kill somebody and have selected your next target without much thought. But when you're face-to-face with someone, struggling with their arms and their blood is spraying you in the face, you'd think that there would be more time to consider, "Hey, this is wrong. What am I doing?" than with a gun. When it comes to mass murder though, it doesn't happen a whole lot like it does in the USA.

*****
For all you tl;dr guys: countries with far fewer gun ownership have far higher gun homicide per capita than the USA. Countries with somewhat comparable gun ownership to the USA do not have as high of gun homicide rate.
*****

[BareKnuckleRoo]

BareknuckleRoo: No. Just no. I don't have time to explain why no, but if you don't figure it out by the time i'm free again I'll gladly walk you through it.

That's like a guy in a wheelchair offering to help me walk up a flight of stairs.

Apparently you don't even know your own consitution, or you use cognitive dissonance to pretend the whole bit about 'a well-regulated militia' doesn't exist, lol.

We are being systematically brainwashed

Suddenly I have a craving for salted peanuts.

[Lord Satori]

Anyone who attempts to bring the fictional media into this arguement has hereby revoked their right to an opinion.

I mean really, people are always whining about how new forms of entertainment is going to "ruin society". First it was the wicked printing press, then came along the horrible music, next comes the brainwashing television, and videogames arrive to finish the job. There is something seriously wrong with society when we blame forms of entertainment. It's easy to point the finger at things that are made up, but I can guarantee you that the only thing that has gone up, is news coverage of violent events. These things have always been happening, and they will continue to happen.

[ncc]

BareknuckleRoo: No. Just no. I don't have time to explain why no, but if you don't figure it out by the time i'm free again I'll gladly walk you through it.

That's like a guy in a wheelchair offering to help me walk up a flight of stairs.

Okay, time to get your learn on, foreigner.

Most of the people advocating stricter gun control aren't saying that all guns everywhere need to be banned,[. . .]

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

Dianne Feinstein states her desire to fully disarm American citizens at 3:25. I think this is fairly self-explanatory. Many gun control advocates state that pro-gun advocates are stubborn and unwilling to compromise on gun control, completely ignoring the reality that all proposed gun control so far has absolutely no give in this allegedly desired "give and take" solution to gun control. Compromise is not defined as one party only surrendering to 50% of the other party's demands and getting to keep what they already have.

but better controls on access to guns like limiting or banning assault rifles (hunters can get by just fine with a single-shot rifle, a 30 round clip is clearly overkill)

Here's the basic rundown on what an "assault weapon" is, how it is different from an assault rifle, and why politicians are pushing to ban it. It also mentions "large capacity magazines" and their lack of effect on mass murder. This term was falsely applied to magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds as a way to frighten the unknowing population into supporting the bill. Many of these magazines are actually regarded by manufacturer specifications as "standard-capacity". "High capacity magazines" as defined by politicians or legislature is a completely arbitrary term, and these magazines are not 'overkill'. There is no way to predict how a self-defense situation will play out. Number of intruders, number of missed or grazing shots due to panic, the level of defense attackers possess, and narcotics that can affect a person's ability to feel pain are all potentially unknown variables in the equation. In one incident a police officer shot a man 22 times and he still lived until 4 minutes after the last shot was fired. Limiting magazine capacity will do nothing but endanger innocents.

There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about hunting. It's used to garner support from hunters by pro gun control politicians by assuring them that their hobby won't be affected.

Pro-gun legislature politicians are notoriously ignorant or deceitful when it comes to the operation, design, and language of guns. This ranges all the way from ignorance and distortion of the lingo to complete lack of understanding on how a gun operates or what the proposed laws even regulate. No legislature proposed or supported by these people can be trusted, as their political decisions are not being driven by knowledge, but often out of a desire to appeal to constituents on a false platform based on emotional manipulation.

and ensuring that you need to pass an education course before you can have a handgun, similar to owning a driver's license.

For your coonsideration. Licensing drivers doesn't stop car fatalities, why would it for gun owners? Gun ownership licenses also have the possibility of making gun owners targets. If the recent published list of all New York City gun owners names and addresses indicates anything, it's that non-gun owners are violently opposed to gun owners. Many received threats of violence or death. Several had their houses broken into and guns stolen, and at least one woman was found and harassed by a previous stalker. Home invasions increased in households without a firearm immediately following the list's publication. Such a measure also endangers all registered gun owners in the event that the government decides to take action agaisnt them en masse.

Alcohol also isn't designed specifically to injure/kill living things, so the comparison is rather absurd.

Alcohol is poisonous to a living body, with no quantitative positive effects. That's why we get drunk when consuming it. It serves literally no purpose, but still kills around 47,000 people in the US alone each year, far more than the 8,583 gun deaths reported in the 2011 Uniform Crime Report. So since alcohol kills much like firearms do (on a much larger scale), shouldn't we ban alcohol so fewer people die because of it?

Apparently you don't even know your own consitution, or you use cognitive dissonance to pretend the whole bit about 'a well-regulated militia' doesn't exist, lol.

What point are you even trying to make with this? That I didn't make any points regarding that particular phrsase in the 2nd Amendment? Okay, I'll bite. In the Federalist Papers (#29), Alexander Hamilton suggests that the term "well regulated" refers not only to organization or discipline, but also to arming a militia.

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

If you look carefully, the required equipment very much resembles the kind of material a soldier in an army of the time might possess. The modern form of this is known as the Selective Service. While no longer having the equipment requirements, it's hard to argue that the 2nd Amendment was written without the idea of a people possessing the ability to be armed at or near the level of an organized army.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment explicitly protects the rights of the people, even those outside of a militia, to bear arms. This includes what I already said regarding governmental tyranny as well as simple self-defense.

We are being systematically brainwashed

Suddenly I have a craving for salted peanuts.

Eric Holder's words, not mine. This is the man responsible for Fast and Furious and supporting the federal right to drone strike US citizens under vague and malleable circumstances.

I know this is an incredibly long and arduous post to read through, but I encourage you to not give up, because with hard work and dedication, you too can know something about how guns work and the affect they have on the United States. For further reading, please refer to my previous posts in this thread. Thank you and have a wonderful evening.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

tl;dr, cool story bro and all that

I don't think 72 people are worth [giving up my guns]

yeah, pfft, just 72 lives, fuck 'em, more assault rifles yeah baby

That's really all that's needed to put your posts into perspective. Pretty much anyone would want to be foreign to that kind of attitude that so casually places value judgement on human lives.

It was only very narrowly that your supreme court decided that the Second Amendment applied to individuals and not specifically to individuals within a 'well-regulated milita'. The dissenting opinion could have just as easily been the majority (and likely would be nowadays, should such a case go to the Supreme Court again). Even still, the majority opinion makes it clear that any right to bear arms does not invalidate reasonable restrictions on the mentally ill having weapons. Frankly, you seem to think laws and consitutions are static and exist in some kind of vacuum.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.[162]

This dissent called the majority opinion "strained and unpersuasive" and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation.

This wasn't just one dissenting opinion, the vote was 5/4 split. Could easily have gone the other way and officially declared it only applied to militias, as I imagine it would nowadays if the issue were brought forth again, what with crazy batshit looneys running around with easily accessed firearms gunning people down across your country lately. But it's nice to see you act as if it's a black and white issue and anyone who comments on it is just a dirty foreigner. patronizing, amoral fuckwad

[Skykid]

What an insult to the intelligence.

In one incident a police officer shot a man 22 times and he still lived until 4 minutes after the last shot was fired. Limiting magazine capacity will do nothing but endanger innocents.

You should change a couple of letters in your username so it reads nra.

[ncc]

BareknuckleRoo, can you stop sperging out and editing your post please? I'm trying to rationally deconstruct your flawed arguments and I need to keep changing the quotes.

You should change a couple of letters in your username so it reads nra.

Not a member, sorry.