Has Sarkeesian or @iantothemax blamed Gamergate yet?
Statistically speaking deaths due mass shootings are not even that common. The total number of deaths last year from mass shootings is only 383. In contrast you are more likely to be killed by your wife/husband since that averages around 500-700 deaths a year. For instance in 2002, 787 people were killed by their spouse, 500 people were killed by their children, and 671 people were killed by some other family member.
Just to give the rates some context.
People who say knives are easier to handle have never actually had to deal with a knife. Even if you are successfully able to handle the guy, you often end up injured. A good example of that was the train in France recently when a gun man attempted to shoot up the train, but after his weapon jammed three off duty US army personnel tackled him. They were able to pin him down, but in the process they received significant injuries. Keep in mind this was a 3 on 1 situation where everyone involved was highly trained. One of the three men was cut in the neck, eyebrow, and nearly had his thumb cut off.
And even with knives you have mass stabbings. One of the more famous examples.
Or incidents like the Osaka school massacre, the 2014 synagog stabbing in Israel, the Lone Star College incident in 2013, the 2014 Calgary stabbing, etc. there are plenty of reported cases where someone walks into a place with a knife and stabs multiple people.
The thing about a knife is that you have to cover more space to gain control of a knife than the person with a knife has to cover in order to deal a life threatening blow. And the longer the knife the more true this is which is why swords were very effective back in medieval times.
Are you really that much of a fucking weirdo that you got a thumb up your butt about an inaccurate guesstamation on the US population by me? Especially considering the context of it.
Ooops, i was off 80 million, whatever. The context of my post wasnt even trying to portray some negative aspect to the amount of people in the us with guns, vs the number of guns in america. The context was that anyone talking about gun confiscation is way over their head, in or outside of this thread, so lets make sure to not even go there.
You did all that typing, with a little tinge of hate just to be like, HEY YOU DIPSHIT, ITS 320 MILLION, NOT 400 MILLION. Okay, that doesnt really negate my overall point at all anyways, and makes the gun for almost every person in america statistic even more staggering and accurate.
Youre arguing about irrelevant semantics. You realize that right? Please step back and take a look in the mirror one day. WTF is wrong with you bro? Look at how you post, what you get your butthole hairs in a tangle about. Look at what youre doing right now. Arguing with someone that likely isnt even saying anything you normally wouldnt agree with, but youre so bias and emotional to the point you cant even control yourself. Youre a joke. Go back to your shit posting that NO ONE pays attention to in GD.
Also, this thread has over 50 post because people are asking questions about guns and the shooting in general. Not just people spouting off nonsense, as you assume, sitting on your ivory tower of stupidity and cynicism.
Fucking clown. lmao. You niggas slay me man.
On a one on one, sure handling someone with a knife isnt easy, but handling someone with a gun is pretty much impossible unless your the flash. People with big knives or swords can definitely still do damage, but its not the same type of damage you could do to a dense crowd with two fully loaded handguns.
People also will fight against someone with a medium sized knife or machete vs someone walking in with an ak47. Supposedly in this oregon shooting, i read he ordered everyone to the ground (something you likely wont accomplish just wielding a knife of varying sizes), asked them what their religion was before shooting. That might just be internet rumor turned fact, but the point is that in general, you can command a room with a gun more than a knife.
That famous example you linked involved at least 5 men wielding large knives in a densely populated train station. Others werent caught, and were on the run. Even with more than 5 people, all with knives in a densely populated area, and i say this respectfully, only 29 people died. 130 got injured, but that could be due to falling while escaping. Thats not a very detailed injury number. So in short, it took over 5 guys with large knives, in a densely populated area to accomplish that. If that number was 1 guy at a densely populated train station, i bet at best his number would be 3 before someone tackled him and they proceeded to jump him and stop him from committing further acts.
Unlike a bullet that leaves a chamber, and you dont have to worry about it anymore. Hacking someone to death takes effort. You dont just hack someone in the skull, and pull the knife out with ease, like pulling a hot knife out of a stick of frozen butter. You lose a lot more time and momentum trying to kill a bunch of people with a large knife. Time and momentum that could end your tirade in seconds.
If 5 guys showed up to a densely populated area with handguns and semi automatic rifles and let loose, the number would be triple that easily, on both deaths and injuries directly or indirectly related.
I respect what youre saying though, but just saying. Knives still dont really compare, but work can be put in with them.
On the flip side, barring extreme close range (as in arm’s length) scenarios, a weaker and/or less skilled person with a gun can stop a knife wielder real fast.
And it didn’t work. “They tried” is only helpful for your feel good points. Results are the only metric which matters and according the statistics the UK and Australia did not get results. Which means if it didn’t work there, why should we expect it to work here?
And as far as the 2004 decline in crime that Australia saw. It was matched by an equivalent decline in the United States, the UK, and other European countries. Or in other words the crime drop in 2004 was seen across several countries in the early 2000s. Thus the factor was likely unrelated to any policy that Australia implemented.
This is a poor attempt at controlling a debate via emotional means.
If you have a problem the first things to do is to understand what causes the problem so that you can properly address it. And it is apparent that in other countries the problem was not the guns because murder rates didn’t really respond to it.
A lot of these shootings are not spur of the moment things. Many are planned out or build up over time. The Aurora shooter was trying to build makeshift bombs in his house before he went on the rampage.
Did you even bother to look up the other cases I listed?
Yes you can’t do that with a knife, which is why the dynamics of a mass stabbing are different, but the outcome is often the same. In the cases of mass stabbings I was able to find the death toll is usually on par with a mass shootings.
The critical flaw you are assuming is that people will use a knife in the same way they use a gun. The thing is this is not true. They use different tactics because of the nature of the knife which still results in a similar body count.
Except the death tolls in mass stabbings don’t reflect your statement. Knives can be just as effective in killing multiple victims. People rarely do a full on body stab, they slash which can still be just as deadly. You only need to hit a critical point (Neck, Arm, etc.) to get a victim to bleed out.
The other thing about a gun is the minute you take that first shot people in the entire building can hear it. So while your first few shots may be effective, afterwards everyone in the area knows there is a gun and proceeds to run for cover. In contrast one thing that has been observed knife attacks is that there is a slower response time since it is not immediately obvious what the threat is. You may hear someone screaming, but you don’t know exactly why they are screaming unless they shout something like “knife!”
Again different dynamics in a knife attack versus a gun attack. These things don’t exist in a vacuum. When you remove one variable other variables can increase to compensate.
They compare enough that in the absence of guns murders still happen at a similar rate.
And actually there are statistics coming out that shows in situations such as a mugging, you are less likely to be injured if the perp has a gun than if he is unarmed or has a knife because of the very power dynamic you state.
was this one of the gamergate guys or one of the puahate guys or both
disgusting
now there’s gonna be more and more elliot rodgers copy cats railing against social justice warriors. only instead they will be gamergate justice warriors who fight the injustice of gaming journalism.
Black market
We are close to mexico
If people want guns they will get them through different means
If people want to stop violence like this, let’s destigmatize mental health.
Its not just mental health its culture. A good amount of mass shootings in statistics involve gangs and gang culture. The more we weed this mentality out the better. In fact, I think it would be better in the long run for everyone.
Again we are way goo close to mexico to get rid of gang culture in united states. We are funded by gang culture
- Trying is a feel good point? Trying cant amount to anything other than a “feel good” attempt. Thats silly, but lets continue.
I wasnt talking about the 2004 decline. I dont know why you chose that year. I’d have to pull up a more current report on its obvious continual decline, although a short google to its wiki page shows an obvious lower number as expected.
If you go here, even though its 6 years old. It goes up to 2008 statisitics.
http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/2009/Ask_FactCheck/homicides_australia_chart.jpg
Even with that said, as i said before, there are obviously more core factors that go into violent crime than just guns. So while australias attack on guns might have been a great idea, if it wasnt balanced out by addressing social, mental, and economic issues within its citizens, or at the very least the demographic more likely to commit crime and need that assistance, than you will find yourself on a much slower decline.
Again, they didnt ban guns to stop violence in general, but to hopefully curb easy access to mass violence. I think its notable for a people to experience what they experienced, and go “damn, thats super fucked up, maybe we should dial this gun shit back”. Maybe we’re just use to it in america, cultural differences in all, but is it really that strange to commend them for trying something, and being terrified that the next angry person with guns could do this again, and again, to the point that like america, it is routine to prepare your sorries for the inevitable mass shooting that will happen twice a year.
- Saying that doing nothing is apathetic, isnt some poor attempt at manipulating emotions. Youve been arguing about social justice warrior issues for too long. Within the context of the logic you initially put out there, that was clearly apathy by definition, and disagreeing with that apathy is not a ploy to garner emotional reactions from people. Who would i even be doing that for anyways? LOL. For srk rep? Stop it.
Ive never heard of any conspiracy to disarm australian citizens, so it clearly seems like the reaction to the mass shooting, while maybe not indepth, as they likely didnt think this kind of thing could happen, or take the idea of it happening too serious, was to simply take out what made the deaths so easy to perform, the guns, and the people clearly didnt mind.
In hindsight, its easy to criticize that action, even though inevitably people end up unintentionally talking in hypotheticals, and still ignoring the fact that THEY DIDNT TAKE AWAY GUNS TO STOP VIOLENCE IN GENERAL. The law passed to prevent massive gun violence like that from happening again.
Australia may have seen a temporary increase in crime, then a level out, then a decrease that is still in decline currently when it comes to homicides, but when it comes to gun related crimes, they didnt ever see an increase there, which is good at the very least, and they only saw less than a handful of public mass shootings since then i believe, so thats good. I understand that people are like, SO WHAT, HOMICIDE WAS STILL HAPPENING REGARDLESS, but again, decreasing homicide but banning certain guns, and making it extremely hard to be a firearm owner, along with mandatory confiscation was not intended to simply decrease homicides in the country. Unless i missed an article on this detailing that it was the sole intent, not the ideal reaction of their actions.
I understand about arguing about the murder rate, but as ive noted, that is a complex issue in itself, and i dont recall ever reading anything that the ban and confiscation of certain weapons in australia was intended for the sole ideal purpose of decreasing homicide rates, more than it was a reaction to getting rid of a device that has cause them issues, and now was the cause of 35 deaths by the hands of 1 man. They saw their decrease in gun violence, very few mass public shootings since, they got back almost a million firearms in confiscation, which was probably like half of them back then, and at least a couple aspects of the plan worked. Then you have to figure out dealing with the core issues causing people to still do what they do.
- So because some people planned there shit out, and were likely gonna execute said plan anyways, we should simply not try to modify how easy it is to cop a gun in this country and put that work in. I’m sure you can cite a bunch of cases, and i can toss out the recent santa barbara killer and the guy who killed his ex coworker on air. Two guys who werent firearm owners for a long time before they got their gun, and got busy.
The point is not that it works for everyone. Its that it can likely work for some, if not many. The idea that people would rather choose their consumer obsessed entitlement of now now now over waiting a month and a half or so for their weapon to ideally curb certain individuals from just doing a quick grab and go, spur of the moment mass shooting or general gun murder, is absurd.
You might as well say, dont do anything, because anything can happen.
- Arguing about global mass stabbings, of which you listed 10, and only 5 before, that no, i didnt google, is pointless. What point are we arguing?
Are you saying america needs no extra gun regulation because of said, whatever, global knife killing events? Thats stupid, especially arguing on a global scale when it comes to knife violence vs gun violence. I’m sure there are millions that have died in the congo at the hands of gun violence, that wish all they had to deal with was machete wielding maniacs, and not pistols, semi automatic rifles, and shotguns.
We’re digressing into an argument that literally doesnt even matter. There is no context for it really. Its a left field, silly argument that always gets brought up. Yeah we get it, people have killed people with big knives before, okay, and im sure 1000 times the people who have died by knife stabbings, have died by getting shot the fuck up.
Plus quite frankly, we cant police the world, and foreign statistics, while insightful, dont really paint a picture for america, where death of mass people by stabbing doesnt happen often, and would get deaded pretty quick here. Usually mass death by knife is a mom killing her children, not some dude who goes ham at the train station.
Maybe im wrong, and you can inform me about some american statistics on mass killings by a single person with a big knife or sword that would make me otherwise change my tone.
- Ugh, what are we arguing about?
Death tolls in mass stabbings? Where? You linked to wikipedia pages of knife attacks in various places all over the world.
Sigh, i mean, do i really have to open every single one of your links and pick them apart for you to relax, relate, and release?
Heres 5 i will comment on
A) Akihabara massacre- He drove into a crowd with his TRUCK, and then killed 4 with a knife, and injured 8 with said knife. Okay, but again, he drove into a crowd first with his truck, then stabbed the people trying to help those that got hit by the truck.
B) 2014 Guangzhou attack- 6 people were INJURED, and 4 people were involved in the attack with big knives. No one died, and it took 4 people to injure 6.
C) Anne Anne Kindergarten stabbing- He stabbed 34 children, and killed 4. Enough said. Not adults, children.
D) 2014 Taipei Metro attack- 4 dead on a metro attack by one person. Okay, thats legit.
E) 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack- 2 guys killed 5 people with axes, knives, AND A GUN. The cops only showed up because they heard gunfire coming from the synagogue.
The also other thing about a gun, is by the time you hear it, youre dead, and by the time people are like wtf, wait, did he just shoot them, you have emptied out the clip into an unsuspecting crowd, pulled out your other gun, and started unloading again.
You know how fast you can unload a full clip? You dont need to be a gun expert to drop a full clip in like 3 seconds, depending on the gun.
Its like people wont believe how deadly guns are over something like a knife, or in general, until you get 1 semi competent nut to wipe out an entire food court in a mall for you to understand this shit.
**Also, lets not assume knife wielders are ninjas, silently killing people before someone notices and screams. No, theyre usually retards with machetes, hacking at people in densely populated areas, and people notice immediately. **
6)** I hear ya. While i went all out typing this reply. I dont see why we’re arguing this. Moderate gun regulation in AMERICA doesnt hurt anyones freedoms, and only helps protect people. It doesnt hurt the gun sellers. It doesnt hurt anyone who wants to own an ar-15. It just adds a little extra time to process you getting a gun.
No one in america needs a gun on site, RIGHT NOW, like that. If you do, guess what, before new laws kick in, you can go buy you a quick shotty to protect yourself with no background check, and then adhere to the law from then on out.
A moderate federal gun law would create jobs, be a slight inconvenience for consumers, save lives, and only cost the consumer a few extra hundred dollars max for classes and shit. People say, well what if i wanna sell my ak47 to my brother, how you gonna stop me. We cant, no more than we can stop you from buying a 40oz at the store, and selling it to your 18 year old cousin for 10 bucks, but we can encourage you to use certain services to ensure your transaction is legal and accounted for.
*Plus, federal gun regulation doesnt mean you give up on mental health care, and other social and economic issues that cause people to do wild shit. It just at least is a start to getting over the fucking hurdle of gun violence. ***
The pres said there was a correlation between states with stricter gun laws having less overall gun violence. That’s enough for me to support stricter gun laws.
They solved the gun violence problem by converting it to a knife violence problem!
Gun owners are way more likely to kill themselves, be killed, or be assholes in traffic than normal people. So there’s more impact than would show up in a graph of homicides over time.
Overall violence in America is down. The number of people shot is lower. Police deaths are also down 25% in 2013/14 vs 2011/12 though I dunno how much of that is gun related.
However it’s my understanding that the number of mass shootings and large scale violence acts of this kind is either remaining the same or growing. In addition it’s worth noting that mass shootings using legally owned guns outnumber the ones using illegal guns on a 5-1 ratio.
I’m all for the 2nd amendment and our right to own guns. I do however think that there needs to be reform in how we go about allowing those guns to be obtained. There should also be stricter screenings before giving a gun license and much more in depth safety training for new gun owners.
At the moment there is NO class or training required to purchase a gun for home protection. Zero. Think about how many hours you need to put into training to get a drivers license. Then there is the test and the permit period.
To get a concealed weapon it’s still fairly short. A 10-15 hour class is all that is needed. For hunting permit it’s a similar time frame. That’s not a lot of time but even that is better than ZERO. It’s just common sense that gun owners should have safety training.
That is of course only one aspect of the issue but it’s one that really should be dealt with.
Proper screening for mental health issues and other factors should be done as well but that’s a lot more controversial.
not everyone has their local mexican gang black market connect. I seriously doubt many of the dorky white boys who were mass shooters would be able to sort that out.
At least hunters are subject to hunting regulation and are allowed to hunt only for certain time frames.
Though USA have issues with poaching as well
Why does America have an overwhelming amount of bitch-made individuals that can’t settle their internal conflicts through appropriate means? This shooting took place an hour from where I live, and I live in a city where one of “the first” school shootings occurred, no more than 10 minutes away from my own school I was attending at the time. These fucking cowardly nihilists are so attached to their anonymous internet forums they’re FORGETTING HOW TO ACT LIKE PEOPLE.
It just continues to disgust me and lose faith in humanity as a whole. And it’s a feeling I don’t want to get used to no matter how common it’s become. Kids need a hobby or a genuine personal outreach. There’s so much to blame but nobody willing to accept the responsibility. Like we all just sit and wait and prepare for hindsight. “Oh yes a shooting occurred, we’ll look into it, start a campaign, politicize it.” But nothing’s changing. Fuck, even 2 months after the shooting in Charleston, Dylann Roof was still labeled as “suspected shooter”, as if there was any possibility of his innocence.
If nothing else, these domestic terrorists should just turn the gun on themselves instead of getting a group of innocent people involved. There’s much less of a ripple effect.
It doesn’t matter if some one random internet found statistic shows shootings to be common or uncommon, the reality is happens allot IN America. No one made any argument that mass shootings are the number one crime committed here and no body is saying that banning guns will eliminate murder in general. What is being said that MASS killings will be much easier to stop if the person doesn’t wield a gun.
As said, the banning of guns is not based on the ideal that any form of mass murder will stop. Banning of guns is more for the sake of decreasing the power of these murders. There can be mass stabbings in history, but logically a man with a knife is easier to stop than a man with a gun. 5 people can handle a man with a knife, the same can’t be said with a man with a gun. It’s more of limiting the resources of a killer, giving him little options in weapon/power use.