I agree. I’m not saying tht banning guns will be the birth of world peace, i’m not idealistic. It’s all about decreasing their power in anyway possible. I don’t agree with fixing mental health because that sounds impossible. If you are in a school with hundreds of kids -each of them having their own angst- it is just impossible to detect a “this guy will kill us all” person. My idea for mental health is really fear. The justice system has to return to the days when death penalties were serious. Today, people are not as afraid of going to jail… you have gangs that actually consider that as man points to go to prison. If we had a better justice system in where murderers get painful death penalties like scaphism, then i can be certain that crime will decrease because of fear of ending up on death row.
Yeah but seriously, fuck 4chan. And the news while we are at it.
And all you pathetic no pussy getting fucks that use this, again, preventable tragedy to try and further your own agenda, whether it be cash or ass.
Oh and everyone that thinks this guy needed to be studied for science and mental health issues…how about stop using pills as band aids so motherfuckers with easy access to murder tools don’t flip out because their Molotov cocktail of prescriptions is frying their under-educated brain.
- It’s the press. You’re a fool if you believe they’re objective.
- DC, Chicago, and Los Angeles alone are enough to discredit the notion of strict gun laws working to stop “gun violence” in America.
I’d rather these domestic terrorists get psychiatric help of some sort, but you could be right. Sometimes their mental health is too unstable to contain their madness, any help won’t do.
So, apparently a veteran who trained in MMA tried to stop the guy. http://www.businessinsider.com/her-army-veteran-chris-mintz-charged-at-oregon-gunman-2015-10
The sole security guard on site was unarmed. The campus was another gun free zone, this guy was stopped ultimately by cops shooting him.
Just some news, and pics of dude.Dudes father is white, and his dads black. No typical white boy shooter in this case.
You didn’t talk about it, but I talked about it in case someone decided to bring it up. And a better source is the government website.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2013/1_recorded.html
The gun ban and buyback was put into effect in 1996. From 1996-2004 all violent crime remained within the same ranges. It wasn’t till 2004 (7 years later) that Australia saw ANY decline in violent crime. However this trend is equivalent to trends in the US
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
the UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/historical-crime-data
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445662/rec-crime-2003-2015.ods
and the EU in general
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Crime_statistics
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Recorded_crime,EU-28,2002%E2%80%9312%281%29%28millions%29_YB14.png
Where around 2004 violent crime suddenly dropped around the world. My theory is that it is due to the internet, but I have no evidence of that.
Or in other words removing the guns did not remove the problem.
So what’s the point of stopping gun crime if the same number of people get murdered every year? Really this is why I said it helps your “feel good” points about trying, but in the end people still died at much the same rate.
You bring up SJW when I never made a mention to it.
Emotional tactics are common in debates of any kind. It’s a common tactic to say “if you aren’t for X then you are a Y” They only serve to derail an argument. In this case you are trying to paint people who disagree as “shity and apathetic people” which is emotional blackballing.
Which it still happened.
And again I’ll say it again, what’s the point of reducing mass shootings, which even in the US are rare instances by all statistical data, if the overall number of people who die violent deaths remains the same? The whole point is to save lives. And if you aren’t doing that then you haven’t done a single thing.
Again, so what? If my intent was to stop childhood obesity by banning boxed lunches at schools and children are still getting fat then I did nothing of value. No one cares about intent, only results. If people are still dying at the same rates then it poses the question if mass shooters were ever that widespread of a problem to begin with.
A waiting period didn’t stop Elliot Rodgers in California where there is a mandatory waiting period. He saved up the money and bought a weapon completely legally.
Or the Colorado shooter who bought the gun legally in addition to making things like this
I almost don’t even know how to begin to respond to this line of reasoning because there are so many holes in it.
What I am saying is that based on every piece of data we have, we see the removal of guns in other countries did not get rid of mass killing sprees, they did not lower violent crime, and ultimately had close to zero effect on anything.
So if it didn’t work there, then why should we expect it to work here? What factors can you point to that would make you think it would work differently here?
Well but hey at least they weren’t shot right? They died knowing that they were just stabbed or ran over by a truck and not shot.
Yes and in the vast majority of the mass shootings in the US people don’t die
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
In the average mass shooting 1.28 people are killed and 3.70 people live. Or basically almost 75% of the vitcims of a mass shooting live. So yes those attacks are on par with the average mass shooting.
Because stabbing children all of a sudden makes it ok? I know you are trying to argue that it was easier to kill them because they were kids, but all that does is bring up another point. If it is harder killing adults with a knife then what’s to stop people going postal from just targeting children instead? Because most of the mass killings against children that I came across were not guns, they were knives.
For instance in Australia
Or:
And of course you ignored the ones you couldn’t nitpick. Ignoring the Calgary stabbing where 5 people were killed at a party with a knife, the Yan Yanming attack where he walked into a dorm with 9 killed/3 injured, the Maksim Gelman stabbing spree with 4 killed/5 injured, etc.
But in all this you failed to realize that most mass shootings do not reach 7+ deaths.
It took me only a few minutes using the data from
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
In fact the vast majority of them only result in one or no deaths.
So in several of the cases I listed, there were more or as many deaths in those stabbings as the average mass shooting.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. If you have no formal training you are not going to be able to unload a clip rapidly without missing every target you shoot at unless you are firing into a crowd in Time’s Square on New Year’s Eve. Those kinds of crowds are rare even for a big city.
In order to fire rapidly and accurately it takes a ton of practice because you have to both pace your shots and also reaim your shots to account for the recoil.
As far as knife attacks, there are multiple incidents where during a knife attack people were not aware of the attack unless they hear or see clear direct evidence that it is occurring.
In the Pennsylvania stabbing I previously lisited multiple people said they had no idea what was going on when they heard the fire alarm until they saw people running by with blood on them. So yes we do have real world examples of the confusion that happens in a knife attack vs a gun attack.
The problem is you are imposing restrictions that have not been proven to do anything as far as saving lives which is what we ultimately care about. So ultimately if they do nothing, why are we imposing laws for the sake of imposing laws?
Enlightening piece on where America’s “gun violence problem” is concentrated, with an interesting map and filter tool for Baltimore’s homicides: http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm
Chicago has already had 374 murders this year, use this tool to dig around: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015-chicago-murders
The reality is that only 358 people have died this year from mass shootings out of a population of 318.9 million people. That is a death rate of 0.00012%
So I don’t know what your definition of “a lot” is other than “it happens”
That’s why I get my news from reliable sources.
Most poignant part is they use this article as copypasta and just change the initial details for each incident that happens.
4chan has always been tasteless.
Man something needs to be done about this kind of bullshit though. The Second Amendment had muskets in mind, not semi-auto rifles and concealable handguns. Pretty hard to go on a rampage with a gun that fires one bullet every 20 seconds.
No, the “black” market isn’t funded by mexico. That’s not where the majority of illegal weapons are obtained, nor where they come from. The black market is funded primarly by white people living here. Mexico does not manufacture weapons, and the US is pretty strict with where it’s fully automatic weapons go.
Notice how ever since the Federal Ban on assault weapons (not really banned, just highly regulated, require a +500$ tax payment, with other licensed requirements), there has been virtually no mass shootings from actual assault rifles. Most of the automatic weapons you encounter in the “black” market are old European weapons, or AK - 47 variants. We don’t get them from Mexico. In fact, a mexican cartels get their weapons from the US or import them from countries where the military can be bought.
I’m all for better regulation, but historically, the only actual legislation passed in California and at a Federal level that made sense are the laws regulating the sale and purchase of assault weapons. Everything else passed has done nothing to curb gang violence, or mass murder. We need better leaders willing to asses the problem. But when you have people citing Austrilia’s and Engalnd’s solutions where modest, like how the fuck do you expect me to take you seriously?
All of Canada had just barely over 500 murders last year, FYI
Sheriff refuses to name the gunman so he won’t get recognition, but CNN tells his name anyway smh
Down to 275 if you take out the Moose/Bear on human violence. You guys count them on your census numbers right?
I’ve posted this kind of thing countless times on countless different places but here we go again,
Here in Australia they got rid of guns except for certain types with a permit if you have a legitimate reason to own it. It worked. Sure, there are some illegal guns around but there is a massive fine and jail time if you’re found with one so there is less incentive for a guy that shoots for fun to fuck up his whole life with jail by hiding one in a cupboard somewhere. When they brought in the laws, gun owners were compensated for their illegal weapons, they were not stolen. It didn’t happen overnight but they got them off the street. The threat of automatic jail time combined with the lack of influx of new weapons means that only your most hardcore of criminal has access to something like that, not your average 4chan sociopath. Like anything highly illegal, they’re also highly expensive. So yes, while it’s impossible to eradicate them you can severely curb the numbers.
Contrary to popular belief, you are allowed to own a gun here in Australia as well. People shoot ducks, they shoot pest animals like wild pigs, rabbits, cane toads or whatever else. That’s fine, that’s a legitimate need and farmers here have issues with foxes as well. That is a completely reasonable reason to own a gun and you can own one. The same as sports shooters. What you’re not allowed to do is own a high capacity semi-automatic weapons and concealable weapons must be kept at gun ranges. Which is fair enough. You don’t need 30 shots to shoot a duck without reloading. If you’re hunting with the thing you don’t need to slip it under your jacket.
Per hundred thousand people 0.1 person dies from a gun homicide a year. Suicides are seven times higher but even then guns account for a very slim number of suicides.
And no, we don’t get broken into all the time. If ever it happens, the guy isn’t bringing his shotgun into your house taking up his hands to steal your t.v. He’s probably not coming in while you’re home at all. If he does that’s why people in higher risk areas have dogs or a bat nearby. 2,000,000 home burglaries are reported a year in the United States as well so having all those guns isn’t exactly stopping it either.
It worked at stopping gun crime, but it did nothing to stop violent crime which was the point of the conversation. It simply changed the means by which people died. The net effect was nothing.
I can, but im not going to retort all of this, because what the fuck are you even arguing about? Are you just arguing semantics and statistics to argue? Are you saying no one should ever try to do anything because oh well, shit may or may not get better immediately anyways.
Like what are you arguing. We’re all discussing AMERICAN gun regulations and how the lack of giving a fuck even a minute bit could be preventing us from avoiding incidences of gun violence in this country, especially those related to mass shootings.
Also, LOL at needing a ton of practice to unload a gun with moderate accuracy. Have you ever shot a gun? A simple glock 9 has very little kickback depending on the model, and can still do a shit ton of damage regardless of the type of round you use. Ive unloaded a clip 20 feet from a paper sized target with fairly decent accuracy on almost every bullet hitting, and that was my first time shooting a gun ever in my life. Imagine what i could do if it was 20 people infront of me. Stop it.
The human body is a fairly big target, and 40 of them bunched together are a bunch of even easier targets.
Again, how do you know anything until you try, and give it time to produce results. To not try something because maybe it wont work, and maybe it will, is the dumbest line of thinking anyone can have.
Also, again, australia banned, confiscated, and heavily regulated firearms in response to a mass shooting that they never wanted to see happen again. Not solely as a general response to reduce overall violent crime. I have not read one single thing that the outlawing of various firearms in australia in response to that mass shooting was also for a bigger purpose of reducing violent crime in general. What did happen is there have only been less than a handful of mass shootings in australia since 1996, and violent gun crimes plummeted. There was no uprising of the have nots, sticking everyone up with their illegal guns. There were not 30 new cases of mass shooting in the almost 3 decades since this law passed.
**BUT JIMMY, THAT DOESNT MATTER BECAUSE CRIME IN GENERAL STILL HAPPENS. SO WHY DO ANYTHING AT ALL, EVER… okay, you win. **
You are being fed some real bullshit by gun lobbies if you actually believe that.
Your rate is over 4x of that here. There are 4x as many intentional homicides per person. You’re looking at two developed nations with a lot of the same approximate standards of policing and reporting and you have over 4x the number of intentional homicides. Why? It’s easier to kill people.
Yes, husbands still beat wives, yes, people still get mugged. That kind of thing has steadily been decreasing but didn’t decrease or increase faster or slower based on the reduced number of guns. What did decrease was the massacres and shootings and the ease of killing someone, especially more than one person in a short space of time.
I have an easy solution that would be almost guaranteed to reduce cases like this without doing a thing to gun laws: legalize prostitution. Think of how many young men today drive drive themselves to the brink of insanity and depravity over their inability to just get some.