Shootings In America

[polskieserce]

"Shooting sprees are rare events that don't happen all the time.  Since they are rare and spontaneous, even a marginal increase will look like a massive increase.  Overall, gun violence is just hyphe that makes for good news stories.  People are far more likely to die by other means, like car accidents, than they are to die from a gunshot.

 

not sure if you're trying to argue or what. just pointing out the facts.

because you were 'just saying' or perhaps arguing. any gun violence is bad if it can be prevented. states that don't have gun regulations ae twice as likely to have gun violence than states that don't. other counties are known for remote gun violence compared to us. japan has nearly none, australia has seen a dramatic decrease due to gun regulation and have had no mass schootings since their reforms of the late nineties, whereas before they did.

i could go on and on about gun violence doesn't have to be the way it is now. it may not be a lot to you, but it still doesn't have to be that way.

 

I made that statement because it's true.  Shooting sprees are not a common occurrence.  They are a drop in the bucket.  All of this hysteria over sporadic events is why so many freedoms are being lost in the US.  You can't take away ever freedom from millions of people just because you think it will save one or two lives.  If that was the case, you would have a society with virtually no room for the individual to decide for him/herself (as is the case with Germany, one of the most bureacratic societies in the West).

 

The US is not like the other countries that you compare us to.  In a lot of countries, recreational drug use is also  much lower.  Japan is a perfect example of that.  Most of the same drugs are illegal.  But in the US, we still see higher rates of drug use because that's just how the culture is, not because of the legal system.  Also, you need to remember that the ultra capitalist policies of the US are also inevitably driving up all types of violent crime, including shootings.  More people will enter the drug trade and other areas of crime if they feel there is no hope for them.

 

I still stand behind my statement that current gun control measures are a joke and that people calling for all of these restrictions are quacks.  In addition, the gun control advocates are not being honest to the public.  They claim to not be anti-gun when in reality they are.  They always talk about the need to reduce the number of guns civilians own.  Also, they don't acknowledge the true meaning of the constitution.  If they really want serious change, they should be calling to modify or completely repeal the 2nd amendment.  However, they know that won't be possible for a very long time, which is why they try to obscure the legal scene with their intellectual gymnastics.

[dairygirl4u2c]

forty percent of sales involve no background checks. we have tons of potential here to ensure every sale has a background check. there's a lot more types of restrictions taht could be done, but wouldn't necessarily ahve to be. these checks would necessarily save some lives, at most at the expense of mere inconvenience. this means that at least some increased restrictions would help save lives.

is it really all that reasoable to invoke the second amendment for such triviality when amendments have all kinds of exceptions anyways? is it eally reasonable to let people die due to mere inconvenience?

and you want to talk about who the quacks are....

[Norseman82]

Combination of more stress and less morals?

[polskieserce]

forty percent of sales involve no background checks. we have tons of potential here to ensure every sale has a background check. there's a lot more types of restrictions taht could be done, but wouldn't necessarily ahve to be. these checks would necessarily save some lives, at most at the expense of mere inconvenience. this means that at least some increased restrictions would help save lives.

is it really all that reasoable to invoke the second amendment for such triviality when amendments have all kinds of exceptions anyways? is it eally reasonable to let people die due to mere inconvenience?

and you want to talk about who the quacks are....

 

Plenty of people who went on shooting sprees were able to pass background checks because they did not have a criminal record before their killing spree and their mental health issues were either undiagnosed or not enough to raise enormous red flags in the mental health professionals who evaluated them.  After background checks, it will be something else.  That's how it has been for a long time.  We have you people figured out.  It's a "Give them an inch and they will take the whole mile" kind of deal.

 

Lol would a background check have stopped Timothy McVeigh?  He didn't even use a gun and he currently holds 2nd place on the Mass Murder Scoreboard (1st being for the 9/11 attacks).

[dairygirl4u2c]

your point that checks wouldn't prevent all murders or mass shootings is uncontested by me.

 

the point that checks would prevent some murders and mass shootings remains, as usual with far right gun rights folks, uncontested by you. it cannot really be contested, cause it's true. only someone who would place some slight inconvenience of people over a significant number of people's lives would contest it. that's why most don't contest it. they either suppress the thought so it doesn't mess with their ideology, or they dont want to admit that they don't care about the people dying.

[PhuturePriest]

Not sure if the recent shooters were poor. Even if they were, there are far poorer countries that don't have this problem.

I don't know if the availability of guns makes a huge difference. It can definitely contribute, but there are many countries, like the Philippines, where guns are easier to come by.

 

Take note that despite much easier access, the Phillipines (A very Catholic country) has far less shootings than America (A secularist utopia in in the making).

 

;)

[polskieserce]

your point that checks wouldn't prevent all murders or mass shootings is uncontested by me.

 

the point that checks would prevent some murders and mass shootings remains, as usual with far right gun rights folks, uncontested by you. it cannot really be contested, cause it's true. only someone who would place some slight inconvenience of people over a significant number of people's lives would contest it. that's why most don't contest it. they either suppress the thought so it doesn't mess with their ideology, or they dont want to admit that they don't care about the people dying.

 

Even if the guy working behind the counter at a shop tells a nut that they can't buy a gun because of their mental health background, it isn't that hard to just get it off the street.  The reason gun rights activists aren't budging is that they know that won't be the last of it.  After that passes, the all of the suburban helicopter mommies  and other gun control quacks would be complaining about how the magazines are too big, the guns shoot too far, the gun owners blood and semen samples aren't kept in an FBI database, people are allowed to actually use them for self defense, gun shops are allowed to be within proximity of schools, the round might penetrate a police officers vest (which most hunting rounds for deer will do), etc.  Gun rights activists have seen it all before.

 

This is the disease that is spreading throughout western society.  People have become afraid of freedom.  They want every bad event to be averted and for people to live in some sort of fantasy utopia.  That's even scarier than a person high on drugs.  At least when a person stops using drugs, they sober up and return to normal.

[Winchester]

It's worked with drugs, so it will work with guns. Criminals totes can't get meth.

[dairygirl4u2c]

again, no one has responded to the point, that not all people are black hoodies that will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they are restricted, it's very possible they won't get a gun. if they dont have a gun, that statistic that says you are more likely to be involved in gun problems with a gun, wouldn't be true. thus, violence is reduced due to checks.

 

it's almost like banging your head against a wall. people just try to weasle their way out of this clear stuff.... i mean, if you're okay with people dying so there can be no checks, and people's mere inconvenience isn't an issue anymore, just say so. :wall:

Edited July 11, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

if drug use were legal, you can guarantee that drug use would go up a lot.

 

it's like in that daily show clip. 'just because you can't get rid of all drug use, it isn't worth having drug laws at all?' and the gun advocate couldn't answer that.

 

maybe i should have been countering when people always say it.... why not just get rid of the drug laws? people will just get drugs anyway. but we see and understand that if we did get rid of drug laws, drug use would go up a lot.

 

now, you may be against drug laws for libertarian purposes and such, but it's still the point, that you can't argue 'they will just get one somewhere else'. it's just not always true.

[tinytherese]

A very good book for developing a personal sense of situational awareness and common sense when it comes to the possibility of violence.

Along with looking at how someone becomes a murderer. Edited July 11, 2014 by tinytherese

[polskieserce]

again, no one has responded to the point, that not all people are black hoodies that will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they are restricted, it's very possible they won't get a gun. if they dont have a gun, that statistic that says you are more likely to be involved in gun problems with a gun, wouldn't be true. thus, violence is reduced due to checks.

 

it's almost like banging your head against a wall. people just try to weasle their way out of this clear stuff.... i mean, if you're okay with people dying so there can be no checks, and people's mere inconvenience isn't an issue anymore, just say so. :wall:

 

The ones who go out of their way to get it are the ones who are dangerous.  The ones who are not going out of their way to get it were not hell bent on a shooting spree to begin with.  The mentally unstable ones that aren't hell bent on a killing spree might stab one or two people to death and that will be the end of it.  You still would not be preventing any murders with that.  At most, if the mentally unstable person really doesn't care too much, just changing the weapon of choice.  I encourage you to google "improvised explosives" and see what you come up with.

 

if drug use were legal, you can guarantee that drug use would go up a lot.

 

it's like in that daily show clip. 'just because you can't get rid of all drug use, it isn't worth having drug laws at all?' and the gun advocate couldn't answer that.

 

maybe i should have been countering when people always say it.... why not just get rid of the drug laws? people will just get drugs anyway. but we see and understand that if we did get rid of drug laws, drug use would go up a lot.

 

now, you may be against drug laws for libertarian purposes and such, but it's still the point, that you can't argue 'they will just get one somewhere else'. it's just not always true.

 

I am not advocating for no gun laws at all.  The laws we have now are on the overbearing side, but I do think we should keep some.  The same is true for drugs.  The weaker stuff like marijuana should be legalized because that is clogging up the prison system.  The more serious drugs that make a person go absolutely psychotic should be kept illegal so that people arrested for it can get the extensive help they need.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Where is this massive increase in shootings?  The only difference is in media coverage.  150 years ago, do you really think there weren't pedophiles who kidnapped children and killed them in the woods when they were finished with them?  Of course there were.  The only reason it seems more prevalent now is that society has better technology and has been able to determine what actually happened in more of these cases.  The number of shootings still isn't that high when you consider that this is a nation of 300 million people.

 

 

 

This is a good point. I don't disagree with your views, but it is concerning that this seems to be a bigger problem in the U.S. than elsewhere. Let's be clear that when I say "shootings" I'm not talking about most gun-related killings. I'm specifically referring to mass shootings by lone gunmen. 

Edited July 11, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Take note that despite much easier access, the Phillipines (A very Catholic country) has far less shootings than America (A secularist utopia in in the making).

 

;)

 

They also have a population problem because condoms are illegal. :P

Edited July 11, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[dairygirl4u2c]

The ones who go out of their way to get it are the ones who are dangerous.  The ones who are not going out of their way to get it were not hell bent on a shooting spree to begin with.  The mentally unstable ones that aren't hell bent on a killing spree might stab one or two people to death and that will be the end of it.  You still would not be preventing any murders with that.  At most, if the mentally unstable person really doesn't care too much, just changing the weapon of choice.  I encourage you to google "improvised explosives" and see what you come up with.

 

 

I am not advocating for no gun laws at all.  The laws we have now are on the overbearing side, but I do think we should keep some.  The same is true for drugs.  The weaker stuff like marijuana should be legalized because that is clogging up the prison system.  The more serious drugs that make a person go absolutely psychotic should be kept illegal so that people arrested for it can get the extensive help they need.

 

when those specific people do murder, then yes murders would not be prevented. but there's tons of people who would be prevented and wouldn't get a gun, and those murders would be prevented.

 

i don't know why you would keep the gun laws we have now and get rid of some. i can getting rid of some over bearing ones, but why not add more like checks? our point of legislation is very arbitrary where we are at now. we could have more of the good stuff and less of the bad stuff. basically.

 

it's still like drugs. should we just get rid of drug laws on hard stuff? they'll just get it elsewhere, if i were to argue like you gun types do. but we all know the laws do make some difference.

-------------

i might as well repeat my last post as i've gained no real head way:

 

again, no one has responded to the point, that not all people are black hoodies that will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they are restricted, it's very possible they won't get a gun. if they dont have a gun, that statistic that says you are more likely to be involved in gun problems with a gun, wouldn't be true. thus, violence is reduced due to checks.

 

it's almost like banging your head against a wall. people just try to weasle their way out of this clear stuff.... i mean, if you're okay with people dying so there can be no checks, and people's mere inconvenience isn't an issue anymore, just say so. :wall:

 

 

Edited July 11, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c