More mass shootings

[Coreece 189]

18 hours ago, yoink said:

On 6/6/2019 at 5:48 PM, Coreece said:

you see where I'm going with this, right?

Not really?

It may be a cultural thing I’m not getting.

That might be the disconnect right there. You don't get the violent culture nor the problem, which is why your arguments seem to be irrational appeals to emotion and your solutions impractical sci-fi fantasy.

How are you going to get criminals (gang members, drug dealers, illegal gun dealers, etc.) to register their illegal guns and present to bureaucrats maps of their preferred shooting zones for approval to purchase some device that will render their guns useless?  I'm sure they'll also have no problem with being turned over to the authorities if the bureaucrat finds their preferred shooting zones questionable.

Also, felons aren't even allowed to have a gun, so why would they even bother going through this process and incriminate themselves?  Same thing with the significant amount of killers under the age of 21 that typically aren't allowed to have a handgun in the first place?

 

18 hours ago, yoink said:

First priority - stop the shootings of innocent kids and workers en mass.

Again, about 75 of the 150 mass shootings didn't have any fatalities, leaving an average of 1 fatality per mass shooting, totaling 150 people nationwide.  Meanwhile, 200+ people have already been shot and killed in Chicago alone, the majority of which were between the ages of 13-29. 

The most crime prone age group is 15-24, with the majority of known killers ranging in age from 13-29

"Homicide has been the leading cause of death for non-Hispanic Black youth for more than three decades."

"While mass shootings regularly grab the attention of the national media, they account for only a sliver of total gun deaths in the United States. The 68 people killed in mass shootings this year make up a fraction of a percent of the 12,509 people killed by guns in 2018."

 

So given that you obviously don't understand the culture/problem, it's no wonder your priorities on the issue are all screwed up.

 

18 hours ago, yoink said:

That’s the low hanging fruit so it makes sense to target that first. 

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to waste the resources on the development, manufacture and oversight of retrofitting 400 million guns just to eliminate  some "low hanging fruit."   If it's that hard, then it's not "low hanging."  Better to spend that amount of effort/money on attacking the root of the problem with programs and laws that have already been proven to reduce crime over the last 25 years and continues to do so.  The whole thing about not doing anything but giving "thoughts and prayers" is just another lame strawman.

 

18 hours ago, yoink said:

If as a result it becomes more difficult over time for a gang member to shoot another gang member then that’s a bonus. They’ll just go and stab each other instead but it’s much harder for Joe Public to be caught in the crossfire by a stray drive by knifing, in that case.

See, you really don't understand the problem and why these kids are joining gangs in the first place and apparently don't even care.   Besides gangs are just part of the problem of inner city gun violence and mass shootings.

One thing you're failing to recognize is that these proven violence prevention programs not only address gun violence, but all violence.

The idea is that if we can educate and provide families with the necessary resources before kids reach the crime prone age group of 15-24, then we significantly reduce the chances of them engaging in violence later on in life.

 

18 hours ago, yoink said:

But I do see you didn’t get my earlier point about gun rights advocates ALWAYS using a fringe case to avoid any sort of developmental discussion...

Again:

"While mass shootings regularly grab the attention of the national media, they account for only a sliver of total gun deaths in the United States. The 68 people killed in mass shootings this year make up a fraction of a percent of the 12,509 people killed by guns in 2018."

So given that, it appears you are the one using a fringe case to ignore reality and propose ineffective solutions that borderline science-fiction.

 

18 hours ago, yoink said:

Thanks for rather neatly proving why I’m absolutely right about giving up posting stuff in here though.

You said that like 3 or 4 times already yet here you are, again.   You act like you're the only one that has posted anything reasonable on the subject that people just ignored.  You could've had a nice discussion with wolfriverjoe, but you completely ignored his post and any questions therein, and you'll probably ignore the questions about criminals willingly registering and retrofitting millions of illegal guns.   The fact that this seems like such a good idea to you absolutely blows my fucking mind.  Either you haven't thought this through or have a very limited understanding of the problem.

 

18 hours ago, yoink said:

I find it an utterly pointless and frustrating exercise.

That's typically what happens when you post weak arguments and then threaten to run away because they can't stand up to even the slightest bit of ridicule.

 

On 8/31/2018 at 2:56 PM, yoink said:

I'm simply saying that gun advocates seem to point out that gun violence a mental-health issue without ever seeming to go into detail about HOW that would be enacted, probably because they know how impossible it would be...
Suggest the impossible and nothing will happen. . .
"Look! I'm helping by suggesting alternatives!"

How is that any different form what you're doing? (or not doing)

Edited June 7, 2019 by Coreece

[DJL 232]

39 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So he now carries. He understands full well that what he went through was a 'lightning strike' and is unlikely to happen again.  He's unwilling to take the chance. 

Sounds like he's reacting in a way that makes him "feel" better, just as pro-gun people say that people want "feel good" legislation.  I live and work in rougher sections of Richmond, it was actually an improvement to the street in front of my office when the parole office went in down the block because then, even though there were more criminals, at least there were more eyes.  I park across the street so that my female co workers don't have to walk the additional 15 feet when they leave.  My guns are in a closet in my apartment, I'm not really worried about it.

47 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

How about multiple attackers?
How about getting cornered?
How about people who are unable to run? Or run fast enough?

The idea that if nobody has guns, there won't be any real crime is really simplistic.

Seriously, any scenario will put the power way more into the attacker's hands if they have a gun.  I have no options over someone who is willing to use a gun if they get the jump on me.  I have many more with any other weapon.

[billvon 2,380]

On 6/7/2019 at 9:54 AM, turtlespeed said:

Good for you - You must be able to run very fast.

I would suggest counting on your belief in that skill as an absolute, though.

 

Not much different than counting on a gun to save your life.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Not much different than counting on a gun to save your life.

That's exactly it, there are many options before you need a gun.  Locked doors, choice of neighborhood, not buying drugs, big air theory, security in your office.  I work in a VERY shady part of town and will not walk to my car from my office at night until I've looked up and down the street.  If I DID see some people and I had a weapon I still would NOT walk out the door because I still don't want to have to draw a weapon.  A 100% ban could go into effect on firearms and it would do nothing to make my world more dangerous.

[airdvr 197]

Four graphics that help explain Britain's knife crime crisis

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/uk/uk-knife-crime-graphics-gbr-intl/index.html

Take away the guns?  Doesn't stop much.

 

[kallend 1,620]

6 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Four graphics that help explain Britain's knife crime crisis

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/uk/uk-knife-crime-graphics-gbr-intl/index.html

Take away the guns?  Doesn't stop much.

 

How does UK's murder rate (per 100,000) compare with the USA's?

(Rhetorical question, and the answer in no way suggests that knives are anything like as effective as guns as murder weapons).

[billvon 2,380]

15 minutes ago, airdvr said:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/uk/uk-knife-crime-graphics-gbr-intl/index.html

Take away the guns?  Doesn't stop much.

 

US intentional homicide rate per 100,000 population: 5.35

UK: 1.20

In other words, you are more than 4 times likely to be killed in the US than in the UK.

If your point is that the type of weapon sets homicide rates, then "taking away the guns" solves most of it.  However, that's an overly simplistic assumption.

[gowlerk 1,902]

27 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Four graphics that help explain Britain's knife crime crisis

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/uk/uk-knife-crime-graphics-gbr-intl/index.html

Take away the guns?  Doesn't stop much.

 

How many mass killings have they had there? I don't know what point you think this makes, but it's a pretty lame attempt if you are trying to counter killing machine control advocates.

[DJL 232]

19 hours ago, airdvr said:

Take away the guns?  Doesn't stop much.

Except for the severity of the attack, the capability of the attacker, that ability of the victim to run or defend themself.  Think about what you're saying, they're back to using Bronze Age technology.

Edit:  We've actually been over this before but the issue is that the UK dropped its police budget a while back and there has been a corresponding rise in crime.  It actually says that in the article you posted.

Edit2: When this came up before it was because the headline was "UK Knife Crimes equal to New York Murder Rate".  Of course what you had to dig to find out is that New York is having a record low in crime at the same time as London was having a record high after substantial cut-backs in their police.  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/theresa-may-police-cuts-margaret-thatcher-budgets

Edited June 11, 2019 by DJL

[turtlespeed 212]

On 6/10/2019 at 11:15 AM, billvon said:

Not much different than counting on a gun to save your life.

One has a much higher percentage of working - 

Having a gun in most situations will deter.

 

[DJL 232]

6 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

One has a much higher percentage of working - 

Having a gun in most situations will deter.

But what am I going to do, wave my gun every time I see scary people walking around near me?  Or do I pull my gun out once I see they have a gun out and now hopefully instead of just shooting me they decide to run away?

Edited June 11, 2019 by DJL

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, DJL said:

But what am I going to do, wave my gun every time I see scary people walking around near me?  Or do I pull my gun out once I see they have a gun out and now hopefully instead of just shooting me they decide to run away?

If you wish to put yourself in a position where scary people are walking around near you, then I would suggest being armed and trained.

Training would answer those questions for you.

 

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

If you wish to put yourself in a position where scary people are walking around near you, then I would suggest being armed and trained.

Training would answer those questions for you.

 

I think I said it earlier but I work in a very high crime area, there are murders, drug deals and prostitution all around the block.  The parole office that went in down the street is actually an improvement because then at least there are more eyeballs around.  My eye and some common sense do just fine, I'm Ok leaving my guns locked up where they are.

[turtlespeed 212]

8 minutes ago, DJL said:

I think I said it earlier but I work in a very high crime area, there are murders, drug deals and prostitution all around the block.  The parole office that went in down the street is actually an improvement because then at least there are more eyeballs around.  My eye and some common sense do just fine, I'm Ok leaving my guns locked up where they are.

That is not a choice that I would make for myself.

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

That is not a choice that I would make for myself.

And that's the take of most people who feel like they need to be armed all the time.  Don't get hookers, don't buy drugs, don't associate with criminals and you're statistically going to be OK.  All that's left is the threat of robbery or assault and I can easily enough scan the street and walk to my car with no real concern.  I can have a gun in my office or I can just wear one because I live in Virginia.  I don't and most people don't and we do fine.  I'd rather not have to deal with keeping the gun safe while not in use and even more so I'd rather not have to deal with how easy it is for anyone else to get gun.  There's an inherent irony to the idea of wanting a gun because it's so easy for other people to get guns.  And I know I'm entirely hypocritical because I like shooting and I'm looking forward to the day when that mint condition M1911 is sitting there and I have some money burning a hole in my pocket.  I just can't legitimately argue a point that just because it's in the Constitution that it should be so easy to get a gun.

[gowlerk 1,902]

20 minutes ago, DJL said:

There's an inherent irony to the idea of wanting a gun because it's so easy for other people to get guns. 

The crux of the biscuit.

[billvon 2,380]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

That is not a choice that I would make for myself.

And 73 kids were accidentally killed in 2018 with guns.  Some from the apartment adjoining theirs.   Some at the hands of another child, or from the hands of a "responsible" gun owner.  That is not a choice they would make for themselves, either (or that their parents would make.)  And sometimes we consider preventing the deaths of children to override an illusory feeling of safety that guns give some people.  Sometimes we don't.  The balance between the two is the issue.

[kallend 1,620]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

And 73 kids were accidentally killed in 2018 with guns.  Some from the apartment adjoining theirs.   Some at the hands of another child, or from the hands of a "responsible" gun owner.  That is not a choice they would make for themselves, either (or that their parents would make.)  And sometimes we consider preventing the deaths of children to override an illusory feeling of safety that guns give some people.  Sometimes we don't.  The balance between the two is the issue.

They're just collateral damage, of no importance if you need a gun to feel safe.

[gowlerk 1,902]

Moved to correct thread.

Edited June 12, 2019 by gowlerk
Posted to wrong thread

[BIGUN 1,049]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

And sometimes we consider preventing the deaths of children

And, sometimes I feel conflicted arguing about the deaths of children by guns to a group that believes in abortion. 

[gowlerk 1,902]

24 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

And, sometimes I feel conflicted arguing about the deaths of children by guns to a group that believes in abortion.  

Accidental abortions are not a thing. A fetus is not a child. But yes, abortion is a thing that some people just can't help but feel they need to impose  their views upon other people important decisions on. Abortion is not God, no one "believes in abortion". Many people believe in liberty and letting others decide instead of letting churches and governments decide.

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

And, sometimes I feel conflicted arguing about the deaths of children by guns to a group that believes in abortion. 

I can see that.  I prefer to work to reduce both, while preserving individual rights as much as possible.  You, of course, may have a different perspective.

[turtlespeed 212]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

And 73 kids were accidentally killed in 2018 with guns.  Some from the apartment adjoining theirs.   Some at the hands of another child, or from the hands of a "responsible" gun owner.  That is not a choice they would make for themselves, either (or that their parents would make.)  And sometimes we consider preventing the deaths of children to override an illusory feeling of safety that guns give some people.  Sometimes we don't.  The balance between the two is the issue.

How many were actually from lawfully owned guns?

How many had alcohol involved?

I think Alcohol is a larger problem.

We should ban alcohol.

[gowlerk 1,902]

11 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

How many were actually from lawfully owned guns?

How many had alcohol involved?

I think Alcohol is a larger problem.

We should ban alcohol.

That makes about as much sense as banning sex. Without sex there would be no dead children. Problem solved. Your habit of distraction and changing the subject may entertain you, but it contributes nothing of value.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

And, sometimes I feel conflicted arguing about the deaths of children by guns to a group that believes in abortion.

Agreed. It is hard to argue with people who are for banning abortions while at the same time arguing that banning guns doesn't work.

 

Then there are people who feel that regulating both, combined with education and limits on where they take place is a smarter way to go.