Millions of guns in the United States didn't criminally fire on, injure or kill anyone today because they had no violent owners. But I guess interpreting statistics rather than using a few to reach the conclusion you want is asking too much.doggie015 said:
Shooting in Texas
- Thread starter GoddyofAus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That kind of sounds like our other reactions to gun control. Make more guns, buy more guns, murder with more guns....adamsaccount said:
You know, I was talking with my Dad after hearing about the Sandy Hook shooting and I was saying how I wonder how many shootings it'll take before the USA realizes that maybe letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry have a gun is not such a brainy idea.
Another problem is that the market was flooded with assault weapons and mods before the ban took effect. This is already happening again in some cases. One wonders why the impact of such a ban doesn't work? One doesn't have to look far. We let companies flood the market with grandfathered weapons and then kill the bill at the first possible moment.Akalabeth said:
All other issues created equal, that should still be enough right there. It's almost like gun manufacturers who are willing to flood the streets with easily accessed weapons can counteract legislation or something.
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind....canadamus_prime said:
The problem is, after every shooting the people saying "enough is enough" get shouted down. I was hoping Sandy Hook was going to finally stop that trend, but even now people are losing steam on the argument.
It's a shame that even kids getting slaughtered isn't enough to make people stop loving their guns.
As an American, what frightens me is that it'll be the latter.doggie015 said:
As an American, I also lack the economic mobility to flee in terror from a nation that thinks dead children are a small price to pay for MOAR GUNZ.
And the Escapist is rife with this fad.Dijkstra said:
Apparently, the media is more to blame for guns being in people's hands than the gun lobby, the gun manufacturers, or the gun nut.
when the issues in which owning a gun is no longer the most feasible option are solved. Many more lives will be lost if guns were banned or severely restricted like NY state. The amount of lives that will now be lost to wildlife ALONE will probbly outnumber those lost to mass shootings. The sad fact of the matter is police are more focused on not being sued by suspects/criminals than trying to protect citizens. Hell the only time you can count on the police to protect you is if you are in handcuffs!canadamus_prime said:
The worst crime in the US tends to be in areas with strict gun control. various NY cities, Baltimore, Chicago, Washington DC, Detriot.
Although to be fair, even if guns disappeared tomorrow washington DC would still be dangerous as hell. The drivers there are crazy as hell.
Also, our crime has been going down in the country, not up. It has been going down for decades
by the by, every Tom, Dick, and Harry can NOT have a gun.
That's the thing, I'm not saying that no one should be allowed to have guns; I'm saying that people need to be more responsible with their guns.Ryotknife said:
thats perfectly fine, I even applaud it. Even though im pro-gun, I do not own one nor have a desire to. The gun safe thing im kinda iffy on. On the one hand it will help against accident and gun thefts, on the other that makes home defense that much harder.canadamus_prime said:
Apparently it wasn't a mass shooting spree. Good. I'd still remembered hearing about it the other day and seeing the article or so I'd read treating it the exact same way the media treats all the recent school shootings. Primed and ready to treat the shooters and their victims like they belong to some kind of morbid collectible card game.Dijkstra said:
Where did I say "it's the media's fault"? I didn't. I agreed with Guppy's point, which was a tongue in cheek commentary on the generally negative contribution that the media seems to have on shootings and such. He wasn't saying "teh media did it", and neither was I. Even if I did think that the shootings were in the same vein as the previous ones, I'll gladly blame the articles I'd read that made it out to be that way (which really on reinforces that initial point).Dijkstra said:
I'd already stated "tongue in cheek". He clearly didn't know more about the situation than anybody else at the time, he was just playing off of the original post. He was not definitively stating "the shooter was driven by desire for media attention". That was how I interpreted his statement. Perhaps you feel differently, fine. Also, again, the articles I read poorly conveyed the actual situation, sensationalizing it to make it out to be another spree shooter. The most you can say is "how dare you not check up on a situation further before agreeing with the point of someone who's making a generally true statement that falls in line with what you'd read so far".Dijkstra said:
Ouch, don't really care.
There are millions of responsible gun owners in America. Military, veterans, law enforcement, students, teachers, policy makers and stay at home moms, to name some. Ordinary, law-abiding citizens that comply with gun regulation (despite the ignorance of these threads, yes there are many regulations on firearms in the U.S.). There are over four million responsible owners and supporters alone in the NRA.
People who don't go around committing violence, instead lead normal lives. They advocate safe, responsible, law-abiding use there-of firearms, educate people on policy in government and encourage each other to stand up and be active in defending their Constitutional and human rights, all the while suffering the flames of wanton ignorance, mainstream oppression, bias and nasty, bitter vitriol; labeled as extremists with an agenda.
Who are the real "nuts" with an agenda? Bill from Texas who has a few rifles in a locking safe that don't hurt anyone? Or politicians, media and outspoken people exploiting massacres and the deaths of children to group Bill with violent crime?
Seriously, people who don't even understand the second amendment are some of the most outspoken people who loathe its existence. It's a lot like racist, sexist and homophobic logic. Bitter intolerance and resentment for people they don't know or even try to understand.
People who don't go around committing violence, instead lead normal lives. They advocate safe, responsible, law-abiding use there-of firearms, educate people on policy in government and encourage each other to stand up and be active in defending their Constitutional and human rights, all the while suffering the flames of wanton ignorance, mainstream oppression, bias and nasty, bitter vitriol; labeled as extremists with an agenda.
Who are the real "nuts" with an agenda? Bill from Texas who has a few rifles in a locking safe that don't hurt anyone? Or politicians, media and outspoken people exploiting massacres and the deaths of children to group Bill with violent crime?
Seriously, people who don't even understand the second amendment are some of the most outspoken people who loathe its existence. It's a lot like racist, sexist and homophobic logic. Bitter intolerance and resentment for people they don't know or even try to understand.
I looked at the article you posted. If you look at the plots of gun homicide deaths, both accounting for mass killings and leaving them out, both seem to show a declining trend even before the law was passed. The slope of the trendline doesn't change much after the weapons ban was instituted. Based on this data alone, I'm not convinced that the law made a significant difference.doggie015 said:
I think the [URL="http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp" (title,target)]Snopes[/URL] treatment of this specific instance is more balanced. And let's not forget, we're trying to come up with a solution that will work in the United States. We have a much larger landmass, much larger population and have a land border with a country that's notorious for trafficking in illegal goods.
Well contributing to that pages length is that it's got every single freaking incident on there. No matter if it happened 79 years ago, didn't involve pupils but a murder just happened to take place at a school, or was an accident, it's on the list. Whereas the other list is more of a "greatest-hits" if you will[footnote]forgive my choice of words there[/footnote]Hagi said:
Second, we've got more people in the US than Canada, Germany, Italy, the UK, and France combined. Obviously, there's other factors, but part of the large volume in the US is just that there's more people here, and more wacko's
It's the path of the lazy. To accept a problem would mean to change and to change would mean to make an effort.Dijkstra said:
Unfortunately, it works. Remember when Bush shamed the coverage of the war in Iraq?
Damn it, I'm stumped. Socialised guns?canadamus_prime said:
New York has seen quite a decrease in violence, and in terms of gun crime, New York is one of the safest.Ryotknife said:
And when cars are the favoured method of killing someone....
Of course, gun crime is a different issue. when Breitbart tried to pull the "baseball bats kill more people than assault rifles do!" crap, he linked to statistics that put the gun crime rate at relatively stable. It's almost like non-firearm crimes seem to be the bulk of the decrease....
Of course, this is America, where because we can we should.canadamus_prime said: