Another mass shooting

CONAIR_BUSCEMIThe problem of gun violence lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the US and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables.

In short, yes the US has a higher murder rate than say the UK, however the UK has a higher violent crime rate. The UK also only counts unlawful killings as homicides where as the US counts all killings no matter how it happens. So the actual murder rate is much lower then the US statistics would have you think. Violent crime definitions are not the same for the US and UK, hence violent crime sits at between 900 and 1361 per 100,000 people.

The UK still has a violent crime rate higher than that of the US's 386.3 per. 100,000 per capita, just not the 5 1/2 claimed by some, but between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 times more.

Now the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why?

REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% REDUCTION in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than you are conditioned to believe.

In order to FIX these problems, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!

Yep, generally people who are happy in life don't go out and shoot a bunch of people.

CONAIR_BUSCEMIThe problem of gun violence lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the US and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables.

In short, yes the US has a higher murder rate than say the UK, however the UK has a higher violent crime rate. The UK also only counts unlawful killings as homicides where as the US counts all killings no matter how it happens. So the actual murder rate is much lower then the US statistics would have you think. Violent crime definitions are not the same for the US and UK, hence violent crime sits at between 900 and 1361 per 100,000 people.

The UK still has a violent crime rate higher than that of the US's 386.3 per. 100,000 per capita, just not the 5 1/2 claimed by some, but between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 times more.

Now the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why?

REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% REDUCTION in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than you are conditioned to believe.

In order to FIX these problems, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!

You're going to piss off a lot of people using things like logic. And facts.

skiermanNo, he's just ripping off a Chris Rock joke.

Chris Rock joke was 1,000$ and it said nothing about a gun range.

jblaskiYou're going to piss off a lot of people using things like logic. And facts.

Yeah great argument more people are assaulted and beat up and less people are killed by guns gid forbid that happens in America.

jblaskiYou're going to piss off a lot of people using things like logic. And facts.

Its like you knubskulls think that the politcal leadership of this country isnt already trying to make all ammerican prosper. They all are!!! on both sides of the aisle!!

On the meantime, what are we going to do about gun violence??

californiagrownIts like you knubskulls think that the politcal leadership of this country isnt already trying to make all ammerican prosper. They all are!!! on both sides of the aisle!!

On the meantime, what are we going to do about gun violence??

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iur/?f=1&image_host=http%3A%2F%2Fthetwist03.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2Fwat-lady-meme.jpg%253Fw%253D595&u=https://thetwist03.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/wat-lady-meme.jpg%3Fw%3D595

californiagrownIts like you knubskulls think that the politcal leadership of this country isnt already trying to make all ammerican prosper. They all are!!! on both sides of the aisle!!

On the meantime, what are we going to do about gun violence??

PeppermillRenoThis is what happens when you have a society full of athiests who think they know everything. Add in the fact there are movies like Saw that encourage this and its OK for people to like movies like that and see how popular women fist fighting has become and that normal people spend money to watch it and this shit isn't surprising.

Op you are beyond ignorant

ryanoYou completely ignored everything I just said.. The facts are that crime goes up when guns are banned. Look at the statistics.

The rest of the world is not getting along just fine without guns, look at their crime rates before and after guns.

I think I addressed it pretty well. You believe the only way for people to protect themselves is with guns, taking away guns somehow equals removing the right for people to defend themselves, and that every nation that has placed restrictions on guns invariably sees an increase in subsequent violence and crime. I'm saying that's all emotional, unfounded bullshit, and I'll need to see the legitimate sources you have to support the latter point (which I can almost guarantee you do not have).

CONAIR_BUSCEMI

We are already trying to fix the poverty situation which you claim as the root of the problem. Until that is fixed don't you think we should try and mitigate gun violence through other means?

californiagrownWe are already trying to fix the poverty situation which you claim as the root of the problem. Until that is fixed don't you think we should try and mitigate gun violence through other means?

I think there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. And its clear that over the past 20 years our violent crime rate in the US has decreased 50% while our murder rate has decreased 47%, these are statistics that no one seems to take credit for. We know where the crime is coming from; in metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000, we know where the shootings are happening, we know that the UK has a higher violent crime rate, we also know that we have six times more metropolitan areas than they do.

All of these factors have to be considered and the straight-shooting fact is that the media and the politicians do not constitute for said variables. The fact of the matter is that we have politicians already introducing legislation before they even understand what the problem is.

For example, why is Dianne Feinstein pinpointing the AR-15? In 2011 out of the homicides that were caused be firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles and the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle. Doesn’t make any sense.

CONAIR_BUSCEMII think there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. And its clear that over the past 20 years our violent crime rate in the US has decreased 50% while our murder rate has decreased 47%, these are statistics that no one seems to take credit for. We know where the crime is coming from; in metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000, we know where the shootings are happening, we know that the UK has a higher violent crime rate, we also know that we have six times more metropolitan areas than they do.

All of these factors have to be considered and the straight-shooting fact is that the media and the politicians do not constitute for said variables. The fact of the matter is that we have politicians already introducing legislation before they even understand what the problem is.

For example, why is Dianne Feinstein pinpointing the AR-15? In 2011 out of the homicides that were caused be firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles and the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle. Doesn’t make any sense.

So you have nothing to offer in terms of solutions? politicians are already trying to take care of the poverty issue, and have been for decades... but that is going to be a long term deal.


So what should be done in the short term to reduce gun related deaths?

californiagrownSo you have nothing to offer in terms of solutions? politicians are already trying to take care of the poverty issue, and have been for decades... but that is going to be a long term deal.


So what should be done in the short term to reduce gun related deaths?

Firstly, here is a PDF document written after the Aurora shooting and before the Sandy Hook shooting: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

"Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence. Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.

The notion that today’s weapons are different in kind from what was available in the past is an especially powerful idea and helps make the case for new levels of concern and scrutiny around access to weapons. …

Alarming facts open the door to action. And powerful stories put feeling and emotional energy behind those facts…

It’s not just about words, powerful and emotionally engaging images are vitally important and reinforces strong messages. For example, intimidating images of military-style weapons help bring to life the point that we are dealing with a different situation than in earlier times.”

Here is Eric Holder talking about how people need to be brainwashed into thinking negatively about guns.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/785709/Eric-Holder--quot-Brainwash-People-quot--about-Guns

I have to thank Eric Holder for his campaign against the Second Amendment. It galvanized me into purchasing firearms after witnessing the government corruption committed by his DOJ. His attempt at using propoganda to influence the people worked. Just not the way he wanted.

I find it hypocritical that Eric Holder who is against guns and gun related violence let the ATF "purposely allow licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them, under code name Operation Fast and Furious/Operation Gunrunner."
This failed operation allowed 2000+ guns to cross the border, was not done with the knowledge and approval of Mexican authorities and led to 400+ people dead.

I also find it hypocritical that we have to be lectured by an individual who basically has a platoon of armed individuals that protect him and his family and rightfully so. While he expects us ordinary, law-abiding citizens to outsource their personal safety to the US government.

Now lets delve further into there agenda shall we.

Here’s a leaked wikileaks email sent to Michael Bloomberg from Sony pictures: http://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/

"Dear Michael,

Thanks so much for getting together this week, It was a total pleasure, and I look forward to working together. In the end this has to be about the safety of our kids and grandchildren, and not about the 2nd Amendment. Your offer to help means a lot to us."

That email was sent from Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group to the CEO of Sony pictures. These emails illustrate that powerful people in the anti-gun movement and powerful people in Hollywood want to enact their agenda. Just like the PDF document linked above, they want to make sure that the national conversation is not about the 2nd amendment but instead controlled by overly emotional rhetoric in regards to safety and children.

People are safer in the US than ever before. Hollywood is not interested in facts or your rights.

We need to mandate the gun laws that are already in place. I would also like to point out that not only has violent crime decreased by 51% from 1991-2011 and murder rate 54% but nonfatal firearm related crime has decreased from 1993 to 2011, 69%.

The anti-gun propaganda has worked marvelously. 55% of Americans think gun-related crime has increased, while only 12% of Americans think gun-related crimes has decreased. Reality tells us that crime is way down but the perception is that violence is up. There’s a disconnection here and this disconnect prevents us from having an honest dialogue about what causes violence and what we can do to fix it. This misperception is utilized to justify legislation without understanding the problem, which more often than not infringes on our individualistic rights. Stop choosing between two extremities and start piecing together the problems with logic and reality. It seems as if we have dehumanized gun violence and instead humanized guns.

"Why carry a gun because you can’t carry a cop."

I think we should get rid of gun-free zones. The one constant in these mass killings has been that gun free zones are most targeted. Under the constitution citizens should play a roll in their own safety. So we can mitigate these problems by arming security guards or individuals that are properly trained. The likelihood of the problem being mitigated would indefinitely increase. For students to rely on an unarmed individual to protect them against an individual with a gun is absolutely ludicrous.

I believe that we should teach comprehensive firearms education. Education is key. We should have extensive required training, govt-provided shooting facilities or this case national firearm training programs. that require extensive education on firearm safety.

Believe it or not a lot of law-abiding citizens carry guns for peace of mind. Is this really so farfetched if you buy into the gun-control movement's message; that we should seriously fear getting caught in a mass-murder attempt?

Moreover, anytime gun control is about to pass or succeeds in getting passed, sales skyrocket. This is an undeniable phenomenon as evidenced in 2013.

"Manufacturing Process"

With current ITAR registration costs through the roof, small gun and ammo manufacturers DON'T STAND A CHANCE against the giant corporations that think $2,000 a year is chump change. Blue Bunny ammo was unilaterally shut down by the feds even though they had a license to manufacture ammunition with the ATF. Why? The oppressive nature of ITAR registration. Less competition to the big boys in the ammo industry means more money toward their sales.

"Assault Weapons Bans"

Remington, Smith and Wesson, Sig Saur, among the GIGANTIC weapons manufacturers don't give a crap if they sell you an AR15 with a collapsible stock, 30 round mag, flash hider, and a bayonet mount, or a watered down AR15 with a fixed stock, 10 round mag, welded muzzle brake, and remove the bayonet lug.

Last but not least, the government and government agencies will continue to promise HUGE contracts to gun and ammo suppliers, regardless of how eroded our individual liberties have become. In other words, gun control was never about guns!!

If it was, the feds would be subject to the same gun laws that they press on civilians. Instead, it is about control. It is about attaining some illusory safety in exchange for restricting liberty.

Bloomberg wants to see the incremental disarmament of the people.

All of these massacres are conveniently exploited to breathe new life into a cause that would otherwise be obsolete. They attract supporters by inspiring fear and promoting knee-jerk reactions. The "Could you imagine if this were your child?" propaganda really hits home and can be seen in above PDF doc.

CONAIR_BUSCEMILast but not least, the government and government agencies will continue to promise HUGE contracts to gun and ammo suppliers, regardless of how eroded our individual liberties have become. In other words, gun control was never about guns!!

If it was, the feds would be subject to the same gun laws that they press on civilians. Instead, it is about control. It is about attaining some illusory safety in exchange for restricting liberty.

Bloomberg wants to see the incremental disarmament of the people.

All of these massacres are conveniently exploited to breathe new life into a cause that would otherwise be obsolete. They attract supporters by inspiring fear and promoting knee-jerk reactions. The "Could you imagine if this were your child?" propaganda really hits home and can be seen in above PDF doc.

First, your argument of "if it was, the feds would be subject to the same gun laws that they press on civilians" doesn't seem to be correct. Federal agents have always had access to weapons that are illegal of regular citizens to have. They are not held to the same restrictions as we are.

Secondly, while I do agree that emotion knee-jerk reactions are not good (the media can turn anything into a circus), the argument of "could you imagine if this were your child" is not a knee-jerk reaction. It's actually quite a rational question (in fact a version of the categorical imperative) that seeks to will the reason of the argument for all people to ask of themselves.

This is for sure an emotionally charged issue for a lot of people, both for and against. But ultimately, there is more we can do that will allow responsible gun owners to keep their guns and at the same time a way to make citizens less subject to this kind of horror.

Your paranoid to think that politicians want to ban ALL guns.

Feinstein told the Associated Press, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them... ‘Mr and Mrs. American turn them all in,’ I would have done it” However, the majority of them don’t.

Like I said gun-control was never about the guns and we know that 980 thousand plus potential homicides are stopped each year by legal firearms and the number of individuals who died from individual firearms is about 10,000, much of these are in gun-free zones, such as Chicago where more people have died because of firearms than in Afghanistan.

I’m mean if anything lets ban hands and fists because they kill 453 more people than rifles per year.

onenerdykidFirst, your argument of "if it was, the feds would be subject to the same gun laws that they press on civilians" doesn't seem to be correct. Federal agents have always had access to weapons that are illegal of regular citizens to have. They are not held to the same restrictions as we are.

Secondly, while I do agree that emotion knee-jerk reactions are not good (the media can turn anything into a circus), the argument of "could you imagine if this were your child" is not a knee-jerk reaction. It's actually quite a rational question (in fact a version of the categorical imperative) that seeks to will the reason of the argument for all people to ask of themselves.

This is for sure an emotionally charged issue for a lot of people, both for and against. But ultimately, there is more we can do that will allow responsible gun owners to keep their guns and at the same time a way to make citizens less subject to this kind of horror.

Agreed with most of your points!

CONAIR_BUSCEMIYour paranoid to think that politicians want to ban ALL guns.

Feinstein told the Associated Press, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them... ‘Mr and Mrs. American turn them all in,’ I would have done it” However, the majority of them don’t.

Like I said gun-control was never about the guns and we know that 980 thousand plus potential homicides are stopped each year by legal firearms and the number of individuals who died from individual firearms is about 10,000, much of these are in gun-free zones, such as Chicago where more people have died because of firearms than in Afghanistan.

I’m mean if anything lets ban hands and fists because they kill 453 more people than rifles per year.

So you want to do nothing to stop gun violence right now? you think that is a good plan? Sit back and wait till politicians create greater economic equality and bring the lower class out of poverty.

you dont want to try and pursue a short term solution while the long term one comes to fruition?

Every gun owner needs to shut up, stop being a bitch, and justin say "I like guns, they're fun, don't take them from me." Own it. Don't hide because this whole idea of safety and protection.

*just say.

LOL auto correct spelt out my fucking name. stupid mobile.

californiagrownSo you want to do nothing to stop gun violence right now? you think that is a good plan? Sit back and wait till politicians create greater economic equality and bring the lower class out of poverty.

you dont want to try and pursue a short term solution while the long term one comes to fruition?

Well in the US there’s 2.3 violent crimes that happen every minute and 3,297 violent crimes that happen everyday.

Yes, lets propose solutions bit let us not dialogue the cause of these problems. We have yet to define or fully understand these problems so no short term solution will work effectively.

There’s a logic to violent crime. What drives violence?

We engage in violence to elevate and maintain a status quota. A social outcast, someone who doesn’t fit in; the mainstream media rewards violence, infamy and an immediate celebrity. This promulgates that violence may be an attractive choice. It simply follow a logic.

This is all about the perception of threat. The quest for surveil is one of the key drives of state sponsored violence. Violence can rectify survival.

Moreover, protection is a rational for violence. People will rectify violence to protect their political status, obsessions, interests, loved ones, investments, property, domicile, offspring, etc. If one perceives a threat to any of these aforementioned things violence can be instigated.

Is violence justified, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t what I’m saying is that there is a logic to violence.

Maybe be ought to make policies that mitigate logical violence, if of course we understand the logic. Defining that logic can be utilized for policy making to bite back violence but instead we are focused on a tool; a gun, which is utilized to commit violence. You can not fix a problem from within that problem.

In conclusion, there’s a good chance 10 violent crimes have been committed in the time of me writing this. There’s also a good chance that none of those violent crimes involved a gun. However, theres a very good chance that all of these crimes followed a logic.


I would also say improving wealth inequality is a start.

One could make the assumption that more equality=less guns overall. More unequal income inequality results in a high demand for guns for criminal purposes.

Where there is demand, there is someone to supply that demand regardless of Laws.

Look at Jamaica for example, they have virtually banned civilian gun ownership but the fact that guns are in very high demand there results in a lot of guns being smuggled into the country, hence a firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year of 39.74.

I also want to point out that many gun deaths in the US (2/3) are due to suicides and not murders.

californiagrownSit back and wait till politicians create greater economic equality and bring the lower class out of poverty.

Well that will never happen, ever.

guns don't kill people, americans do.

CONAIR_BUSCEMIWell that will never happen, ever.

IIf the root of the problem will never be fixed. ever. we need to do something now. But you refuse to try and fix the problem. something needs to be done, now, and i dont see you offering any possible solutions. all i see you doing is shitting on any solutions that have been put forth so far.

Gotta try something. Sitting back and letting it happen is a shitty option that you seem content with.

californiagrownIIf the root of the problem will never be fixed. ever. we need to do something now. But you refuse to try and fix the problem. something needs to be done, now, and i dont see you offering any possible solutions. all i see you doing is shitting on any solutions that have been put forth so far.

Gotta try something. Sitting back and letting it happen is a shitty option that you seem content with.

I wrote on ways to fix the ‘problems’ above in my other posts. Did you even read them? It will be a long process, problems such as ‘violence' can not just be eradicated or be drastically reduced in the short term. It doesn’t work like that. I’ve given you a few solutions in my posts above, address them and I will happily respond.

I’m also sick and tired of anti-gun advocates throwing out the raw stat, which includes suicides, justified homicides, and gang-on-gang gun violence. It’s not about firearm accidents, it’s about firearm homicides. This stat intentionally conflates gun deaths so as to strengthen their agenda. When they are again, not looking at the causation of the problem.

californiagrownIIf the root of the problem will never be fixed. ever. we need to do something now. But you refuse to try and fix the problem. something needs to be done, now, and i dont see you offering any possible solutions. all i see you doing is shitting on any solutions that have been put forth so far.

Gotta try something. Sitting back and letting it happen is a shitty option that you seem content with.

What solutions do you have in mind?

CONAIR_BUSCEMII wrote on ways to fix the ‘problems’ above in my other posts. Did you even read them? It will be a long process, problems such as ‘violence' can not just be eradicated or be drastically reduced in the short term. It doesn’t work like that. I’ve given you a few solutions in my posts above, address them and I will happily respond.

I’m also sick and tired of anti-gun advocates throwing out the raw stat, which includes suicides, justified homicides, and gang-on-gang gun violence. It’s not about firearm accidents, it’s about firearm homicides. This stat intentionally conflates gun deaths so as to strengthen their agenda. When they are again, not looking at the causation of the problem.

you literally said that what would fix the gun problem will never happen.

CONAIR_BUSCEMIWhat solutions do you have in mind?

draconian amounts of gun and ammo control.

Conair and jblaski,

Its easy to throw out your numbers on crimes and homicides and gun stats, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. Think about if one of your friends or family members was killed in an incident like this. Or you yourself survived a shooting like this. Would you still quote the same numbers you hold up as a shield right now? Or would you finally realize that the laws need to change?

Its easy to keep living the same way you do if your life isn't affected in any way. Until you look at this on a human level, you're going to keep missing the point.

SKI.INGConair and jblaski,

Its easy to throw out your numbers on crimes and homicides and gun stats, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. Think about if one of your friends or family members was killed in an incident like this. Or you yourself survived a shooting like this. Would you still quote the same numbers you hold up as a shield right now? Or would you finally realize that the laws need to change?

Its easy to keep living the same way you do if your life isn't affected in any way. Until you look at this on a human level, you're going to keep missing the point.

Right now, what we don't need is the emotional response; the "feelings" response. It's the emotional responses that create things like gun-free zones, and the threat to ban "assault weapons" and and high capacity "clips". All these things that make some people feel good on the inside, but are not only not solving the problem, but making the problem worse.

It's the people who grew up ignorant of firearms and firearm safety that say things like we need more gun bans and control. At the end of the day, facts are facts are facts. These knee-jerk reactions to ban guns have shown time and again, all across the globe, to cause increases in violent crimes. No, this problem is not a simple fix. We are not just one new law away from solving the problem. But, adding one more law onto the books, just because it makes someone who is afraid of guns feel "good" inside.

SKI.INGConair and jblaski,

Its easy to throw out your numbers on crimes and homicides and gun stats, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. Think about if one of your friends or family members was killed in an incident like this. Or you yourself survived a shooting like this. Would you still quote the same numbers you hold up as a shield right now? Or would you finally realize that the laws need to change?

Its easy to keep living the same way you do if your life isn't affected in any way. Until you look at this on a human level, you're going to keep missing the point.

I think we have to think logically here. I’m not quoting these statistics as a shield, I’m quoting them as facts because that is what the are. We have to refrain from knee-jerk reactions and only then can we truly understand the causation of violence. Until then we will agree to disagree.

jblaskiRight now, what we don't need is the emotional response; the "feelings" response. It's the emotional responses that create things like gun-free zones, and the threat to ban "assault weapons" and and high capacity "clips". All these things that make some people feel good on the inside, but are not only not solving the problem, but making the problem worse.

It's the people who grew up ignorant of firearms and firearm safety that say things like we need more gun bans and control. At the end of the day, facts are facts are facts. These knee-jerk reactions to ban guns have shown time and again, all across the globe, to cause increases in violent crimes. No, this problem is not a simple fix. We are not just one new law away from solving the problem. But, adding one more law onto the books, just because it makes someone who is afraid of guns feel "good" inside.

Okay, but my comments are coming from someone who does own firearms and can operate them safely. What does me knowing and understanding how to properly use a firearm have to do with analyzing the issue of mass shootings? You're still focusing on the easy target of "assault rifle" bans, and magazine regulations. Those ARE knee-jerk reactions. But how can you deny that the process of procuring a firearm needs to be re-evaluated? Thats what I don't understand from you guys. I am only concerned with the procurement of these firearms, not the minutiae of rifles vs. assault rifles, etc.

This doesn't have to do with being afraid of guns and feeling good inside.

Curiosity also, what guns do you own, if any? You're all worried about the toys you don't ever play or care about until some adult comes to take it away or sell it in the garage sale.

SKI.INGOkay, but my comments are coming from someone who does own firearms and can operate them safely. What does me knowing and understanding how to properly use a firearm have to do with analyzing the issue of mass shootings? You're still focusing on the easy target of "assault rifle" bans, and magazine regulations. Those ARE knee-jerk reactions. But how can you deny that the process of procuring a firearm needs to be re-evaluated? Thats what I don't understand from you guys. I am only concerned with the procurement of these firearms, not the minutiae of rifles vs. assault rifles, etc.

This doesn't have to do with being afraid of guns and feeling good inside.

Curiosity also, what guns do you own, if any? You're all worried about the toys you don't ever play or care about until some adult comes to take it away or sell it in the garage sale.

So what's your suggestion? What laws would you enact that would have prevented this past school shooting, or any of those in the past? All I keep hearing from people are "guns are bad" and "we need to change the laws" but absolutely zero substance.

Mass shootings aside (crazy white kids usually)...I wonder how major a contribution the relative "breakdown of society" has on gun crime/murder rates. Single parent households, rampant poverty, less person to person interaction. A lot of gun crimes happen in large cities where the youth turn to gangs and crime as a means for survival. Do all of the other countries mentioned in the gun control arguments have those problems? Huge gang numbers and underground drug trafficking rings?

jblaskiSo what's your suggestion? What laws would you enact that would have prevented this past school shooting, or any of those in the past? All I keep hearing from people are "guns are bad" and "we need to change the laws" but absolutely zero substance.

I think that's pretty self-explanatory, is it not? Here's a question for you: whats more important/valuable: your personal right to own and use firearms, or the lives of future mass-shooting victims? I'm just looking for a definitive answer, since judging by your posts its pretty clear you couldn't give less of a shit about this constant slaughter, and for the need, at the very least, to raise questions on making changes to existing laws.

BombogenesisMass shootings aside (crazy white kids usually)...I wonder how major a contribution the relative "breakdown of society" has on gun crime/murder rates. Single parent households, rampant poverty, less person to person interaction. A lot of gun crimes happen in large cities where the youth turn to gangs and crime as a means for survival. Do all of the other countries mentioned in the gun control arguments have those problems? Huge gang numbers and underground drug trafficking rings?

You're certainly onto something. If you take away suicide and gang-on-gang murders, the US has remarkably low gun fatality rates. Like was said before, the vast majority of these crimes are happening in large inner cities.

I also believe the lack of gun safety, familiarity, and knowledge has a HUGE part of this. And no, going out and shooting a buddies shotgun once a year doesn't mean you have any of those skills. I'm talking about owning, maintaining, and shooting regularly. I have absolutely no actual facts about it, but I wonder how many of these shooters grew up around guns responsibly. Those who grew up hunting, trap shooting, or target shooting starting at a young age, mentored by responsible adults. I would be willing to bet that VERY few did.

jblaskiThose who grew up hunting, trap shooting, or target shooting starting at a young age, mentored by responsible adults. I would be willing to bet that VERY few did.

Pure conjecture. To be honest - since the theme of this discussion is clearly talking absolute shit without backing any of the things up that we're saying - the opposite makes more sense, wouldn't you think? These maniacs murdered so many because of the fact they were well-versed in gun usage, in my opinion. If they hadn't been brought up around guns, maybe they wouldn't of had the confidence to use a firearm, but instead a potentially less deadly weapon, or even if they did use a gun, it might've proved too difficult or complex to use. Think of all the lives that could've been saved if we just hadn't of brought them up around guns!

jblaskiYou're certainly onto something. If you take away suicide and gang-on-gang murders, the US has remarkably low gun fatality rates. Like was said before, the vast majority of these crimes are happening in large inner cities.

I also believe the lack of gun safety, familiarity, and knowledge has a HUGE part of this. And no, going out and shooting a buddies shotgun once a year doesn't mean you have any of those skills. I'm talking about owning, maintaining, and shooting regularly. I have absolutely no actual facts about it, but I wonder how many of these shooters grew up around guns responsibly. Those who grew up hunting, trap shooting, or target shooting starting at a young age, mentored by responsible adults. I would be willing to bet that VERY few did.

the newtown shooter did FYI.

las.Pure conjecture. To be honest - since the theme of this discussion is clearly talking absolute shit without backing any of the things up that we're saying - the opposite makes more sense, wouldn't you think? These maniacs murdered so many because of the fact they were well-versed in gun usage, in my opinion. If they hadn't been brought up around guns, maybe they wouldn't of had the confidence to use a firearm, but instead a potentially less deadly weapon, or even if they did use a gun, it might've proved too difficult or complex to use. Think of all the lives that could've been saved if we just hadn't of brought them up around guns!

very true.



Simply put, why are folks so adamant about gun "rights"? what LOGICAL real world reason do people have for not wanting to give up their guns? I assume its is strictly recreational purposes that the VAST majority use them for.

Why not only sell muzzle loading guns, or single shot guns?

las.I think that's pretty self-explanatory, is it not? Here's a question for you: whats more important/valuable: your personal right to own and use firearms, or the lives of future mass-shooting victims? I'm just looking for a definitive answer, since judging by your posts its pretty clear you couldn't give less of a shit about this constant slaughter, and for the need, at the very least, to raise questions on making changes to existing laws.

Way to completely ignore reality and retort to emotional fallacies. There is not an all or nothing answer. Your ridiculous and simplified question is a false dilemma. It seems to me that your confirmation bias is showing.

And no I do not think that it's pretty self-explanatory. The reason being you haven’t given any plausible solutions to cut down gun violence, although no one so much has seeing that these problems stem from a host of larger more intricate problems. The cause still yet to be understood. However, I agree that at the very least, the right questions need to be raised not to change existing laws but to mandate and regulated the laws already in place as well as to figure out the causation of these problems.

why are people trying to apply figures relating to urban gun crime to mass shooting incidents?

californiagrownthe newtown shooter did FYI.


very true.



Simply put, why are folks so adamant about gun "rights"? what LOGICAL real world reason do people have for not wanting to give up their guns? I assume its is strictly recreational purposes that the VAST majority use them for.

Why not only sell muzzle loading guns, or single shot guns?

It is about freedom. Why do other people committing crimes mean that I have to lose my freedoms? People drive drunk and kill people and cars are still legal.

The 2nd amendment has to due with protecting the people from the government and self defense and not just to do with recreation.

louie.miragsIt is about freedom. Why do other people committing crimes mean that I have to lose my freedoms? People drive drunk and kill people and cars are still legal.

The 2nd amendment has to due with protecting the people from the government and self defense and not just to do with recreation.

If you Americans want to get a fetish over freedoms, maybe start with the fact that you're not actually the freest country in the world. You're actually number 9, behind countries without guns. A gun does not equate to being free, and you are not going to stick march down to DC and overthrow Obama because your shitty little AR whatever is shit all against the military weapons.

S.J.WIf you Americans want to get a fetish over freedoms, maybe start with the fact that you're not actually the freest country in the world. You're actually number 9, behind countries without guns. A gun does not equate to being free, and you are not going to stick march down to DC and overthrow Obama because your shitty little AR whatever is shit all against the military weapons.

A gun does equate to being free because millions of Americans own guns responsibly. Millions of Americans hunt and shoot for recreation.

louie.miragsIt is about freedom. Why do other people committing crimes mean that I have to lose my freedoms? People drive drunk and kill people and cars are still legal.

The 2nd amendment has to due with protecting the people from the government and self defense and not just to do with recreation.

A. You lost your freedom to drive drunk when drunk drivers started crashing and killing folks.

B. I got news for you, if you think you have a chance against the US military using small arms... You don't. And that is the most canned response going. People like guns and want guns cause guns are fun. If you are truly honest, you will admit that is the reason. Fighting the countries military doesn't happen in reality, this isn't fucking Red Dawn lol.

louie.miragsA gun does equate to being free because millions of Americans own guns responsibly. Millions of Americans hunt and shoot for recreation.

Despite that America is still number 9 on the Human freedom Index....

californiagrownA. You lost your freedom to drive drunk when drunk drivers started crashing and killing folks.

B. I got news for you, if you think you have a chance against the US military using small arms... You don't. And that is the most canned response going. People like guns and want guns cause guns are fun. If you are truly honest, you will admit that is the reason. Fighting the countries military doesn't happen in reality, this isn't fucking Red Dawn lol.

I was stating the reason behind the 2nd amendment and not admitting guns are not fun. I have them for fun and to protect myself.

S.J.WDespite that America is still number 9 on the Human freedom Index....

and we're working on not letting that drop lower. I am not sure why you keep telling me that? Who cares where it ranks when you consider there are over 300 million weapons already in circulation in the U.S.

californiagrownA. You lost your freedom to drive drunk when drunk drivers started crashing and killing folks.

I forgot to respond to this.

But you didn't lose your freedom to drive a car. We already don't have the freedom to murder innocent people. So why would I lose my gun freedoms because somebody else murdered somebody?

People killing people driving drunk means no drunk driving
People killing people with guns means no more murders.

louie.miragsand we're working on not letting that drop lower. I am not sure why you keep telling me that? Who cares where it ranks when you consider there are over 300 million weapons already in circulation in the U.S.

Yeah because owning a gun is the only measure of freedom...

I'll just be over the border basking in my own freedom, all whilst not having to worry if someone is going to shoot up a school near me. Now that's freedom.

louie.miragsI was stating the reason behind the 2nd amendment and not admitting guns are not fun. I have them for fun and to protect myself.



and we're working on not letting that drop lower. I am not sure why you keep telling me that? Who cares where it ranks when you consider there are over 300 million weapons already in circulation in the U.S.

The second ammemdent is kinda like the bible- only morons take it literally.

louie.miragsI forgot to respond to this.

But you didn't lose your freedom to drive a car. We already don't have the freedom to murder innocent people. So why would I lose my gun freedoms because somebody else murdered somebody?

People killing people driving drunk means no drunk driving
People killing people with guns means no more murders.

Your last paragraph actually spells it out clearly, but you didn't keep consistent logic... If you had it would say "no more guns". Lol.

S.J.WYeah because owning a gun is the only measure of freedom...

who said that? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I believe in more freedoms than just that. This thread is about guns. If you want to talk about making America more free then start another thread. I will participate.

californiagrownYour last paragraph actually spells it out clearly, but you didn't keep consistent logic... If you had it would say "no more guns". Lol.

this is not important enough to keep going but with your logic if people drive drunk and kill people then drunk driving is made illegal. If people kill people with guns then murdering becomes illegal. Just like the vehicle is not made illegal, the gun is not made illegal. What do you not understand about that?