# Another mass shooting... Orlando Fl.



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Jun 12, 2016)

How horrible to wake up to a news headline telling about another mass shooting. This time at a gay night club in Orlando Fl, called Pulse. This is in my home state. I live in another part of the state but this was about 20 minutes away from some relatives. Thank God no one I know was actually there, but still kinda breaks my heart. So far the reports are 50 dead, 53 injured and/or in the hospital. Apparently the shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS. Most likely a lone shooter, took several people hostage for about 3 hours, SWAT team had to bust a hole in the wall in the side of the building to create an escape for some of them, and eventually the shooter died in a gunfight with the police. I am a Christian, and albeit I don't agree with homosexuality but by no means is it EVER right to bring such a horrible assault on people like that. I literally have tears in my eyes as I write this, I hope every one of the survivors is stronger after today, I pray that they are all blessed in everything they do. 

There used to be a time when, if someone else was living a lifestyle contrary to your own, you'd simply say "well that's not my cup of tea" and walk on...


----------



## asher (Jun 12, 2016)

To note, this is the worst mass shooting in US history.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Jun 12, 2016)

asher said:


> To note, this is the worst mass shooting in US history.



Yes, I've read that somewhere too...


----------



## Necris (Jun 12, 2016)

Seeing republicans who have attended conferences organized by pastors who advocate the death penalty for homosexuality (I'm looking at you, Huckabee and Cruz), supported and continue to support bills which discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgender individuals and demonize law-abiding citizens for their gender identity or sexuality now sending "thoughts and prayers" to the families of those murdered today and declaring they "stand in solidarity" with the people of Orlando enrages me.


----------



## sezna (Jun 12, 2016)

Necris said:


> Seeing republicans who have attended conferences organized by pastors who advocate the death penalty for homosexuality (I'm looking at you, Huckabee and Cruz), supported and continue to support bills which discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgender individuals and demonize law-abiding citizens for their gender identity or sexuality now sending "thoughts and prayers" to the families of those murdered today and declaring they "stand in solidarity" with the people of Orlando enrages me.



As a Texan, I am actually completely repulsed by our politician's response. I also don't know a single person in Texas who actually agrees with our governor's positions in general, or Lt. governer, or any of them, and yet our politicians remain crazy.


I am also a Christian. It is not a comfortable place to be when your religion is used as a political tool to show how much you "care" about tragedies.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2016)

Necris said:


> Seeing republicans who have attended conferences organized by pastors who advocate the death penalty for homosexuality (I'm looking at you, Huckabee and Cruz), supported and continue to support bills which discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgender individuals and demonize law-abiding citizens for their gender identity or sexuality now sending "thoughts and prayers" to the families of those murdered today and declaring they "stand in solidarity" with the people of Orlando enrages me.



"Thoughts and prayers" piss me right the .... off because that is all they ever offer. 

I'll take policy change and enforcement, thank you very much.

I'm dreading seeing the NRA's comments on this one.


----------



## QuantumCybin (Jun 12, 2016)

I'm from Florida as well, and it's just sad how almost numb we're getting from seeing all these shootings. And as awful as it is to say, and I don't mean anyone's life is more valuable than the next, but FIFTY people is a lot. That's just awful. Such a needless loss of life. If this doesn't prompt some actual change in gun laws here, what will? Not even picking a side on the issue, I think we can all agree that this will prompt some type of discussion about gun control in a big way.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jun 12, 2016)

"Another" he says...

That's not a slam against you, its just, the fact that we have to call this the latest (and worst) of MANY mass shootings in this country... This is getting tiring, I gotta say. I worry that at some point I'm going to hear about a mass shooting in the future and my reaction will be "Oh... yeah, we were due for another of those..." 

And as if that wasn't enough, there's the politics... the line from Shakespeare about "a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing" perfectly sums that up.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 12, 2016)

QuantumCybin said:


> I'm from Florida as well, and it's just sad how almost numb we're getting from seeing all these shootings. And as awful as it is to say, and I don't mean anyone's life is more valuable than the next, but FIFTY people is a lot. That's just awful. Such a needless loss of life. If this doesn't prompt some actual change in gun laws here, what will? Not even picking a side on the issue, I think we can all agree that this will prompt some type of discussion about gun control in a big way.



That's what we said after Newtown. I'm not sure what would be a sufficient level of atrocity to actually cause a change in American gun laws at this point.


----------



## ramses (Jun 12, 2016)

celticelk said:


> That's what we said after Newtown. I'm not sure what would be a sufficient level of atrocity to actually cause a change in American gun laws at this point.



Regulations can indeed be improved.

However, note that the weapons and ammunition used in France's last terrorist attack are fully illegal there.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 12, 2016)

I'm starting to prickle at some of the reactions I'm seeing to this on social media and another forum I frequent.

When extremists shot up Paris and Brussels, the world showed solidarity with them, even if only through trite things like French or Belgian flag overlays on facebook pictures. There were notifications popping up all over of how to donate and help. We had the whole "Je suis Charlie" thing. 

When someone does it in the US, though? "Christ, another shooting in the US? Get your sh!t together, America."

It's like how tragic something is hinges on how the shooter was able to obtain the weapons used. These are the sorts of interactions that seem to be taking place in some people's minds:

"A terrorist murdered dozens of people in my country!"
"Were the weapons obtained legally or illegally?"
"Illegally..."
"Oh, that's awful! We stand in solidarity with you! Is there anything we can do to help?"

Vs

"A terrorist murdered dozens of people in my country!"
"Were the weapons obtained legally or illegally?"
"Legally..."
"Ugh, again? Them's the breaks. Maybe get your act together next time."


----------



## Randy (Jun 12, 2016)

Cross posting from MG

We'll see what the final assessment on motive ends up being. I sympathize with the plight of the gay community and what it's gotta be like to have people target you just for your sexual preference, but it sounds like this is the type of nutter that was ready to take it out on any liberated, western type of demographic (much like the Paris attacks on a metal show).

I personally think the free passes for excuses to not make any substantive changes to prevent this from happening or at least in limiting casualties have all been used up. Whether that's directly related to access to guns, the better access to mental health support we've been promised, weeding out extremists living among us or just helping in police response and rediness. The frequency of these events and the way people can be outwardly dangerous and steamroll through masses of innocent people is unsettling and I'm open minded enough to believe there's more than one way to deal with it, yet so far we've done nothing.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Jun 13, 2016)

On the whole gun control issue, here's an interesting page to flip through... lots of information here
Guns in the United States


----------



## SD83 (Jun 13, 2016)

I was shocked to read about this when I got up yesterday, maybe even more shocked that it took a loooong time to make the headlines. Headlines were all soccer, soccer, soccer, some shooting in Florida with 50 victims, soccer, soccer... the European Championship seems to be more important than the worst case of mass murder in US history to many. What's even more disgusting is to read that just a few hours later, tons of people are apparently using Twitter to state how delighted they were to hear that some gay people got shot, even calling the killer a hero and wishing for the cop who shot him to burn in hell. And it's not just Westboro Baptist Church... to me, that is not an opinion, that hateful an attitude should be a crime as well. Who anyone loves is no ones business except for those directly involved. To some degree, I can understand hate when you have been rejected or cheated, and in the later case I'd say a slap in the face is justified, but it stops there. Why you would hate people you have never seen in your life for whom they have sex with is entirely beyond me. And if "God hates fags", they'll burn in hell anyways, so you got something to laugh about all your life, why kill anyone?

As for the guns: If I was living in a place where basically everyone has a gun and where criminals are expected to shoot at you, lest they be shot by you, I'd want to have a gun. I would want to live in a place where (almost) no one has a gun and where criminals are expected to run from you, lest the police you're about to call put them into jail. Which is pretty much where I live. But if you want to kill people, you'll get a gun, ban or not. Right wing terrorist Anders Breivik shot 69 kids in Norway with legally obtained weapons, islamistic terrorists in Paris shot 130 with illegaly obtained weapons... I don't believe a ban on guns will affect mass shootings or terrorist attack in any way (and yes, I don't for a second believe the "good guy with a gun" myth). But as far as I know, the majority of gunshot related deaths don't make the news because it's only one person who dies at a time. According to wikipedia (which I know is not the best source) the USA has 10.5 victims per 100.000 inhabitants (3.3 of which in cass of murder). France? 2.8 (0.2). Germany 1.01 (0.07). That is about 10/50 times less. That's were it might make a difference.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jun 13, 2016)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm starting to prickle at some of the reactions I'm seeing to this on social media and another forum I frequent.
> 
> When extremists shot up Paris and Brussels, the world showed solidarity with them, even if only through trite things like French or Belgian flag overlays on facebook pictures. There were notifications popping up all over of how to donate and help. We had the whole "Je suis Charlie" thing.
> 
> ...



Eh, it's common reaction based on people's perception of the country. It's just like how there were posts on this attack, the ones in Brussels and Paris but not on the ones in Turkey and other non-western countries.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 13, 2016)

this has more in common with Boston Marathon bombing than it does with Newtown. 

unlike mass shootings that the title references, there is an obvious motive here. we don't have to ask why he did it. we know why. 

his religion taught him homosexuality is wrong, he was angry and probably bipolar, he saw justification for his beliefs in a radical movement in the Middle East. 

he is part of what will become a growing trend globally; lone wolf small cell acts in populated places. ISIS is moving away from the military ground strategy after increased pressure from the west to push them back. Their armies can't win, but their soldiers can. 

and here's the rub: ISIS doesn't need their soldiers to formally pledge with them; so long as they can take credit. Having no physical ties or evidence makes this harder for law enforcement to foil


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 13, 2016)

UnderTheSign said:


> Eh, it's common reaction based on people's perception of the country.




I get that it's based on their perceptions of the country, and that's what I have a problem with here. Like dude pointed out above, this isn't like the other shootings. If it was another school shooting, or another lunatic shooting up a mall/church/theater/whatever, then I would get it. It'd still be insensitive, but it'd at least be understandable to react like "Well what do you expect?"

This, though, isn't just another one of those shootings. This is the same sort of thing that's been happening in Europe over the past couple years. You know, over in Europe where gun laws are more strict and shootings happen less often. It's the sort of thing that's going to happen whether or not gun laws are strict. That means looking at the US and reacting like "Oh look, _another_ mass shooting in the US " isn't really fair.

People are letting their perceptions of and biases against the country override the truth of what happened here. It's not something that would've been prevented by European-style gun laws, just like those same laws didn't stop the attacks in Paris or Belgium.

Now, I'm definitely not saying that I don't think the US has a gun problem. It does, and I firmly believe something needs to be done (though I'm fairly sure nothing _will_ be done, as per usual). I'm definitely not making the "criminals will get guns anyway, so why make laws stronger?" argument here.

I'm just saying that this isn't "just another shooting" that people can roll their eyes at and write off as a consequence of living in the US. Instead of standing in solidarity and expressing support like so many Americans did when horrific acts of violent extremism took place in Europe, the reactions I keep seeing from non-Americans have been nonchalant at best and accusatory at worst. That upsets me.

Too much internet for me today, I think.


----------



## ThomasUV777 (Jun 13, 2016)

This guy gets it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4


----------



## celticelk (Jun 13, 2016)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> unlike mass shootings that the title references, there is an obvious motive here. we don't have to ask why he did it. we know why.



You *think* you know why. Conveniently, the shooter is dead, so he can't contradict you.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jun 13, 2016)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm starting to prickle at some of the reactions I'm seeing to this on social media and another forum I frequent.
> 
> When extremists shot up Paris and Brussels, the world showed solidarity with them, even if only through trite things like French or Belgian flag overlays on facebook pictures. There were notifications popping up all over of how to donate and help. We had the whole "Je suis Charlie" thing.
> 
> ...



Not that I'm belittling it, because it is tragic, it is just more commonplace in the US. The same way that when we get bombed, people go nuts, but when it happens in the Middle East its a sorta "I'm not surprised" kind of thing. And just like overseas, we seem to be very content doing nothing to work towards bettering it. So yeah, it ....ing sucks and shouldn't have happened. Doesn't make it unsurprising. I really do hope real change gets underway. I'm at the point where I'm trying to make myself numb to it so I'm not constantly depressed over senseless loss of life.


----------



## SD83 (Jun 13, 2016)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm just saying that this isn't "just another shooting" that people can roll their eyes at and write off as a consequence of living in the US. Instead of standing in solidarity and expressing support like so many Americans did when horrific acts of violent extremism took place in Europe, the reactions I keep seeing from non-Americans have been nonchalant at best and accusatory at worst. That upsets me.



That it is something entirely different wasn't apparent from the first news I (and likely many others here) read. My first thought was actually towards "right wing/ultra-christian terrorism", but I assume many thought it was "just another shooting" where one lunatic got mad at something and then went there and opened fire. From what I read, there will be solemn vigils (I hope that's the right word) all over Germany this evening, and the only reactions I read so far that I would have judged "accusatory" came from Donald Trump.


----------



## works0fheart (Jun 13, 2016)

I live near where this occurred and unfortunately I've had a few friends lose some loved ones in this event. Please don't get the wrong impression and make this a battle of gays vs the rest of the world. This is what the killers would want and it's just making things worse. Also, a thing to note is only one of the shooters was captured so pretty much this entire area is in a state of fear right now. Yesterday at my work we had maybe 15 - 20 customers all day as opposed to the few hundred. It's a scary time to be alive.


----------



## vilk (Jun 13, 2016)

Only barely off topic rant preceding a pertinent question:

So like, God tells Moses to tell Aaron to tell the Levites to tell the rest of the Jews not to be gay.
But Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality.
He talks about adultery. He talks about the sanctity of marriage.
But never outright condemns homosexuality. Other dudes in the Bible do, but not Jesus. 
So any Christian who is like "I'm Christian so I have to be against it I'm sorry it's just my faith".
No it's not. And someone who has a good grasp on the Bible knows it, and you're not fooling anyone. 

Unless your Bible came with a slide-rule for determining ultimate sin value, you're of no place to say that someone being gay is any worse than the selfish feelings you have on a daily basis. Who's to say that every time you pass someone in the right lane isn't exponentially more sinful than getting f///ed in the ass? No one knows, and that's why Jesus actually DOES speak out against judging other people's sin.

"love the sinner, hate the sin" you say? Good, then act that way and stop treating them like second class citizens. Unless you're going to refuse to bake a cake for someone who is disrespectful to his parents, you better bake the cake for the gay wedding--or else you are in fact sinning, and to a degree that you do not actually know isn't worse than gay sex. If that's even really a sin, because Christ never said so.

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

Having said that, does anyone know if in the Koran Allah or Mohammed condemns homosexuality outright--explicitly? Asks anyone to take any action against homosexual individuals?


----------



## SD83 (Jun 13, 2016)

works0fheart said:


> Also, a thing to note is only one of the shooters was captured



Just so I get that right because everything I read so far said differently, there were multiple shooters?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jun 13, 2016)

vilk said:


> Only barely off topic rant preceding a pertinent question:
> 
> So like, God tells Moses to tell Aaron to tell the Levites to tell the rest of the Jews not to be gay.
> But Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality.
> ...



Sorta off topic, but this does cheese me off. You're supposed to leave the judgement to god. As Christians, people's only job is to warn about sin and enlighten people to Christ. By judgeing others, they are in fact sinning just as much. If judgement day ever came, id imagine there would be a lot of people surprised with the fact that they ended up in hell. But I digress... this thread isn't about Christianity, even if it does tread the line.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jun 13, 2016)

SD83 said:


> Just so I get that right because everything I read so far said differently, there were multiple shooters?



Only one shooter at the night club, yes. He may be referring to the separate incident in California. A heavily-armed man by the name of James Howell was arrested after being discovered in his car with various weapons and possible explosives, and proclaiming his intentions to shoot up a gay pride parade. This happened at 5:00AM Pacific time on Sunday. 

No known connection between the two incidents.


----------



## Randy (Jun 13, 2016)

Too frustrated to pull out specific quotes from specific people, so please forgive me if this sounds like I'm ranting to myself.



> The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to German-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm



> In 1876, Scottish emigrant Alexander Graham Bell was the first to be granted a United States patent for a device that produced clearly intelligible replication of the human voice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone

Two devices that have been around for similar periods of time.

The telephone has evolved from THAT into the modern version of a telephone, which is a smartphone where you can contact someone in pretty much every corner of the world, you can conference over video, you can watch porn or cat videos, you can get satellite images or GPS directions to every square inch of the entire planet, you can turn the lights on and off in your house, you can start your car, the list goes on and on. There's also a certain amount of security included in the modern cellphone, from thumbprint or face recognition, passkeys, etc. along with FCC research and regulations on what's outputted through the device, to minimize health risks to the user and everyone else surrounding it.

Then you have the modern firearm, which functionally hasn't evolved very much in the same period of time. There's some flashier materials or designs, things to make them operate modestly more efficiently or some basic safeties but as a general rule, they still operate the same and the features in both usability and safety are nearly unchanged.

This isn't an anti-gun "ban them all", "put a GPS locator in every bullet" kinda argument... And honestly, I'm mostly just thinking outloud because, TBH, I'm not a gun designer or engineer, so my knowledge is limited, but you know what? I'm not paid to be, but there are people out there THAT ARE. I do not like focusing these discussions on "take guns/give more guns" but even if we can't reach a consensus on THAT part of it, as someone who detests gun violence and putting myself in the shoes of someone who might own a gun and has kids or whatever, I believe we deserve some more ideas regarding gun safety to catch up to us in the 21st century. 

As I stated earlier (which I'm sure will go mostly ignored), there are several different ways of tackling this situation. Say what you want "there'll always be crazy people" "there'll always be criminals", yeah, that's why safety and law enforcement evolve to meet them. Throwing up our hands or running to our corners to proclaim "all or nothing" or settling with saying "sucks that this happens but you can't do anything" like that precludes us from TRYING to do something is lazy and contributes nothing.

Like I said earlier in here, these are just ideas and general statements. There are people a lot smarter than me, that work in these specific fields (firearms, mental healthy, national security, law enforcement) that make a lot more money than me to specifically tackle solutions for these subjects. The fact that it's still as simple as "crazy guy gets mad (optionally: proclaims allegiance to terrorist organization on social media), uses weapon to kill droves of innocent people uninterrupted, lather, rinse, repeat three weeks later" and we act like there's no model or prototype for what's going on, and no scale-able solutions is reprehensible.

There's a lot of fingers to point and I personally think we should keep pointing until somebody who's *job* it is to confront these specifics makes some measurable effort.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 13, 2016)

Randy said:


> Too frustrated to pull out specific quotes from specific people, so please forgive me if this sounds like I'm ranting to myself.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm
> ...




Do you see any irony in the fact that the NSA operates the most terrifyingly capable individual tracking/spy metric dragnet the world has ever known via the "telephone" that has progressed so shockingly through the ages?

Have you read even one of the "digital permissions" pages on your facebook or twitter app?

I'm not trying to lessen your argument, which is totally valid... but you are comparing the 2 items that are arguably the FURTHEST 2 points away from each other on the scale of things used to defend human rights.


----------



## Drew (Jun 13, 2016)

asher said:


> To note, this is the worst mass shooting in US history.



Worst mass shooting in _modern_ US history. 



ramses said:


> Regulations can indeed be improved.
> 
> However, note that the weapons and ammunition used in France's last terrorist attack are fully illegal there.



And how many gun deaths does France have in any given year? 

I only have these numbers handy because there's been a debate raging on my Facebook page for the last two days, but a friend of mine, talking with another friend of mine who lives in London, pointed out that there have been more than 1,000 firearm deaths in London since 2000, as proof that the UK's far stricter gun laws "don't work." Thing is, between 2000 and 2010, in the States we've had 335,000 gun deaths, and extend that forward another 6 years and we're probably over 500,000 shot in the same period that the UK lost 1,000. I don't know about you, but I'd take 1,000 dead oveer 500 times that. 

At this point, I've essentially run out of tolerance with the NRA and the gun rights movement. I've been a grudging supporter of gun rights for years now - I don't *like* private ownership of firearms but I'm willing to accept it, provided it's done with adequate controls - but I think this last shooting was the last straw for me. The NRA needs to step up and take some ownership here, and if they won't, then I'm all for banning private ownership of handguns and semi-automatic rifles with large clips. If you break it, you buy it, and if the best the NRA can do is say that more guns, not less guns, is the answer, and that we need to ban gun-free zones, rather than guns, well, you can't negotiate with lunatics. 

I mean, bare minimum, for starters maybe the NRA could make an exception in their _total opposition to any public health research related to guns_ to allow research to be done to see if gun-free zones are any less safe than areas without carry prohibitions. That seems pretty reasonable, no?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 13, 2016)

So, ... where I am at a loss, is, just how do we stop this sort of thing from happening?

I know everybody has strong opinions about this, but, I really don't know, myself.

From what I've read, it sounds like he opened fire and killed a majority of his victims, then took a few hostages and held up for 2-3 hours until SWAT took him out.

Honestly, I'm shocked that a guy could waltz into a night club with an AR15, so I'm guessing there was no bouncer or he killed the bouncer first. I thought I read somewhere that an officer was already at the door, but maybe that was a false report. (?)

With 100+ victims, it sounds like he had quite a bit of ammunition with him.

From what I've heard, the SWAT team did a good job.

Now, I've read that this shooter was suspected of terrorist ties in 2007, and again in 2014. It's too easy, in retrospect, to say that someone should have done something. But what was the reason he was suspected of potentially being a terrorist and then "de-suspected?" I think the government *needs* to look into learning something from this, and, should be willing to share enough information about what they learned from this to get people to know that they learned something from this, because my gut feeling is that they haven't learned anything from things vaguely similar to this in the past, and I don't expect them to learn anything from this.


----------



## SD83 (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Do you see any irony in the fact that the NSA operates the most terrifyingly capable individual tracking/spy metric dragnet the world has ever known via the "telephone" that has progressed so shockingly through the ages?



If the NSA (or any other intelligence agency) was doing the same tracking and spying on guns instead of telephones, would that be a problem?

EDIT: As for the "waltz into a night club etc": I wondered the same with the attack in France. On most of the bigger concerts I've been to, the only way you could have taken a gun through security would have been inside yourself. Every single guest was sampled. It's much more loose for parties, and there are those that hardly have security at all, but then again, we had 3 cases of murder in the last 10 years (city of about 300.000 people), so most people hardly see a reason for that. I don't know about Orlando, but the numbers I come up with searching suggest that they should have rather strict security at any club. The question is, would that have changed anything?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 13, 2016)

Drew said:


> Worst mass shooting in _modern_ US history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A couple of things I feel I just have to point out:

1. There are 8 million people in the greater London area, versus 320 million in the USA. That said, the UK still has one of the lowest occurrences of gun violence in the world.
2. These statistics are often made to be misleading by both sides of the argument.
3. Obviously, no guns = no gun-related crime. It is not a stretch to say fewer guns = less gun related crime. Although the relationship may not be linear (I doubt it would be), depending on what policy is intended to result in fewer guns, and how it is executed.
4. The US Constitution demands that citizens have the right to bear arms and maintain a militia. That's the law. If you want to change that law, you need a 2/3 majority in congress, or to do away with the Constitution. Otherwise, getting rid of people's right to bear arms is illegal.
5. Nowhere in point 4 do I state my personal belief on the matter.
6. If you really think about the wording and the intended use of the Bill of Rights, you can argue here or there about automatic weapons, bazookas, whatever.
7. The UK, surprisingly, has a Bill of Rights with a provision granting the right (for protestants, only) to bear arms, yet there were several parliamentary acts banning all sorts of guns starting in the 20th century, despite this provision. Perhaps the USA can follow suit without anyone batting an eye, but I doubt it.
8. Really, though, *owning* a gun does not hurt anyone. *Being irresponsible or violent* with a gun, obviously does. So, there are all sorts of debates around that point. For example, if doing something is illegal, but enabling it to be done is not illegal, then does making the enabling illegal deter people from doing the illegal thing in the long run?


----------



## celticelk (Jun 13, 2016)

Drew said:


> I only have these numbers handy because there's been a debate raging on my Facebook page for the last two days, but a friend of mine, talking with another friend of mine who lives in London, pointed out that there have been more than 1,000 firearm deaths in London since 2000, as proof that the UK's far stricter gun laws "don't work." Thing is, between 2000 and 2010, in the States we've had 335,000 gun deaths, and extend that forward another 6 years and we're probably over 500,000 shot in the same period that the UK lost 1,000. I don't know about you, but I'd take 1,000 dead oveer 500 times that.



So much this. Obviously, criminals *can* perpetrate heinous crimes in places with draconian gun laws. The question is *how often* does that happen?

The London example is interesting. London as a metropolis is about 8 million people, with a population that's about 59% white. British gun murders in 2006/07 were 1.03 per million people, for 56 deaths total. London is responsible for about 40% of the firearm offences in England and Wales, with about 14% of the overall population, so let's assume that it will be overrepresented by about 3x for firearm murders as well, which gives us 3.09 firearm murders per million people, or an estimated 24 firearm murders in 2006/07. I've seem some people try to make the argument that comparing US firearm death rates to European nations is specious because the US has a "less homogeneous" (subtext: less white) population. Some major US cities with about the same white-population percentage as London, and their 2006-7 rates of firearm murders per million citizens:

St. Louis (61.9% white): 241
Milwaukee (61.6% white): 135
Charlotte, NC (60.6% white): 88
San Diego (59.4% white): 28
Cleveland (56.9% white): 174

So what's the difference? Is it the guns? I think it might be the guns.

Sources: 
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf
Zip Codes with the Highest Percentage of Whites in the United States | Zip Atlas
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm


----------



## FEcorvus (Jun 13, 2016)

why not leave it entirely up to state or local laws, that way people who feel safer with guns can live the way they want and the people who feel safer without can still live the way they prefer...

better yet why not extend that idea to everything that doesn't concern the entire nation such as foreign affairs and national security, leave the domestic stuff to be determined on a smaller scale

instead of making everyone live by the majority laws decided by the country, since some laws obviously work better in higher/lower populated areas anyway, for instance people in NY shouldn't have a say in how people in Georgia live and vice versa, different locations have different cultures who have different needs and priorities

let an overwhelming majority live under the laws they want and the only people who won't would be those unwilling to move, BAM everyone at least feels like their opinion is heard a bit more 

or is there something I'm missing that makes this a bad idea?


----------



## synrgy (Jun 13, 2016)

In the hands of a human, a loaded gun is intrinsically capable of ending human life.

In the hands of a human, a loaded gun is intrinsically _in_capable of providing love.

Love begets love; hate begets hate; violence begets violence.

Guns beget death.

I'm disappointed, disgusted, and embarrassed.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 13, 2016)

synrgy said:


> In the hands of a human, a loaded gun is intrinsically capable of ending human life.
> 
> In the hands of a human, a loaded gun is intrinsically _in_capable of providing love.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Disappointed is probably the best term here. 

With regards to your argument about love, well.... How many marauders were ever stopped with a dildo?

Some people wish to retain guns, as pandora's box is already open.... If someone wanted to hurt you, even if randomly, a gun can be a tool that might protect you. Like an axe, or a knife, or a club, but better.


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 13, 2016)

I don't think America can be fixed, it's a country that from the outside appears to be obsessed with extremist and polarising views, patriotism, religion, greed, separatism, theres too many ideals that contradict, and too many nutjobs with access to military weapons.... 

I think the best thing that can happen is all the nice, hard working, normal Americans move to other countries, let the rest who are left fight it out, and when theres nothing left they can come back home and rebuild a new America, one who sorts out their own problems at home before trying to fix all the rest of the worlds issues.


----------



## synrgy (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Some people wish to retain guns, as pandora's box is already open.... If someone wanted to hurt you, even if randomly, a gun can be a tool that might protect you. Like an axe, or a knife, or a club, but better.



Yeah. I'm pretty much a pacifist, so that entire line of reasoning falls on completely deaf ears, for me.

In my current (read, not Fight or Flight) state of mind, my position is that potentially ending the life of someone who wants to harm me is not an appropriate solution to the problem, and if I were to die in the process of their attempt to harm me due to my lack of being armed with a tool designed for the purpose of ending life, so be it; it's _their_ life (and karma) I'd be concerned about.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 13, 2016)

synrgy said:


> Yeah. I'm pretty much a pacifist, so that entire line of reasoning falls on completely deaf ears, for me.
> 
> In my current (read, not Fight or Flight) state of mind, my position is that potentially ending the life of someone who wants to harm me is not an appropriate solution to the problem, and if I were to die in the process of their attempt to harm me due to my lack of being armed with a tool designed for the expressed purpose of ending life, so be it; it's _their_ life (and karma) I'd be concerned about.



It's great that you know that about yourself. 

You have absolutely no right to subject me or any other person to this lifestyle, legally or otherwise.

You don't realize you forwent any power to make decisions for others when you chose pacifism.... which is fine... but not 'influential.'

Again, a perfect acceptable POV, for an INDIVIDUAL to have. If it were legally required, this place would be an shiat show.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> If it were legally required, this place would be an shiat show.



I'd like to see some evidence that indicates that would be the case.

However, there are heaps of evidence in the contrary position: that banning the sale and ownership of firearms unilaterally reduces death by guns and reduces the murder rate overall.

Sure, people might get stabbed or beaten more frequently, but they are much more likely to survive those kinds of attacks.

Also, if the citizenry isn't supposed to have firearms, it suddenly becomes a whole lot easier for the police to identify their target rather than try and suss out if they're facing a terrorist or just another "good guy with a gun."


----------



## synrgy (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> You have absolutely no right to subject me or any other person to this lifestyle, legally or otherwise.



I've stated an opinion, without any suggestion (or even implication) that others should take whatever action based upon that opinion.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Jun 13, 2016)

The problem is not guns, there are countries worldwide that have responsible gun ownership, in public, during the course of everyday normal life.

I would love to be a sports shooter. I would love to own a .22 and go plinking, I would love to be able to go to a rifle range and shoot. I can't do that because I'm in the UK and gun licenses require a 6 month commitment to a shooting club for a hobby I'm quite sure will be transient for me and not worth the investment.

America is not one of those countries, and it's because the things are fetishized and held up as the pinnacle of American freedom.

Everywhere else guns shoot bullets, kill things, cause blood death destruction pain hurt sorrow anguish and tears.

In America, guns shoot bald eagles and cause McDonalds restaurants to spring up out of the ground spontaneously screaming FREEDOM BURGERS FREEDOM BURGERS GET YOUR FREEDOM BURGERS COME HERE AND WITNESS OUR BALD EAGLES AND FREEDOM BY THE WAY DID WE MENTION FREEDOM I THINK YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW FREE WE ARE.

I'm done with it. So very done. I don't care about your school shootings anymore. I can't take being asked to care about it. I can't bring myself to do it until there's some better reason for this crap to be happening than because a bunch of ....ing morons can't bring themselves to accept what a gun is, does, is designed to do and is really, really quite good at doing, which is taking life. 

But gods dammit if that's the price of being safe in the knowledge that at least the people in this country have some VAGUE, BRIEF FLICKER OF UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY GUNS SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RESPECT AND A MODICUM OF APPREHENSION, then .... it. Go save your public shooters some time and money and use your own bullets, because that lesson should absolutely not be that goddamn hard. Switzerland, all of Scandinavia, many states in Eastern Europe, all know how to avoid having a gun culture that is as wildly self destructive as America's is. Why the .... can't you guys figure this out?


----------



## SD83 (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> With regards to your argument about love, well.... How many marauders were ever stopped with a dildo?
> 
> Some people wish to retain guns, as pandora's box is already open.... If someone wanted to hurt you, even if randomly, a gun can be a tool that might protect you. Like an axe, or a knife, or a club, but better.



A dildo is not an instrument of love. Unless sex equals love, and those two not necessarily have anything in common. Communication, on the other hand, stopped a lot of marauders. Some after they started, but most before they started. If you decide to threaten my life... lets just say I value my life over that of any other being.
As for the tool.. it can also be a tool that might kill you, and in that respect it's also superior to an axe, a knife, or a dildo. 

I don't really understand the gun-focus of this thread though. Less legal guns likely wouldn't have stopped it, and neither had more. Unless you had a lot more guns, in which case you would just end up in an arms race against criminals. Given that some of those (especially the terrorists) have little to no regard for their own life, I don't see how that can be won.
What I find much more worth noting is that, and this I guess is true for most, if not all other countries, people can grow up with so much hate and so little regard for their own existence, let alone well-being, and that of others that they commit such atrocities. There will always be civilians with guns, legal or not, unless you go full 1984 with full surveillance of anyone, at any time, everywhere. I have no idea exactly how, but I'd say pathological hate is something that has much less place in this age than guns.



Mordacain said:


> Sure, people might get stabbed or beaten more frequently, but they are much more likely to survive those kinds of attacks.


Also, even those who have guns are much less likely to use them in burglary or any other crime where "killing someone" is not the original aim as they usually don't have to fear for their lives. If you break into any house in Germany, if someone sees you, the absolute worst thing that could happen to you is that they're going to call the cops. And if you get caught, you'd much rather get caught robbing someone than shooting someone. If you do the same thing in a state where everyone has a gun and it is absolutly legal to shoot if you feel threatened, you better shoot first.


----------



## Drew (Jun 13, 2016)

bostjan said:


> 4. The US Constitution demands that citizens have the right to bear arms and maintain a militia. That's the law. If you want to change that law, you need a 2/3 majority in congress, or to do away with the Constitution. Otherwise, getting rid of people's right to bear arms is illegal.



Singling out this, because we agree on a lot else you posted. 

1) There is language in the Constitution stating that since a militia is necessary for a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No arguments. However, the _interpretation_ of what that means has been the subject of debate for much of this country's history, and it's only since the 1980s or so that we've moved as far to the right as we have where ANY attempt to restrict ownership of ANY gun in ANY manner has been questioned. For starters, I think we need to re-evaluate how we've been interpreting the 2nd Amendment. 
2) That said, if the NRA won't budge on this, then bring on the Constitutional Amendment. I'd vote in favor of stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, and even as recently as a week ago I wouldn't necessarily have agreed to do that. Every time something like this happens, more people who've historically been fairly moderate on gun ownership are going to lose patience on the subject. I'm sick of people dying because any idiot can buy a semi-automatic weapon.


----------



## Drew (Jun 13, 2016)

bostjan said:


> 1. There are 8 million people in the greater London area, versus 320 million in the USA. That said, the UK still has one of the lowest occurrences of gun violence in the world.



Also this one because I can't resist numbers - there are 8 million people in London, but 64 million in the UK, where the death count was drawn. So, we outnumber them 5:1, yet we have 500:1 more gun deaths, so an American is more likely to be shot to death than someone in the UK at a rate of 100:1. 

That's pretty damned gigantic.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 13, 2016)

Drew said:


> Singling out this, because we agree on a lot else you posted.
> 
> 1) There is language in the Constitution stating that since a militia is necessary for a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No arguments. However, the _interpretation_ of what that means has been the subject of debate for much of this country's history, and it's only since the 1980s or so that we've moved as far to the right as we have where ANY attempt to restrict ownership of ANY gun in ANY manner has been questioned. For starters, I think we need to re-evaluate how we've been interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
> 2) That said, if the NRA won't budge on this, then bring on the Constitutional Amendment. I'd vote in favor of stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, and even as recently as a week ago I wouldn't necessarily have agreed to do that. Every time something like this happens, more people who've historically been fairly moderate on gun ownership are going to lose patience on the subject. I'm sick of people dying because any idiot can buy a semi-automatic weapon.



I do find it disgusting how frequently 2nd Amendment advocates leave off the "well-regulated militia" part. It's the most important part of the frikkin' amendment.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 13, 2016)

Mordacain said:


> I do find it disgusting how frequently 2nd Amendment advocates leave off the "well-regulated militia" part. It's the most important part of the frikkin' amendment.



Agreed, but the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to militias.....

The Bill of Rights is a list of PERSONAL rights. In my opinion, the wording about militias is redundant in the 2A: OF COURSE it is necessary to bear arms in order to have a well regulated militia.... What else would the militia use?

Remember the context: These guys violently tossed the crown because of a tariff on Tea among other things....


----------



## Randy (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Remember the context: These guys violently tossed the crown because of a tariff on Tea among other things....



So what if overly liberal government forcing secularism on us is the new version of oppression and what the guys did in Orlando and San Bernadino is their version of freedom fighting? Then the guns were used exactly as the 2nd amendment intended and all is well?


----------



## synrgy (Jun 13, 2016)

"Well regulated" is the part we seem to prefer avoiding.


----------



## FEcorvus (Jun 13, 2016)

guys a few months ago there was a robbery literally 20 yards from my home, the clerk working was shot multiple times for no damn reason at all by the perp, she wasn't resisting whatsoever, the only thing she did at all was hit the silent panic button, it took the police around 20 minutes to get there despite the panic button and calls reporting gunshots 
WMCTV
needless to say I'm quite paranoid now

my response was to learn to safely handle a weapon and get a weapons permit because on the VERY slim chance that I got attacked by someone with the inclination to kill me for no damn reason even if I'm not resisting and I do my best to run away, I won't have to just hope the cops show up in time to do something


----------



## MFB (Jun 13, 2016)

FEcorvus said:


> my response was to learn to safely handle a weapon and get a weapons permit because on the VERY slim chance that I got attacked by someone with the inclination to kill me for no damn reason even if I'm not resisting and I do my best to run away, I won't have to just hope the cops show up in time to do something



You're forgetting one crucial part of this: theory vs. practice.

You can do something a million times in a controlled environment, but when it becomes an honest to God mugging and you're staring down the barrel of a gun hoping not to get one between the eyes; do you think all that training and safety is going to kick in, or is it going to be panic and fumbling trying not to die?


----------



## FEcorvus (Jun 13, 2016)

MFB said:


> You're forgetting one crucial part of this: theory vs. practice.
> 
> You can do something a million times in a controlled environment, but when it becomes an honest to God mugging and you're staring down the barrel of a gun hoping not to get one between the eyes; do you think all that training and safety is going to kick in, or is it going to be panic and fumbling trying not to die?



if I was staring down the barrel of a gun I sure as hell wouldn't reach for my own, that seems like a way to get myself and others killed by escalating the situation, because much like myself the other person would also likely be a nervous mess and I wouldn't wanna do anything to set them off

its more so that if someone isn't focusing on me or doesn't know I'm there I'll have a bargaining chip to get them to maybe give up, if I'm being mugged at gunpoint they can have my damn money, it can be replaced, I don't wanna shoot or kill anybody, I just wanna keep myself and others from being killed

besides that I keep my deadbolt locked and that is more that enough to disuade most, I'm not looking for a situation where I'll need it, I really just wish everyone could get along so I wouldn't feel unsafe, then I wouldn't have bought this thing and instead put the money toward bills or a new amp


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 13, 2016)

FEcorvus said:


> guys a few months ago there was a robbery literally 20 yards from my home, the clerk working was shot multiple times for no damn reason at all by the perp, she wasn't resisting whatsoever, the only thing she did at all was hit the silent panic button, it took the police around 20 minutes to get there despite the panic button and calls reporting gunshots
> WMCTV
> needless to say I'm quite paranoid now
> 
> my response was to learn to safely handle a weapon and get a weapons permit because on the VERY slim chance that I got attacked by someone with the inclination to kill me for no damn reason even if I'm not resisting and I do my best to run away, I won't have to just hope the cops show up in time to do something



Hate to break it to you dude, but statistically, you're more likely to die by being armed. Them's just the breaks unfortunately.

The simple fact is that anyone living in the real world can't train for hours a day to not only safely handle their weapon, but hit their target (while avoiding everyone else), make life or death command decisions under stress, learn how to prevent your weapon being taken from you and used against you, unarmed self defense in the event your weapon jams or is taken from you, etc, etc, etc.

The amount of training you need to do before your weapon stops being a liability is ridiculously extensive.

You're much better off from security standpoint by learning unarmed self-defense and wearing body armor if you're really that scared.

If you do choose to go the armed route, I hope you put in at least 5 hours a week on the range and maintain your firearm regularly, practice drawing from a holster, clearing jams and all the other skills you need to be effective with a firearm.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 13, 2016)

Odds have nothing to do with personal rights.

You, as an American, have the right to wield a gun if you wish. To control your own destiny, to fail at controlling your own destiny, or to shoot beer cans with.

Until someone amends the constitution, it will remain that way....


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Odds have nothing to do with personal rights.
> 
> You, as an American, have the right to wield a gun if you wish. To control your own destiny, to fail at controlling your own destiny, or to shoot beer cans with.
> 
> Until someone amends the constitution, it will remain that way....



Right to wield a gun if you wish? That's funny, but that's absolutely not what the constitution says, nor is it even close to what the 2nd Amendment to the constitution says. I doubt the framers would have had the same mentality if firearms in their day were accurate beyond 100yds and had the capability of firing multiple rounds in succession with accuracy. It's quite likely they would have been a bit more specific about who can own what if one person had the capability of taking out an entire settlement by themselves at the time.

It is what the NRA has pushed though because it is run by the gun industry and pushing fear is what makes them more money.

If you have a right to own a gun for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia, that's all it says.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 13, 2016)

Mordacain said:


> Right to wield a gun if you wish? That's funny, but that's absolutely not what the constitution says, nor is it even close to what the 2nd Amendment to the constitution says. I doubt the framers would have had the same mentality if firearms in their day were accurate beyond 100yds and had the capability of firing multiple rounds in succession with accuracy. It's quite likely they would have been a bit more specific about who can own what if one person had the capability of taking out an entire settlement by themselves at the time.
> 
> It is what the NRA has pushed though because it is run by the gun industry and pushing fear is what makes them more money.
> 
> If you have a right to own a gun for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia, that's all it says.



https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php


In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 13, 2016)

Furthermore, the 2nd amendment was written when guns were the most impressive and destructive tool in the nation.... And they intended the common man to use them.

If we are going to extrapolate their intentions to today, shouldn't that mean we should be allowed to own Sherman tanks, and fighter jets?

No, I don't believe so, but semantics works both ways.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 13, 2016)

My final comment on this topic:

'When the US decides help a nation topple a leader that commits genocide, or that imprisons its people, or is generally ....ty to their populace.... How do they do it?'

For the answer, see: Syria, Trippoli, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea....

If too lazy: 'We send them guns.' Even Obama, sends them guns.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
> 
> 
> In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.



You really need to read the rest of the decision. Even the _Heller_ Court acknowledged that there are reasonable restrictions on firearms that do not violate the 2A.

EDIT: It's even stated on the page you linked:



> The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Furthermore, the 2nd amendment was written when guns were the most impressive and destructive tool in the nation.... And they intended the common man to use them.
> 
> If we are going to extrapolate their intentions to today, shouldn't that mean we should be allowed to own Sherman tanks, and fighter jets?
> 
> No, I don't believe so, but semantics works both ways.



Alternately, you can have as many eighteenth-century firearms as you want. Let me know when you're done muzzle-loading that long gun.


----------



## SD83 (Jun 13, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> 'When the US decides help a nation topple a leader that commits genocide, or that imprisons its people, or is generally ....ty to their populace.... How do they do it?'
> 
> For the answer, see: Syria, Trippoli, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea....
> 
> If too lazy: 'We send them guns.' Even Obama, sends them guns.



Which didn't exactly go well in any of those cases...


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 13, 2016)

SD83 said:


> Which didn't exactly go well in any of those cases...



Exactly.

Toppling governments is something that the USA is particularly good at. Getting good results from that is something we're terrifically bad at.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 13, 2016)

SD83 said:


> Which didn't exactly go well in any of those cases...



I dunno, things seem to be going pretty well here in South Korea. I'd certainly rather be here than in North Korea, which is how SK would be had the US not intervened.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 14, 2016)

So, a lot of reports coming up are pointing to the dude being an unstable, closeted gay man.

Man: Orlando gunman used gay dating app to ask about hot clubs | abc7ny.com

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/742475540720848897

https://twitter.com/GideonResnick/status/742466679620407298

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/n...assma/nrfwW/?ecmp=pbp_social_twitter_2015_sfp


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 14, 2016)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I dunno, things seem to be going pretty well here in South Korea. I'd certainly rather be here than in North Korea, which is how SK would be had the US not intervened.



We didn't exactly topple a government in that case did we? We also didn't just supply weapons to the South Koreans and say "Have had it hoss!"

No, it took 36,000+ American deaths to make that happen. Not even remotely related to what we did in Syria or Libya.

Either way, it is completely unrelated to civilians having access to firearms for the purposes of fighting in a regulated, organized militia or people having access to firearms for self defense.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 14, 2016)

Mordacain said:


> We didn't exactly topple a government in that case did we? We also didn't just supply weapons to the South Koreans and say "Have had it hoss!"
> 
> No, it took 36,000+ American deaths to make that happen. Not even remotely related to what we did in Syria or Libya.



I never said it was even remotely related, broseph. I'm not the one who added SK to the list, so calm your t!ts.

I just saw them in a list of countries we've f_u_cked around with and then someone saying it didn't exactly go well for them. Korea is _obviously_ not the same as the other instances given; it's out of place on the list given. Not only because the circumstances differ, but because things turned out fairly well.


----------



## Dcm81 (Jun 14, 2016)

Making the possesion of guns illegal for citizens will definately reduce the amount of deaths by shootings!
If guns are illegal, then getting a hold of one requires connections to shady characters and/or to criminal black markets. As a regular Joe Shmoe you'd have to have some real criminal energy just to get a hold of one.
So if this Joe Shmoe is really depressed, ragingly angry or just having a really bad day or whatever and decides to go on a rampage, they're not going to be able to do it on a spur of the moment decision. Even if whatever it is, builds up in him over the course of weeks, he'd have to actively start searching for ways to get a hold of a firearm, try to make friends or get friendly with people from some criminal walks of life - in short, not an easy task.
Now imagine Joe has access to pretty much all the firearms he could imagine at his local supermarket or mall and all he has to do is wait a couple of weeks?

I'm not saying guns being illegal would stop gun related deaths but it would dramatically reduce them.
If you really want a gun, sure you can get one, even if it's illegal but you have to have the criminal energy and firm conviction of killing at least one individual (and maintain that state of mind for quite some time) to go through all the steps needed to obtain one.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 14, 2016)

As it's been pointed out, this discussion is decided. Like it or not, the US Constitution has the Bill of Rights within it, and the SCotUS already decided that you can't just go against that willy nilly. 

If you guys want that change, you are going to have to have congress ammend the Bill of Rights. And that's just not going to happen, because you can't get those morons to agree on anything. So, you'll need to start voting for third party congressmen to remove the old guard. Since few of you are willing to do that, none of this will change.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Jun 14, 2016)

bostjan said:


> As it's been pointed out, this discussion is decided. Like it or not, the US Constitution has the Bill of Rights within it, and the SCotUS already decided that you can't just go against that willy nilly.
> 
> If you guys want that change, you are going to have to have congress ammend the Bill of Rights. And that's just not going to happen, because you can't get those morons to agree on anything. So, you'll need to start voting for third party congressmen to remove the old guard. Since few of you are willing to do that, none of this will change.



Pretty much. As long as your political system remains a case of "here comes the new boss same as the old boss" you are all ....ed.

And frankly, America only has itself to blame.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 14, 2016)

Dcm81 said:


> Making the possesion of guns illegal for citizens will definately reduce the amount of deaths by shootings!
> If guns are illegal, then getting a hold of one requires connections to shady characters and/or to criminal black markets. As a regular Joe Shmoe you'd have to have some real criminal energy just to get a hold of one.
> So if this Joe Shmoe is really depressed, ragingly angry or just having a really bad day or whatever and decides to go on a rampage, they're not going to be able to do it on a spur of the moment decision. Even if whatever it is, builds up in him over the course of weeks, he'd have to actively start searching for ways to get a hold of a firearm, try to make friends or get friendly with people from some criminal walks of life - in short, not an easy task.
> Now imagine Joe has access to pretty much all the firearms he could imagine at his local supermarket or mall and all he has to do is wait a couple of weeks?
> ...



we tried the same thing with alcohol and drugs in the USA. Both times it was done for the same reasons you've listed above. take your post and insert *liquor* or *heroin* and we've done it already. 

we realized the first attempt with alcohol was a terrible idea when it did nothing to curb drinking deaths and addiction and when it created large scale organized crime. 

the war on drugs is still a thing and it is also not working and has similarly created much crime and violence. and BTW record numbers of opiate related deaths last year and the trend is continuing this year.

history is cyclical. like it or not, every time you take something readily available to Americans away and make it criminally punishable to own, black market men get rich and more people die. 

i maintain the argument that if the war on drugs was ended tomorrow the majority of gun violence would taper off as there is nothing for gangs to peddle and get rich off of (gang violence and organized crime is the leader of gun violence).

lone wolf or mass shooters are difficult to prevent because they usually don't have a criminal record to track and they use insurgency techniques to hit targets. 

news came out that he went to the club a dozen times before the hit and sat in a corner watching. that's called canvassing. i wouldn't be surprised if the club is sued in the future for not having adequate security -- the shooter managed to bring in a difficult to conceal firearm unnoticed.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 14, 2016)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> we tried the same thing with alcohol and drugs in the USA. Both times it was done for the same reasons you've listed above. take your post and insert *liquor* or *heroin* and we've done it already.
> 
> we realized the first attempt with alcohol was a terrible idea when it did nothing to curb drinking deaths and addiction and when it created large scale organized crime.
> 
> ...



Excellent point.

There's a thing that happens in the USA all too much, called "hysteria." I'm not going to go into the origins of the word, but it is meant today to mean that the public over-reacts to something bad and causes more problems in the wake.

Example: September 11th, 2001, worst terrorist attack on the USA. It's bad, but the knee-jerk reaction by congress and the majority of the public is to do stupid stuff like the Patriot Act, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and to make air travel overly cumbersome. I don't think any of these were good ideas, and I never did, but a majority of Americans were gung-ho to go off and blast a bunch of people unrelated to the incident to kingdom come, and take away tons of fundamental rights.

Such behaviour is irrational. After this mass shooting, we all want dramatic action now, but the trouble is that we don't even understand what happened yet.

Heck, if anyone else around here is old enough to remember the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, the news outlets were very quick to blame radical Islamic terrorists, which really never added up to a reasonable guess, and it turned out to be an Army vet and a couple farmers pissed off and hysterical about the hysteria around the David Koresh incident.

I can only hope that eventually cooler heads will prevail.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 14, 2016)

bostjan said:


> As it's been pointed out, this discussion is decided. Like it or not, the US Constitution has the Bill of Rights within it, and the SCotUS already decided that you can't just go against that willy nilly.



While it's rare for the Supreme Court to overturn its own precedents, it *does* happen. That's a large part of the context for the current Senate Republican resistance to Obama's Supreme Court nomination: the perennial conservative hope that a more conservative SCOTUS will overturn _Roe v. Wade_, coupled with the relatively recent conservative fear that a more liberal SCOTUS will overturn _Heller_. In addition, as I described above, the _Heller_ decision explicitly allows that there *are* constitutionally acceptable limits on 2A rights, so it's a bit of a stretch to say that gun control advocates are "go[ing] against that willy nilly."



bostjan said:


> If you guys want that change, you are going to have to have congress ammend the Bill of Rights. And that's just not going to happen, because you can't get those morons to agree on anything. So, you'll need to start voting for third party congressmen to remove the old guard. Since few of you are willing to do that, none of this will change.



Where to start.

First, the reason "those morons" can't agree on anything is, in large part, because there are actual and deep disagreements among American voters about how the country should be run. Congresscritters, wanting (like most people) to keep their jobs, are more responsive to the wishes of their constituents than to highfalutin' civic ideals about the necessity for compromise in a pluralist democratic republic. This is, of course, made worse by the tendency (on both sides, really, although to my ears the Republicans are much more strident about it) to paint even relatively shallow political disagreements in existential us-vs-them terms. So: deadlock.

Further, there's a well-documented phenomenon in American politics whereby, while Congress *in the abstract* receives pretty low approval ratings from voters, those same voters rate *their local Congresscritter* pretty highly.  This is evident in the high rates of incumbent re-election in the House, particularly in the 2014 election, where roughly 96% of House incumbents were re-elected in spite of an 11% voter approval rating of Congress. Even in "wave" elections, like 1994 and 2010, incumbents are still re-elected at over 80% rates. So advocating for replacement of Congresscritters with new politicians faces a steep activation curve any way you slice it.

Advocating for *third-party* replacement is even more doomed: The history of America is a history of two parties. Those parties may change names or governing concepts, but we've consistently had two major parties. (Yes, there are other parties in America. In terms of governance, they don't matter. You might not like that fact, but it *is* a fact.) The reason for this is actually baked into our system of elections: a first-past-the-post election system inevitably produces a two-party political system. Once again, I'll let CGP Grey give the explanation:



There *are* alternatives to first-past-the-post which would ameliorate this problem - I'm partial to the single transferable vote - but making this happen would require a massive overhaul of the American electoral system, which is no less difficult than trying to amend the Constitution to reframe gun rights, compounded by the fact that *both parties* have an inherent reason to oppose such an action - it would inevitably result in a diminishment of their own political power, not just their rival's. Basically, you'd need a mass outbreak of logic, reason, and civic-mindedness, qualities for which the American electorate is not noted. The potential payoff is much better if you work within the boundaries of the two-party system to try to (slowly) move public and political opinion on your preferred issue(s). That sucks, but it's reality.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 14, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Where to start.



I'm not going to quote your entire post. I'm honestly not even sure there's anything worth discussing, since I don't really know what your argument even is. Do you want the Bill or Rights to say something other than what it actually says? Do you want the SCotUS to interpret that into something other than what it can logically be interpreted into?

If yes, then it seems like you simply agree with my point that the current congress is not going to do that, nor will any congress in the near future without a wholesale change in culture. And it seems like you agree with my point that such change is not going to happen easily.

If no, then why bother having a discussion?

My takeaway from your tone and the points it seems you are trying to make is that you agree with my points, you just disagree with me in general. If that is the case, then maybe you need to rethink your approach to debate in general. If not, I apologize for misunderstanding your posts.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 14, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I'm not going to quote your entire post. I'm honestly not even sure there's anything worth discussing, since I don't really know what your argument even is. Do you want the Bill or Rights to say something other than what it actually says? Do you want the SCotUS to interpret that into something other than what it can logically be interpreted into?
> 
> If yes, then it seems like you simply agree with my point that the current congress is not going to do that, nor will any congress in the near future without a wholesale change in culture. And it seems like you agree with my point that such change is not going to happen easily.
> 
> ...



OK, the short version: your characterization of the Constitutional status of 2A rights is oversimplified to the point of being misleading, and your suggestion that the real problem is that US voters won't vote for third-party Congresscritters willing to amend the Constitution ignores both the very real differences among US voters and the inherent structural dynamics of the US voting system. Better?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 14, 2016)

celticelk said:


> OK, the short version: your characterization of the Constitutional status of 2A rights is oversimplified to the point of being misleading, and your suggestion that the real problem is that US voters won't vote for third-party Congresscritters willing to amend the Constitution ignores both the very real differences among US voters and the inherent structural dynamics of the US voting system. Better?



Ok, I'll bite, how is my characterization of the Constitutional status of the second amendment oversimplified or misleading?! Are you trying to say that the second amendment to the constitution is not part of the constitution?!

And how the hell am I ignoring something by pointing it out?

I have a feeling this discussion is going to go nowhere. You seem to simply want to argue with me for the sake of having felt better for calling me out on something, but this isn't making any sense. Either you are being obtuse and ridiculous or you are simply misunderstanding what I said.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 14, 2016)

bostjan said:


> As it's been pointed out, this discussion is decided. Like it or not, the US Constitution has the Bill of Rights within it, and the SCotUS already decided that you can't just go against that willy nilly.
> 
> If you guys want that change, you are going to have to have congress ammend the Bill of Rights. And that's just not going to happen, because you can't get those morons to agree on anything. So, you'll need to start voting for third party congressmen to remove the old guard. Since few of you are willing to do that, none of this will change.



The Constitutional Convention is another path in that event. Of course, that requires an overwhelming majority to make happen and has the side bonus (or possible detriment) of having a whole litany of amendments be put forth.

Not terrifically likely given the general political malaise in this country but it is an option.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 14, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Ok, I'll bite, how is my characterization of the Constitutional status of the second amendment oversimplified or misleading?! Are you trying to say that the second amendment to the constitution is not part of the constitution?!
> 
> And how the hell am I ignoring something by pointing it out?
> 
> I have a feeling this discussion is going to go nowhere. You seem to simply want to argue with me for the sake of having felt better for calling me out on something, but this isn't making any sense. Either you are being obtuse and ridiculous or you are simply misunderstanding what I said.



Yes, the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution. That's obvious. And yes, the Supreme Court has (relatively) recently ruled that it protects an individual right to a firearm. As I attempted to explain, however, Supreme Court decisions are not immutable - precedents can be and have been overturned, and American conservatives hold out the prospect of a liberal SCOTUS overturning _Heller_ as one of their rallying cries for action. Moreover, the _Heller_ decision itself allows for limitations on firearm ownership and use that do not disturb the fundamental 2A right that it declares. Your statement that "the SCotUS already decided that you can't just go against that willy nilly" suggests that *any* legal action to limit gun ownership or public carry is doomed to failure under _Heller_. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misinterpreting, but I would also suggest that maybe you should phrase that sentiment more clearly in the future. Your statement that "_f you guys want that change, you are going to have to have [C]ongress ammend [sic] the Bill of Rights" also overstates the level of action needed to change the interpretation of the 2A, as I explained above._


----------



## bostjan (Jun 14, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Yes, the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution. That's obvious. And yes, the Supreme Court has (relatively) recently ruled that it protects an individual right to a firearm. As I attempted to explain, however, Supreme Court decisions are not immutable - precedents can be and have been overturned, and American conservatives hold out the prospect of a liberal SCOTUS overturning _Heller_ as one of their rallying cries for action. Moreover, the _Heller_ decision itself allows for limitations on firearm ownership and use that do not disturb the fundamental 2A right that it declares. Your statement that "the SCotUS already decided that you can't just go against that willy nilly" suggests that *any* legal action to limit gun ownership or public carry is doomed to failure under _Heller_. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misinterpreting, but I would also suggest that maybe you should phrase that sentiment more clearly in the future. Your statement that "_f you guys want that change, you are going to have to have [C]ongress ammend [sic] the Bill of Rights" also overstates the level of action needed to change the interpretation of the 2A, as I explained above._


_

I'm referring to the current interpretation of the second amendment, under which the dickwad responsible for the incident about which this thread is directed legally purchased his firearms, as I thought that was the topic up for discussion.

I'm not sure why I should have to clarify that a statement which I made directed toward the current topic of the thread, is actually directed toward the topic of the thread, or that what I said was not intended to mean something I clearly did not say.

Again, your actions here are a pretty thinly veiled attempt to strike up an argument, simply because you want to, not because you have a particular disagreement with my statement, but you simply want to disagree with me. Your style, which I paraphrase as: You said, and I quote... but what you really meant was something different, and if that's not what you meant, then you lack communication skills, really drove that home for me. Maybe you don't like me or maybe you think this argument makes you look smart to everyone else, or maybe you just want to argue with anybody who is particularly easy to get to respond, I don't know. Whichever the case, in order to avoid cluttering the thread up any further, I will simply not respond to your next post here unless there is something I can discuss with you._


----------



## Randy (Jun 14, 2016)

A little civility please, or this thread's getting locked and a few of you will be getting a nap. Back on topic and away from the personal attacks.


----------



## Edika (Jun 14, 2016)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> So, a lot of reports coming up are pointing to the dude being an unstable, closeted gay man.
> 
> Man: Orlando gunman used gay dating app to ask about hot clubs | abc7ny.com
> 
> ...



Maybe or maybe he was doing research to choose the best target. In either case the guy was unstable to say the least.

A senseless tragedy with a specific group targeted this time. Family and loved ones won't be seeing 50 people because a nutjob got his hand on a semi automatic rifle and hand gun.

As expected the discussion would come back to the right to own firearms. I'm against guns mainly because I understand the appeal and the reasoning behind it. The main culture pushed down from Hollywood and TV for several decades is the lone hero with a gun, just his simple trusty semi automatic handgun mowing down several bad guys armed with more impressive weapons. I'm sure most people in the US heavy in the gun culture (and maybe not) when thinking about militia think about the Red Dawn movie and the Wolverines while having a wet dream.
Real situations though are not like movies depict them, real firearms do not behave as in the movies and in the end in either the case of victim and perpetrator someone dies for wacky idiotic ideas or material possessions.
To conclude I don't trust the average slightly evolved primate (me included) to use a steak knife let alone a firearm.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 14, 2016)

That could be a possibility, but some people have been saying he's been visiting the place for several years. 

Also, he didn't just pledge allegiance to ISIS. He also pledged to Al Queda and Hezbollah in the past. He probably didn't even know the difference between the 3.

This is going by friends and relatives by the way. I'm sure we'll get a more concrete picture down the road.


----------



## FEcorvus (Jun 14, 2016)

celticelk said:


> While it's rare for the Supreme Court to overturn its own precedents, it *does* happen. That's a large part of the context for the current Senate Republican resistance to Obama's Supreme Court nomination: the perennial conservative hope that a more conservative SCOTUS will overturn _Roe v. Wade_, coupled with the relatively recent conservative fear that a more liberal SCOTUS will overturn _Heller_. In addition, as I described above, the _Heller_ decision explicitly allows that there *are* constitutionally acceptable limits on 2A rights, so it's a bit of a stretch to say that gun control advocates are "go[ing] against that willy nilly."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




don't forget that incumbents are already a part of committees, which are about the only way to actually have any say in the way congress runs, so when you take out your incumbent you have weakened your states way of actually having a say and have to start from scratch

also most people are willing to pay attention to the presidential election since the candidates are highly televised, a lot of people are too lazy and can't be bother to keep up with their congressmen or look at their voting record and just make their best guess based on what people around them tell them and those small number of ads that happen every election telling why their opponent is a piece of ....... that and sadly most people just vote on party line and generally the constituency of most states doesn't change enough to make a different outcome

tldr: a whole bunch of reasons congress members don't change frequently


----------



## flint757 (Jun 14, 2016)

I live in a heavily influenced gun culture area of the country. Not a lot happens here, but it's also not an impoverished area where I live so you wouldn't expect there to be in either case. I attribute it more to the social class of the area than I do CHL holders, but I can't prove anything one way or the other, so it is what it is. 

I'm not anti-gun in the slightest, but I do wish they required a lot more training and storage requirements than they currently do. I could go to the store today and pickup a shotgun as long as I pass a quick 30 minute basic background check: no training required, no safety measures required, no storage requirements; it's that I take issue with. A little boy killed himself a couple weeks ago, near where I live, because he picked up his grand dads loaded revolver off his nightstand and shot himself. On the same token, a presumed crackhead (or perhaps someone mentally unstable) held a family at gunpoint at a McDonald's drive-through by my house (a truly rare occurrence to say the least) and luckily the father had a CHL license and stopped the man before he could potentially harm his wife and daughter. 

Our country is in too deep at this point for a complete or partial ban on guns IMO. Too many of them exist and in many cases guns already purchased are grandfathered when bills are written. A perfect example is the fully auto ban. The law, as I understand it, banned the manufacturing of fully automatic weapons, but it did not strictly ban the direct ownership of them in all areas. We really need to work on the larger picture to solve these problems, along with some sensible regulation to prevent needless deaths, like the many accidental toddler deaths that happen in this country. We need to raise the standard of living for those in poverty, offer better mental health programs to those who need them, keep a better list, that is actually used, of people who should not be in possession of dangerous weapons and make it so they can petition it if a mistake is made, stop the war on drugs that gives gangs so much power, and find a better way to handle terrorism globally. Admittedly I have no idea where to even begin with these issues, but that isn't my job either. These issues are the root of pretty much all violence, aside from your atypical crime of passion IMO.

I was talking to someone the other day about getting a CHL and was asking him about the local gun ranges and even here there is only one, that he knew of, in a 50 square mile area that will add lateral movement to your shooting targets (keep in mind 80% of our residents where I live have a CHL). This means unless you hunt regularly, are a current/former police officer, or current/former military you will not be even close to the right level of skill to take down a 'bad guy' in a crowded area where people aren't just sitting ducks, like targets at a gun range are. If people want to be prepared for a hero moment then they should bother taking/offering real training to the public so that it is a reasonable thing for someone to do. It should be included with deescalation training of some sort, self defense, and practical application. It should be treated like martial arts, in that you only use it as a true last resort (meaning if you can run away or just give the person the $20 in your pocket then that's what you should do instead). Owning a gun should not mean that you seek out trouble to confront, like the Zimmerman's of the world have been doing.

On a separate note, I really hate people who open carry (something my state recently expanded). For one, it is tactically dumb. If a situation is about to go south the last thing you want to be doing is giving the bad guys the upper hand by letting them know who's holding weapons, thus putting a huge target on your back. If you're being mugged it goes the same way. They know you have it so you won't be able to use it and the likelihood that you could keep them from taking it drops to zero, compared to it being hidden somewhere. For two, it makes law enforcement's job harder as it becomes quite a bit harder to discern an everyday situation from a potentially deadly one, before it gets to that point. For three, IMO, whether intentional or not, all it accomplishes is to intimidate people. For some individuals it literally affects their personalities.

My only other issue with people who walk around with guns, concealed or otherwise, is that owning a gun gives some people a sense of security and confidence that is likely to accidentally escalate a situation into a dangerous fight to the death. You might be less inclined to run away if the opportunity presents itself, or underestimate your opponent. I'm a pacifist until it's unreasonable to be a pacifist, so the idea of killing someone over a stolen watch or cell phone, or something along those lines, doesn't sit well with me either, but it is admittedly hard to know how a situation will go in the heat of the moment.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 14, 2016)

Can you please describe to me what a "Zimmerman" is?

I ask because I *THINK* I take issue with the term.... 

1) Are you saying 'hispanics that shoot people?' (that's flagrantly racist)
2) Are you saying 'whites that shoot colored people?' (which is statistically non-existent, per FBI crime stats...)
3) Are you saying gun enthusiasts? (which zimmerman could hardly be called based on his choice of sidearm)

What group exactly are you trying to describe here...?


----------



## MFB (Jun 14, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Can you please describe to me what a "Zimmerman" is?
> 
> I ask because I *THINK* I take issue with the term....
> 
> ...



Someone with good intentions that acts on it in a way that he has no right doing?


----------



## synrgy (Jun 14, 2016)

That's pretty much what I was going for.


----------



## vilk (Jun 14, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Can you please describe to me what a "Zimmerman" is?
> 
> I ask because I *THINK* I take issue with the term....
> 
> ...



It's right there, in the same sentence.



flint757 said:


> *Owning a gun should not mean that you seek out trouble to confront*, like the Zimmerman's of the world have been doing.





Capn, what you're doing here is blatantly grasping for something to [pretend to] feel offended by. At least, that's how it came off to me.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 14, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Can you please describe to me what a "Zimmerman" is?
> 
> I ask because I *THINK* I take issue with the term....
> 
> ...



What I meant by that was individuals who seek out conflict, which is exactly what Zimmerman did. What happened after the conflict has been settled in trial, but it can't be denied the whole incident could have been avoided had he left the guy alone to begin with. He sought out conflict. Why were you even trying to make it a racist thing when nothing about what I said has anything to do with racism?



> Owning a gun should not mean that you *seek out trouble to confront*, like the Zimmerman's of the world have been doing.



The context should have expressed to you exactly what I meant. I wasn't commenting on the murder that occurred in that scenario, but the violence he played a part in escalating to the point that led to a murder and him being hospitalized. Something I sincerely doubt he would have done had he not been in possession of a weapon. If you wouldn't get involved in a fight when you have no weapons you shouldn't just because you're strapped, unless you literally have no choice. If you wouldn't get involved unarmed it means you have no training for such a task. In Zimmerman's case it's arguable once he helped escalate the situation he really didn't have a choice, but that wasn't what I was referring to.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 14, 2016)

MFB said:


> Someone with good intentions that acts on it in a way that he has no right doing?



As a 'white hispanic,' I approve of this usage. I would prefer none at all.....


----------



## Drew (Jun 14, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> My final comment on this topic:
> 
> 'When the US decides help a nation topple a leader that commits genocide, or that imprisons its people, or is generally ....ty to their populace.... How do they do it?'
> 
> ...



Not to split hairs, but we send their _militias_ guns. We don't just air-drop them over major urban areas and stand back to see what happens, we sell them to rebel groups fighting the rulers we want to overturn. 

You know, militias. That part of the 2nd amendment than you, and the NRA (who has the second part, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." engraved on the face of their headquarters, but totally admits the conditional at the start) are so eager to pretend isn't there?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 14, 2016)

The evidence leads to this guy having been a closeted-gay man troubled by his strict religious upbringing... and the tin-foil right wingers are calling that notion a cover up intended to avoid the real culprit of Extreme Islamic BoogieMan, or whatever the holy buzzword is.


----------



## vilk (Jun 14, 2016)

Well certainly there are a variety of reasons why individuals would do ISIS work. It isn't as though the fact that he's a closet homosexual makes him any less Muslim or what he did any less terrorism or his 911 call any less a pledge of allegiance to ISIS


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 14, 2016)

He supposedly pledged allegiance to other terrorist groups that are unrelated to or even enemies of ISIL. It seems much more plausible that he reached for extremism as a means of dealing with his homosexuality/self-loathing, and expressed same in the terrible way that he did. ISIL would have had his head if he were openly gay, anyway. Its Pride week and he attacked a gay club - Ocam's Razor works here.

Edit: Yes, it is still terrorism, but by the hand of an individual, rather than an orchestrated attack from a terrorist group. Homophobia and religious intolerance pushed this mentally unstable man to do what he did, as far as I can tell.


----------



## big_aug (Jun 14, 2016)

I always say this when this happens and I get into debates with people. There is more training and regulation that goes into getting a driver's license than there is to get a semi-automatic weapon. It blows my mind each and every time I think about it. I could go buy an assault rifle with a 30 round banana clip with no training or oversight whatsoever. There is essentially no regulation.


----------



## robski92 (Jun 14, 2016)

> get an automatic weapon



Automatic weapons are illegal unless you get special approval and then can even afford one. No ordinary person can go to a random gun shop and purchase a fully automatic weapon.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 14, 2016)

robski92 said:


> Automatic weapons are illegal unless you get special approval and then can even afford one. No ordinary person can go to a random gun shop and purchase a fully automatic weapon.



Kind of... 1986 is the year that grand fathered arms.

Basically, NEW machine guns are illegal without a special permit.


----------



## big_aug (Jun 14, 2016)

Oh come on, you know I meant semi-automatic. It really doesn't matter. Semi-automatics are just as deadly as evidenced in this situation.


----------



## MFB (Jun 14, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> As a 'white hispanic,' I approve of this usage. I would prefer none at all.....



You approve of the usage that people who have no formal training with weapons have the ability to make themselves judge, jury, and executioner in a situation that they don't know all the details of?


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 14, 2016)

flint757 said:


> I'm not anti-gun in the slightest, but I do wish they required a lot more training and storage requirements than they currently do. I could go to the store today and pickup a shotgun as long as I pass a quick 30 minute basic background check: no training required, no safety measures required, no storage requirements; it's that I take issue with. A little boy killed himself a couple weeks ago, near where I live, because he picked up his grand dads loaded revolver off his nightstand and shot himself. On the same token, a presumed crackhead (or perhaps someone mentally unstable) held a family at gunpoint at a McDonald's drive-through by my house (a truly rare occurrence to say the least) and luckily the father had a CHL license and stopped the man before he could potentially harm his wife and daughter.



this is probably the most reasonable gun safety measure i could get behind. i will always be for education over prohibition. for first time buyers they need a range day with a certified instructor. it would be like drivers ed that way. it would be boring for kids who grew up around guns... but im sure drivers ed is boring for kids who grew up driving tractors. 

i definitely would want some provision or protection for kids who compete. i was a Olympic-style precision shooter and there are loads of kids. maybe there range time as a teen can count towards a purchase as an adult or something.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 14, 2016)

MFB said:


> You approve of the usage that people who have no formal training with weapons have the ability to make themselves judge, jury, and executioner in a situation that they don't know all the details of?



No, I was basically saying that I was uncomfortable with using "Zimmerman's" to describe a demographic group.... and trying to determine what that group might be.

I'm still not sure really. I am pretty sure in this context it meant 'someone who is looking for a situation to escalate.'

I think that is a fine usage, but it makes me nervous to use "Zimmerman" as a pronoun.


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 14, 2016)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The evidence leads to this guy having been a closeted-gay man troubled by his strict religious upbringing... and the tin-foil right wingers are calling that notion a cover up intended to avoid the real culprit of Extreme Islamic BoogieMan, or whatever the holy buzzword is.



Having had the pleasure of growing up in a household that decided that Catholicism wasn't hardcore enough and made the move to Evangelical Christian, I can firmly attest that the phenomenon of indoctrinated guilt transforming into a destructive, "weaponize-able" self-loathing is hardly native to Islam.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 14, 2016)

Demiurge said:


> Having had the pleasure of growing up in a household that decided that Catholicism wasn't hardcore enough and made the move to Evangelical Christian, I can firmly attest that the phenomenon of indoctrinated guilt transforming into a destructive, "weaponize-able" self-loathing is hardly native to Islam.



Absolutely. Religion isn't even required - one incredibly old fashioned and cruel parent is enough to do the trick. Religion often has the special ingredient that is the promise of eternal damnation, which sort of just drives the issue home.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jun 14, 2016)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The evidence leads to this guy having been a closeted-gay man troubled by his strict religious upbringing... and the tin-foil right wingers are calling that notion a cover up intended to avoid the real culprit of Extreme Islamic BoogieMan, or whatever the holy buzzword is.



The notion that he was a "terrorist" is absurd. He was just an a-hole with gun that couldn't cope with the fact that he was gay, so he decided to show the world he wasn't by shooting up a gay bar. 

The really scary thing is that there are hundreds more xenophobe/homophobes just like him who (fortunately) don't have the stones to go out and commit violence like that. Instead, they just troll the internet and attend Trump rallies.

The idea that the Islamic faith is responsible for any of the recent shootings is absurd as saying Mickey Mouse is responsible. The Columbine shootings were done by suburban white kids. The Sandy Hook shooter was a white male. The movie theater shooter was a suburban white kid.. The common thread is that these people are/were mentally unstable.


----------



## ThomasUV777 (Jun 15, 2016)

I know statistics are manipulable and the guardian is often rubbish, but these numbers are pretty sad: 

1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like | US news | The Guardian


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 15, 2016)

A lot of those mass shootings especially in bigger cities are the result of a gang/drug problem, and not necessarily a gun problem. Obviously people are getting shot so it's easy to focus on the cause of death, but there are definite underlying causes that need to be addressed.


----------



## ThomasUV777 (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> A lot of those mass shootings especially in bigger cities are the result of a gang/drug problem, and not necessarily a gun problem. Obviously people are getting shot so it's easy to focus on the cause of death, but there are definite underlying causes that need to be addressed.



Lol? 

So the fact that guns are easily available in the US to anyone, even gang members, is not an issue?


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 15, 2016)

ThomasUV777 said:


> Lol?
> 
> So the fact that guns are easily available in the US to anyone, even gang members, is not an issue?



So is fertilizer; ask the people of OKC how that turned out. 

I stated that there are underlying causes to the violence it's not as cut and dry as "there are too many guns".


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> A lot of those mass shootings especially in bigger cities are the result of a gang/drug problem, and not necessarily a gun problem. Obviously people are getting shot so it's easy to focus on the cause of death, but there are definite underlying causes that need to be addressed.



I'd like to see some statistics on that. Bear in mind that a mass shooting is 4 or more people killed.

Gang shootings are a fairly large portion of total gun violence, but I found no evidence to support the idea that gangs cause a significant portion of mass shootings.

Somewhat germane to this particular point: http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

Certainly not an exhaustive list by any stretch, however, what is stunning to me is how few non-white mass shooters there are. That certainly doesn't lead me to think the problem rests with drugs and gangland violence since we're told gangs are overwhelmingly made up of minorities.


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 15, 2016)

Mordacain said:


> I'd like to see some statistics on that. Bear in mind that a mass shooting is 4 or more people killed.
> 
> Gang shootings are a fairly large portion of total gun violence, but I found no evidence to support the idea that gangs cause a significant portion of mass shootings.
> 
> ...


I scrolled through the above list and can assure you 90% of Chicago related shootings are gang related. The problem also lies in the fact that these shooters are never caught. How do I know? I live here and read the statistics daily. As is the case with Baltimore and several other large cities that turn up on that list over and over. The mass shootings listed in the Times article are the most notorious, but I'm talking about the"mass shootings" that are happening on a daily basis that nobody is even taking about.


----------



## ThomasUV777 (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> So is fertilizer; ask the people of OKC how that turned out.



And lets not forget there are fertilizer bombings on a daily basis. Except that there aren't. Kind of a bad comparison you're making there really.


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 15, 2016)

ThomasUV777 said:


> And lets not forget there are fertilizer bombings on a daily basis. Except that there aren't. Kind of a bad comparison you're making there really.



Not really, we are talking about things that are easily obtainable that can cause harm to many people. Psychos are going to kill people whether or not guns are readily available.


----------



## ThomasUV777 (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> Not really, we are talking about things that are easily obtainable that can cause harm to many people. Psychos are going to kill people whether or not guns are readily available.



No, you're talking about that. I was talking about guns that are easily available. Guns are made for one purpose only (and don't give me an you-can-also-use-it-to-shoot-bottlecaps-off-bottles). You can weaponise everything, but you're pretty defenceless when someone's pointing a gun at you vs someone chasing you with a hammer. "The Hammer and Fertilizer Massacre" doesn't appear in the news too often either.

I've posted this here before, but I suggest you give it a look. While it's a sketch, it pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 15, 2016)

Convenience really does factor into it. I could kill someone with a stick of deodorant if I really wanted to (which is, sadly, a highly amusing mental picture), but it would require an unbelievable amount of dedication because of how insanely difficult it would be. Guns, especially when they're so accessible, make killing easy, because that's what they're designed to do. If a person can arm themselves just as easily as they can take out a payday loan, they're going to be that much more likely to carry out a shooting, just like putting recycling bins everywhere makes people more likely to recycle; because it's easier.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 15, 2016)

Spinedriver said:


> The notion that he was a "terrorist" is absurd. He was just an a-hole with gun that couldn't cope with the fact that he was gay, so he decided to show the world he wasn't by shooting up a gay bar.



this is a mistake. when assessing mass shooters, the media (and hence the public) sticks to arbitrary qualifiers for what a terrorist. terror in the US means its religiously motivated (this part adds up here). but even the white middle class psychos who go off in a mall are terrorists from a militaristic sense. 

Look a Columbine and tell me how its different from the 2 Palestinians who shot up an Israeli restaurant a week or so ago. same tactics. insight fear and mass public damage by hitting a soft target with multiple armaments.

Terrorism is a technique. 




ThomasUV777 said:


> Lol?
> 
> So the fact that guns are easily available in the US to anyone, even gang members, is not an issue?



many gang members use stolen firearms and when they don't personally own one, will use a "community gun" which is stashed until its needed. 

One such handgun in Providence RI was tracked to 26 shootings after it was confiscated. 

Guns from a store are expensive. gang bangers can't afford them. hence why rifles are hardly used in gang violence.



Mordacain said:


> I'd like to see some statistics on that. Bear in mind that a mass shooting is 4 or more people killed.
> 
> Gang shootings are a fairly large portion of total gun violence, but I found no evidence to support the idea that gangs cause a significant portion of mass shootings.
> 
> ...



Drive bys dude. Drive bys. there are plenty of shootings with multiple victims, the problem is when law enforcement on a local level categorizes the violence as gang related, it doesn't make its way up media pipeline since it doesn't fit the above mass shooter model. 

Last night in Providence RI five men were targeted in a basketball court. the shooter managed to miss all of them and drove off. if he were more successful it would've been a mass shooting... but gang related so it wouldn't be reported nationally.



Womb raider said:


> I scrolled through the above list and can assure you 90% of Chicago related shootings are gang related. The problem also lies in the fact that these shooters are never caught. How do I know? I live here and read the statistics daily. As is the case with Baltimore and several other large cities that turn up on that list over and over. The mass shootings listed in the Times article are the most notorious, but I'm talking about the"mass shootings" that are happening on a daily basis that nobody is even taking about.



what this guy said.



Xaios said:


> Convenience really does factor into it. I could kill someone with a stick of deodorant if I really wanted to (which is, sadly, a highly amusing mental picture), but it would require an unbelievable amount of dedication because of how insanely difficult it would be. Guns, especially when they're so accessible, make killing easy, because that's what they're designed to do. If a person can arm themselves just as easily as they can take out a payday loan, they're going to be that much more likely to carry out a shooting, just like putting recycling bins everywhere makes people more likely to recycle; because it's easier.



in which case our gun laws must be working because "powerful" guns like rifles and shotguns still trail behind several murder methods in the US per the FBI. 

Shotguns were responsible for 308 murder in 2013 making them the deadliest non-handgun. 

trailed behind hammers: 428. Hands, fists and feet: 687. and knives: 1,490.

compare to the handgun which is the favorite of street crime and 1st degree murders: 5,782. 

it can't be stated enough, ^ that handgun number is driven waaaaay up by gang violence, which is motivated by drugs and black market money. 

if we do the right thing and end the war on drugs this goes away by itself. leaving the US with only first degree murder and our unique mass shooter problem (cultural problem IMO). 

we would have a gun death rate closer resembling Europe when adjusted for population. 

now for some light reading material for everyone. This online slide show helps clear up some misnomers about AR rifles

The Truth About Assault Weapons

quick hits: 


"assault weapon" is a political football term invented to confuse an uneducated public into believing guns that aesthetically resemble military rifles are in fact fully automatic weapons. (the correct term for an automatic rifle is Assault Rifle). *see the Death Tax term as a political football for the estate tax*

mass shooters don't care about magazine capacity. 

the AWB (which invented the term "assault weapon") did frack all when it came to curbing gun violence.

EDIT: i'm seeing a lot of comments on facebook from gun illiterate people harping on "murder apologists" for getting defensive when mass shootings happen (hint it's the news coverage). but there's a solid reason for it. Gun proponents have been countering the same bad shooting arguments for over 20 years. http://reason.com/archives/1995/11/01/shooting-blind/print 

the only other industries i see scapegoated as much as firearms are extreme music, porn and video games.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> I stated that there are underlying causes to the violence it's not as cut and dry as "there are too many guns".



I posted some statistics upthread comparing London with demographically-similar US cities. I find it extremely implausible that London's 10-100x lower per capita rate of firearm murder can be explained as "the US has a gang/drug problem."


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> I posted some statistics upthread comparing London with demographically-similar US cities. I find it extremely implausible that London's 10-100x lower per capita rate of firearm murder can be explained as "the US has a gang/drug problem."




you literally picked three cities with the highest crimes rates outside of Chicago, NYC and LA. they might have high white populations, but a lot of them are 1) aging or 2) live in financially segregated areas. 

London has the benefit of being a GLOBAL city with lots of white wealth. what you picked were cities with less wealthy white populations

Sand Diego has a huge MS 13 problem. (least crime of all due to high COL) 
St. Louis is a breeding ground for gang activity and it famous for having areas too dangerous for cops to patrol. 
Milwaukee has a trafficking problem (traffickers usually have illegal guns based on police reports i read daily). 
Charlotte is a poor man's Atlanta

i think you see my point. just looking at the numbers gives you the beginning of a story not the end. however your statistical analysis would have carried weight at the "Vox newsroom of little-to-no-research" so there's that.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

So if a terrorist is a person who uses mass fear and hysteria as a tool to obtain political and social change, was this shooter a terrorist?

Certainly there is a lot of talk about it, which might bring about a social change, but my question is pertaining to this guy's intentions.

In order for this shooter to have cared enough to shoot up the place, I'd speculate he must have been rejected or something equally emotionally powerful must have happened to him there. If he simply intended to kill, he could have used poison or explosives, but using firearms leads me to suspect that he intended this to be personal.

So I think calling this shooter a terrorist is actually giving him too much credit.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> you literally picked three cities with the highest crimes rates outside of Chicago, NYC and LA. they might have high white populations, but a lot of them are 1) aging or 2) live in financially segregated areas.



I picked large US cities with roughly equivalent white-population percentages to London. The fact that they have high crime rates was not a factor in selection. If "lots of white wealth" is a significant factor, then maybe you'd prefer that we compare the per-capita firearm murder rate in London to places like LA or NYC? I'm pretty sure London is still going to come off looking rosy in that comparison.


----------



## SD83 (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> I posted some statistics upthread comparing London with demographically-similar US cities. I find it extremely implausible that London's 10-100x lower per capita rate of firearm murder can be explained as "the US has a gang/drug problem."



... and it's not like drugs are legal in the UK/most european countries. So how is it that we don't have (that many) problems with gang violence? Yes, we have our gangs, we have organized crime, but I have never heard of streets or areas where the police hardly dare go to, or drive-by shootings anywhere.
As for the "stolen firearms": The less firearms there are, the less can be stolen. If you rob a house in a country where there are 110 guns per 100 people and no regulations about how to store them, you'll likely find a gun that you can take away. If you do the same thing in a country where there are 30 per 100, and strict regulations that those guns have to be stored in a safe, and the ammunition in another, it's unlikely that you're going to leave the house with a gun or ammunition, let alone both. (as far as I know, there is also a strict limitation as to how much ammunition you are allowed to have at home).



bostjan said:


> So I think calling this shooter a terrorist is actually giving him too much credit.



Even if you were to consider him a terrorist (which I'd say is justified), what I have a problem with is giving credit to ISIL as I don't see how they have anything to do with it except for the shooter saying "oh and btw, I love ISIL!".


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> I posted some statistics upthread comparing London with demographically-similar US cities. I find it extremely implausible that London's 10-100x lower per capita rate of firearm murder can be explained as "the US has a gang/drug problem."



Every one of those cities you cite aside from San Diego have underlying social and economical issues that are completely foreign to London and most of Europe as a whole. It's disingenuous to place blame on inanimate objects and completely ignore the root cause.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> Every one of those cities you cite aside from San Diego have underlying social and economical issues that are completely foreign to London and most of Europe as a whole. It's disingenuous to place blame on inanimate objects and completely ignore the root cause.



Please explain your reasoning. I don't doubt that issues are *different* in different places, and that things might even be worse by some objective measures for a large number of people in those US cities (which measures, though, and why are they relevant?), but we're talking about a 100x difference in the level of firearm murder, measured per capita. How does one explain that away as *not* related to the ready availability of firearms in the US?


----------



## vilk (Jun 15, 2016)

While it's true that America's violence problem is not solely the fault of access to guns,
it seems counter-intuitive to think that all the gangstas on the south side should be able to continue shooting people up if they didn't have any guns to do it with. Unless they like get some blow-darts or something. 

"buuuut viiiillllk, whaaat about illeeeeegal gunsssss??????????"

Well, lets talk about where illegal guns come from. They're not grown on trees, neither are they brewed in a bath tub. Generally, they're the booty of a theft. People steal guns from shops, homes, from their own friends and family members (or simply receive the weapon as a gift). They also do get many of them from real gun shops that are shady and sell them illegally. We make the guns HERE, in the United States. They're not getting these weapons from some secret foreign source that's sneaking it through a tunnel under the boarder. 

Yes, normal people don't commit crimes with their guns. But, normal people are indeed the victims of gun theft. If criminals cannot buy guns, and there are no guns for them to steal, then necessarily they've got nothing to shoot bullets with. They may try using a sling-shot. 

The only point to be made is that there are already a lot of guns out there. Collecting them would be a very involved and expensive process. Having said that, plenty of other countries have done it just fine. My own personal opinion: they only really need to grab up the handguns and anything that's semi-automatic. I think we'd probably be pretty OK with bolt-action rifles and pump shotguns still around.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Please explain your reasoning. I don't doubt that issues are *different* in different places, and that things might even be worse by some objective measures for a large number of people in those US cities (which measures, though, and why are they relevant?), but we're talking about a 100x difference in the level of firearm murder, measured per capita. How does one explain that away as *not* related to the ready availability of firearms in the US?



because relative availability does not correlate to motive. when there's a motive, people find what is readily available. which if you paid attention to my stats above, you would know is knives. 

i make an exception for handgun rates and organized crime because the FBI and CDC makes the same exception. 

so knowing people kill with what is most available. wouldn't it make sense to compare just the homicide rate? 

violent Londoners don't have access to firearms... okay, but that doesn't mean that people _weren't _ killed because of lack of firearms. 

and considering the murder rate in London spiked by 20% last year tells me quite a few people undeterred by the lack of guns still managed to kill someone anyway. 

BTW this comparison is murder in the 1st degree - i could understand that a crime of passion is more survivable if there isn't a gun available. 

it's really apples and oranges.


----------



## big_aug (Jun 15, 2016)

Guns are a problem. Period. Nothing else is comparable. An entire industry has focused on making them extremely reliable and easy to use. That is why they are so dangerous. They are extremely effective at doing what they were designed to do: kill. Give 100 people a gun and ammo. Ask them to shoot something. I have a feeling most will figure it out in minutes without assistance. They might not do it "right" but they will be capable of killing with it. Give 100 people some fertilizer and ask them to make a bomb with no help. I doubt they'd as capable of completing that task. 

Guns are easy to use and easy to get. A bad combination.


----------



## vilk (Jun 15, 2016)

I would not assume that most gun deaths in the USA are murder in the 1st degree. 1st degree murder has a premeditated target. Even this shooting in Orlando wouldn't count towards 1st degree murder rate. Am I wrong?


----------



## big_aug (Jun 15, 2016)

vilk said:


> I would not assume that most gun deaths in the USA are murder in the 1st degree. 1st degree murder has a premeditated target. Even this shooting in Orlando wouldn't count towards 1st degree murder rate. Am I wrong?



He thought it out and planned it. That world be premeditated. Probably a lot or most of gun deaths are not actually premeditated though.


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 15, 2016)

vilk said:


> Well, lets talk about where illegal guns come from. They're not grown on trees, neither are they brewed in a bath tub. Generally, they're the booty of a theft. People steal guns from shops, homes, from their own friends and family members (or simply receive the weapon as a gift). They also do get many of them from real gun shops that are shady and sell them illegally. We make the guns HERE, in the United States. They're not getting these weapons from some secret foreign source that's sneaking it through a tunnel under the boarder.
> 
> Yes, normal people don't commit crimes with their guns. But, normal people are indeed the victims of gun theft. If criminals cannot buy guns, and there are no guns for them to steal, then necessarily they've got nothing to shoot bullets with. They may try using a sling-shot.
> 
> The only point to be made is that there are already a lot of guns out there. Collecting them would be a very involved and expensive process. Having said that, plenty of other countries have done it just fine. My own personal opinion: they only really need to grab up the handguns and anything that's semi-automatic. I think we'd probably be pretty OK with bolt-action rifles and pump shotguns still around.



Most Illegal weapons are the result of straw purchases. The US will not confiscate handguns, at least in my lifetime. That would require raiding everyone's house and physically removing them which violates multiple Constitutional and Bill of rights.

On that note, why is it that big cities in states like Texas and Nevada which have far higher gun ownership rates per capita seem to have far lower gun violence statistics than say Chicago or Baltimore?


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 15, 2016)

big_aug said:


> Guns are a problem. Period. Nothing else is comparable. An entire industry has focused on making them extremely reliable and easy to use. That is why they are so dangerous. They are extremely effective at doing what they were designed to do: kill. Give 100 people a gun and ammo. Ask them to shoot something. I have a feeling most will figure it out in minutes without assistance. They might not do it "right" but they will be capable of killing with it. Give 100 people some fertilizer and ask them to make a bomb with no help. I doubt they'd as capable of completing that task.
> 
> Guns are easy to use and easy to get. A bad combination.



Chefs knives are a problem. Period. Nothing else is comparable. An entire industry has focused on making them extremely reliable and easy to use. That is why they are so dangerous. They are extremely effective at doing what they were designed to do: cut flesh easily. Give 100 people a chefs knife and sharpening block. Ask them to cut something. I have a feeling most will figure it out in minutes without assistance. They might not do it "right" but they will be capable of killing with it. 

Chefs knives are easy to use and easy to get. A bad combination.

*end sarcasm* 

you can't police intent, and availability does not correlate to motive.



vilk said:


> I would not assume that most gun deaths in the USA are murder in the 1st degree. 1st degree murder has a premeditated target. Even this shooting in Orlando wouldn't count towards 1st degree murder rate. Am I wrong?



if he were caught alive he would be tried for 49 counts of first degree murder


----------



## vilk (Jun 15, 2016)

big_aug said:


> He thought it out and planned it. That world be premeditated. Probably a lot or most of gun deaths are not actually premeditated though.



I thought for it to be 1st degree, the target(s) had to be premeditated, and that otherwise it's 2nd degree. But I'm not a lawyer I don't know.


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2016)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> you can't police intent, and availability does not correlate to motive.



By that measure, why bother locking the doors of your car if someone can just smash the windows to grab your stuff?


----------



## vilk (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> Most Illegal weapons are the result of straw purchases. The US will not confiscate handguns, at least in my lifetime. That would require raiding everyone's house and physically removing them which violates multiple Constitutional and Bill of rights.
> 
> On that note, why is it that big cities in states like Texas and Nevada which have far higher gun ownership rates per capita seem to have far lower gun violence statistics than say Chicago or Baltimore?



idk man, that's a mystery. But it definitely doesn't stand to nullify that you can't really fire bullets without guns, which was my only point.


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 15, 2016)

Randy said:


> By that measure, why bother locking the doors of your car if someone can just smash the windows to grab your stuff?



You know the old saying, "locks only keep the honest people out..."


----------



## big_aug (Jun 15, 2016)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Chefs knives are a problem. Period. Nothing else is comparable. An entire industry has focused on making them extremely reliable and easy to use. That is why they are so dangerous. They are extremely effective at doing what they were designed to do: cut flesh easily. Give 100 people a chefs knife and sharpening block. Ask them to cut something. I have a feeling most will figure it out in minutes without assistance. They might not do it "right" but they will be capable of killing with it.
> 
> Chefs knives are easy to use and easy to get. A bad combination.
> 
> ...




It's not actually easy to kill people with a knife. How many people do you think this man would have killed with a knife?

You are the reason no progres is ever made. Foolish arguments not grounded in reality.


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> On that note, why is it that big cities in states like Texas and Nevada which have far higher gun ownership rates per capita seem to have far lower gun violence statistics than say Chicago or Baltimore?



Correlation =/= causation

There's a multitude of reasons why crime occurs more in some cities and areas than others. Also, "mass shootings of innocent people" (you know, the thing that brought about this discussion in the first place) follow a completely different algorithm than the type of urban violence you're referencing.



Womb raider said:


> You know the old saying, "locks only keep the honest people out..."



That's a new one on me. Well, I love honest people, so I guess I'll be leaving all my doors unlocked from now on. Thanks for that nugget of wisdom.


----------



## vilk (Jun 15, 2016)

Comparing knives to guns? For real? Like, not even joking?


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> because relative availability does not correlate to motive. when there's a motive, people find what is readily available. which if you paid attention to my stats above, you would know is knives.
> 
> i make an exception for handgun rates and organized crime because the FBI and CDC makes the same exception.
> 
> ...



If the question is what we're doing about shootings, particularly mass shootings, then I don't really see what relevance the overall murder rate has. That said, the US murder rate per capita is over twice as high as the next-closest western-European rate (Finland), and nearly four times that of the UK (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate).

By the way, the recent London numbers you cite are still substantially lower than the numbers from a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London#Murder. Compare that historical range to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(2014) for US rates - London's rate, even at its highest, is lower than nearly every US city over a quarter-million people (sort by the "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" column for easy viewing). Given the presumption that people in the US and the UK have roughly equivalent access to knives, hammers, and fists, I'm still convinced that availability of guns is the major difference.


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 15, 2016)

Randy said:


> Correlation =/= causation
> 
> There's a multitude of reasons why crime occurs more in some cities and areas than others. Also, "mass shootings of innocent people" (you know, the thing that brought about this discussion in the first place) follow a completely different algorithm than the type of urban violence you're referencing.


I'm just going off mass shootings as described by the US News article where 4 people shot = mass shooting. I don't know where they got that number from, and it seems completely arbitrary me. The numbers are completely skewed if you include everyday urban violence.


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> I'm just going off mass shootings as described by the US News article where 4 people shot = mass shooting. I don't know where they got that number from, and it seems completely arbitrary me.



I'll agree with you on that. What a normal person understands as a "mass shooting" seems to be pretty clear cut, with things like Newtown, Aurora, etc. where it's a single armed person shooting a room full of people completely unprovoked. Picking "4 people = mass shooting" out of thin air could include domestic disputes where a person attacks multiple family members, or a drug deal "gone bad" that turns into a shootout, and several other scenarios; none of which logically fit the model being discussed.

No matter what side you're on, it definitely does the whole debate a disservice when people (not you, I'm referencing the article) start tossing in blanket stats and statements not relating directly to the discussion at hand.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

Randy said:


> Correlation =/= causation



This is true. However, to be more specific, correlation does not imply causation; however, causation does express correlation.

For example, if you say there are more guns in x than y, and more murders in x than y, there is correlation. This does not imply causation.

If you say guns are the sole cause of murders, and there are more guns in x than y, it expresses that there are to be more murders in x than in y.

I believe this argument can be worked on both sides, though, right?

Saying correlation does not imply causation also opens up the argument that fewer guns in London and fewer gun-related deaths in London does not imply that guns cause gun-related deaths (obviously I don't agree with that statement, I'm just preempting it).

I think with the gun debate, you always get two very loud kinds of people:

A) Guns cause gun-related deaths. Gun related deaths are bad, thus guns are bad. Here is some logic and some statistics to back up why...

B) The second amendment says people can have weapons, so it's illegal to take away people's guns.

Is either side necessarily wrong? At that point, probably not, yet the argument eventually turns into a battle of "Yes it is / No it's not" or "You're wrong / No, you're wrong."

My stance is that no one can do anything about the guns in the USA, much more than they've already done, because there is too much opposition at the federal level, so the entire "Guns are bad / Don't take my guns" argument is entirely pointless. It seems my stance that the argument is pointless gets people even more fired up than either of the two sides fire each other up, but whatever, if you wanted to prove that a supermassive black hole colliding with the Earth would be bad, but yet, hypothetically, if a supermassive black hole was headed toward collision with the Earth, sitting around arguing about whether it is bad or whether the black hole has a God-given right to be there, it's pointless, because whilst we sit around arguing about it, the black hole would simply swallow the Earth.

So, the conservatives, in this case, are legally right, and without them saying that they are wrong, the law isn't going to change enough to solve anything, and yet hell will freeze over before the conservative change their stance, no matter how many charts and graphs and figures you throw at them.

Also note, that nowhere in this post have I stated my personal beliefs about gun control.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Interesting side note to the statistics I posted above: NYC and London are both approximately 8 million people, with about the same per-capita murder rate as their home countries (1.0 per 100k in London, 3.9 per 100k in NYC). NYC's per-capita firearm murder rate is somewhat difficult to find, but this source (http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/greenbook.pdf) indicates that over the last ten years, about 65% of NYC's murders involved a firearm. So the per-capita firearm murder rate in London is about 0.3, vs. about 2.5 for NYC.

Which is to say: in global cities of approximately the same size in each country (the US and the UK) where the overall murder rate per capita is roughly equivalent to the overall murder rate for the nation, any given murder is in NYC is about twice as likely to involve a firearm as in London, and about eight times as many people per capita are killed with guns in NYC than in London.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> I'm just going off mass shootings as described by the US News article where 4 people shot = mass shooting. I don't know where they got that number from, and it seems completely arbitrary me. The numbers are completely skewed if you include everyday urban violence.



Try this on for size, then. (Source: 13 Charts Put Americas Gun Violence in Perspective)







The point that the original source was trying to make is "see, mass shooting events in the US are not really any more frequent than in other developed countries." I think that's incorrect, because the number of *actual incidents* for the vast majority of countries on this chart is 1-2. That makes the occurrence and fatality rates highly contingent; if Anders Brevik had been stopped before the attacks in 2011, Norway's numbers would all be zero. The US, by contrast, had *thirty-eight* incidents over the same time period. Again, I'm seeing availability of guns as the best explanation for the discrepancy.


----------



## vilk (Jun 15, 2016)

Randy said:


> could include domestic disputes where a person attacks multiple family members, or a drug deal "gone bad" that turns into a shootout, and several other scenarios; none of which logically fit the model being discussed.



Idk, is it really necessary to draw the line? I mean, killing 3 people at separate times makes you a serial killer, so why shouldn't killing 4 people at once make you a mass murderer?

Is the action of a person who kills 4 people for ISIS really much different than the action of a person who kills 4 people for drug money? 

Richard Kuklinski is considered one of the most prolific serial killers, but he was under contract by the mafia. He was paid to kill people. Should he then not be considered a serial killer? I mean, he did kill people, serially, and lots of them, over a long period. Does getting paid make him not as mentally f///ed up as someone who did not get paid? That's difficult to say. Many say it's more than likely he still would have killed many people even if he had never been given any hits from the mafia.

For the same reason I think we should just leave it at killing 4 makes you a mass murderer, regardless of whether it was a drive by, a drug deal gone bad, or ISIS man shooting up a theater. If a dude murders a mass of people, that's an occurrence of mass murder.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> If the question is what we're doing about shootings, particularly mass shootings, then I don't really see what relevance the overall murder rate has. That said, the US murder rate per capita is over twice as high as the next-closest western-European rate (Finland), and nearly four times that of the UK (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate).
> 
> By the way, the recent London numbers you cite are still substantially lower than the numbers from a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London#Murder. Compare that historical range to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(2014) for US rates - London's rate, even at its highest, is lower than nearly every US city over a quarter-million people (sort by the "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" column for easy viewing). Given the presumption that people in the US and the UK have roughly equivalent access to knives, hammers, and fists, I'm still convinced that availability of guns is the major difference.



you're forgetting a few things that make the US an outlier in this regard. Namely geographic size and population makeup. 

Europe is lucky when it comes to violent crime rates as it has no cities in the top 50 for violent crime. The US has several. this skews us higher than other "developed" countries. 

when you get outside those cities it looks pretty European on average. 

additionally, given the amount of guns per capita our rate should be higher in violent crime (compared to other gun saturated countries *warning this is also not a fair comparison*) but we aren't and we're following with Europe with downward trending violence. 

that's why these 'cross-the-pond comparisons are too sloppy for my taste. the US is too different from state to state, let alone from city to city, when it comes to culture and population when compared to the comparatively homogeneous European nations


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Interesting side note to the statistics I posted above: NYC and London are both approximately 8 million people, with about the same per-capita murder rate as their home countries (1.0 per 100k in London, 3.9 per 100k in NYC). NYC's per-capita firearm murder rate is somewhat difficult to find, but this source (http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/greenbook.pdf) indicates that over the last ten years, about 65% of NYC's murders involved a firearm. So the per-capita firearm murder rate in London is about 0.3, vs. about 2.5 for NYC.
> 
> Which is to say: in global cities of approximately the same size in each country (the US and the UK) where the overall murder rate per capita is roughly equivalent to the overall murder rate for the nation, any given murder is in NYC is about twice as likely to involve a firearm as in London, and about eight times as many people per capita are killed with guns in NYC than in London.



NYC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the USA, though, no?


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> NYC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the USA, though, no?



People make the same argument about Chicago, and Mexico. My personal hypothesis - unsupported by data, mind you - is that the relevant factor here that's *not* relevant in places like, say, the UK or Australia, is the presence of a porous land border to jurisdictions where guns *are* readily available. That's a national border in the case of Mexico, and a city or state border in the case of US cities. (Mexico, of course, has other governance issues which may be relevant.)


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> you're forgetting a few things that make the US an outlier in this regard. Namely geographic size and population makeup.
> 
> Europe is lucky when it comes to violent crime rates as it has no cities in the top 50 for violent crime. The US has several. this skews us higher than other "developed" countries.
> 
> ...



I'm sure that the downward trend in violence is a big comfort to the thousands of Americans who are killed by guns every year, and to their loved ones. And the point about more violent cities seems a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing to me: how much less violent crime would we have *without* so many guns? (I also don't see the fact that Europe has no cities in the top 50 globally, while we have several, as "luck" on the part of the Europeans. I see it as a shameful failure on our part.)

Aside: would you start linking your sources, please? Or at least distinguishing your backed-with-data assertions from your in-my-opinion assertions? I have no idea how you're judging the "comparative homogeneity" of European nations, for example.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jun 15, 2016)

I don't know if this has been posted yet but:


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2016)

vilk said:


> Is the action of a person who kills 4 people for ISIS really much different than the action of a person who kills 4 people for drug money?
> 
> Richard Kuklinski is considered one of the most prolific serial killers, but he was under contract by the mafia. He was paid to kill people. Should he then not be considered a serial killer? I mean, he did kill people, serially, and lots of them, over a long period. Does getting paid make him not as mentally f///ed up as someone who did not get paid? That's difficult to say. Many say it's more than likely he still would have killed many people even if he had never been given any hits from the mafia.



I think it's a necessary distinction because in my definition of a mass murder, the victims are given no prior notice that they're going to be victims. You're minding your own business and person you don't know kills you for something you weren't involved in. 

If you didn't want to be killed by Kuklinski, don't join the mob and if you don't want to be killed in a drug hit, don't buy/sell drugs. Both scenarios you could seemingly be given some kinda of indication your life is at risk and alert the authorities well in advance. If you're totally straight laced and you're just dancing at a bar with your boyfriend or going to the theater to see a Batman movie, you're not given that benefit.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Randy said:


> I think it's a necessary distinction because in my definition of a mass murder, the victims are given no prior notice that they're going to be victims. You're minding your own business and person you don't know kills you for something you weren't involved in.
> 
> If you didn't want to be killed by Kuklinski, don't join the mob and if you don't want to be killed in a drug hit, don't buy/sell drugs. Both scenarios you could seemingly be given some kinda of indication your life is at risk and alert the authorities well in advance. If you're totally straight laced and you're just dancing at a bar with your boyfriend or going to the theater to see a Batman movie, you're not given that benefit.



I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, yes, this is all true. On the other hand, mass criminal violence is almost entirely a firearm-based phenomenon (no one's doing a drive-by with a hammer), and gun battles have the capability to involve innocent bystanders in a way that Jets/Sharks knife fights wouldn't.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> On that note, why is it that big cities in states like Texas and Nevada which have far higher gun ownership rates per capita seem to have far lower gun violence statistics than say Chicago or Baltimore?



Source? Here's what I'm seeing as far as per-capita gun murder rates go (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm):

Dallas metro: 4.2
Houston metro: 6.7
Las Vegas metro: 6.2
Chicago metro: 6.0
Baltimore metro: 10.3
DC metro: 5.5


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> I'm sure that the downward trend in violence is a big comfort to the thousands of Americans who are killed by guns every year, and to their loved ones. And the point about more violent cities seems a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing to me: how much less violent crime would we have *without* so many guns? (I also don't see the fact that Europe has no cities in the top 50 globally, while we have several, as "luck" on the part of the Europeans. I see it as a shameful failure on our part.)
> 
> Aside: would you start linking your sources, please? Or at least distinguishing your backed-with-data assertions from your in-my-opinion assertions? I have no idea how you're judging the "comparative homogeneity" of European nations, for example.



Most Dangerous Cities in the World - WorldAtlas.com

Violent Crime: The US and Abroad - Criminal Justice Degree Hub

Switzerland Demographics Profile 2014 < lots of guns but different population makeup 

the FBI crime table isn't hard to find. i was using the FBI numbers from 2013 but the 2014 numbers are out and once again deaths were down but there were more stabbings. 

the interesting part about the dangerous cities, (New Orleans, Detroit, Saint Louis, Baltimore) is that they are all in poor states with the exception being Michigan. 

a point could probably be made about wealthier states giving more support to their big population centers


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Switzerland Demographics Profile 2014 < lots of guns but different population makeup



Also extremely different context for gun ownership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland. Why not consider Germany or France instead, which (according to this Wikipedia article) have higher per-capita gun numbers and (almost certainly) more diverse populations?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> People make the same argument about Chicago, and Mexico. My personal hypothesis - unsupported by data, mind you - is that the relevant factor here that's *not* relevant in places like, say, the UK or Australia, is the presence of a porous land border to jurisdictions where guns *are* readily available. That's a national border in the case of Mexico, and a city or state border in the case of US cities. (Mexico, of course, has other governance issues which may be relevant.)



The thought also crossed my mind; however, in the case of NYC, I think the potential of getting a gun in directly from an outside place where guns are uncontrolled or undercontrolled is more difficult than, say, Juarez, because guns are also strictly controlled in NY state and NJ.

For the sake of discussion, and I mean no disrespect to the families of victims in doing this, but maybe we could learn something from thought experiment:

So the hypothetical scenario is that a "bad guy" somehow gets into a night club with a weapon: for discussion's sake, say, a 0.223" automatic rifle. This guy is mentally and emotionally out of control on the inside, yet is only subtly showing it on the outside. Say that this guy also has a nearly unlimited supply of ammunition and intends to kill as many people as possible and has no desire to survive the incident.

Scenario 1: Someone in the nightclub is a "good guy with a gun." Do you think such a person would be able to neutralize the "bad guy?" If so, would there be collateral lives lost in the process?

Side scenario 1 prime: The "good guy with a gun" is present in the night club, but the "bad guy" is not armed. How likely would the "bad guy" be able to gain control of the weapon? (Obviously this should be heavily dependent upon how responsible "good guy with a gun" is in keeping his concealed weapon secure)

Scenario 2: No "good guy with a gun" is present, regardless of gun control laws or nightclub policy. How could things be different.

Scenario 3: Strict gun control laws are present, but "bad guy" is still just as murderous. Do you think that he would be able to obtain a firearm illegally? Would he be able to make a bomb or poison everyone as easily or as effectively?

Scenario 4: This "bad guy," being identified by the FBI as a threat, receives mental heath analysis and is placed in a facility for treatment. Would he then be able to escape and carry out his plan effectively?


----------



## SD83 (Jun 15, 2016)

According to one line, yes. According to the very next line, it says Switzerland is no.4 in the world when it comes to gun ownership, way ahead of other European countries. I have no idea how they can put two so vastly different numbers in the same article, let alone within literally two lines.
As for gun ownership in Germany: It is heavily regulated. You have to get a license for which you have to prove that you a) did not commit certain crimes, b) are physically and mentally able to handle a weapon (ie no mental illnesses, no drug habit etc.), c) know how to handle a weapon and d) have reason to own one. Reasons include "being a hunter", "being a competative shooter" and a few others. As far as I read it, it is very hard to get the authorities to accept "to protect myself and/or my family" as a valid reason. This license can be revoked, for example if you have to go to jail for any reason for a certain amount of time, you're automatically deemed unfit to own a gun. 
And this licence only allows you to own a gun, you still have to tell the authorites in advance about every one you buy, you may not bring it anywhere (unless without ammunition), you may not wear it in public in any form (that applies even to entirely fake guns). You have to store it safely in a safe that meets certain specifications, and the ammunition has to be stored in another safe. 
The list goes on...


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> So, *the conservatives, in this case, are legally right*, and without them saying that they are wrong, the law isn't going to change enough to solve anything, and yet hell will freeze over before the conservative change their stance, no matter how many charts and graphs and figures you throw at them.



I'm sorry, bostjan, but this is simply not true. As I tried to point out repeatedly yesterday, the _Heller_ decision which establishes the Constitutional right to individual ownership of firearms explicitly allows that there are statutory limitations on that right which would pass Constitutional muster. It also explicitly states that the short list of allowable limitations specifically mentioned in the decision is not exhaustive. So there is some substantial unknown territory in terms of Constitutionally-permissible gun control legislation, which can only be determined by convincing American legislators to pass gun control laws, which means convincing American voters to elect and continue to support said legislators. On that basis, I don't see that this is in any way a futile effort. YMMV, obviously.

(And that line of reasoning assumes that the 2A interpretation of _Heller_ remains controlling, which is in no way a foregone conclusion.)


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 15, 2016)

The wife is under investigation.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

SD83 said:


> According to one line, yes. According to the very next line, it says Switzerland is no.4 in the world when it comes to gun ownership, way ahead of other European countries. I have no idea how they can put two so vastly different numbers in the same article, let alone within literally two lines.



It's a matter of sources and dates: the "lower than Germany, France, or Austria" assertion is based on data that is several years more recent than the data underlying the "third-highest in the world" assertion.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> B) The second amendment says people can have weapons, so it's illegal to take away people's guns.





bostjan said:


> So, the conservatives, in this case, are legally right...





celticelk said:


> I'm sorry, bostjan, but this is simply not true. As I tried to point out repeatedly yesterday, the _Heller_ decision which establishes the Constitutional right to individual ownership of firearms explicitly allows that there are statutory limitations on that right which would pass Constitutional muster. It also explicitly states that the short list of allowable limitations specifically mentioned in the decision is not exhaustive. So there is some substantial unknown territory in terms of Constitutionally-permissible gun control legislation, which can only be determined by convincing American legislators to pass gun control laws, which means convincing American voters to elect and continue to support said legislators. On that basis, I don't see that this is in any way a futile effort. YMMV, obviously.
> 
> (And that line of reasoning assumes that the 2A interpretation of _Heller_ remains controlling, which is in no way a foregone conclusion.)





Heller v District of Columbia said:


> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.





Heller v District of Columbia said:


> The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The Districts total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition  in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute  would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.



What piece of the puzzle is missing here?


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> What piece of the puzzle is missing here?



That there are restrictions on firearms sales and ownership that fall short of the "total ban" enacted by the DC law which was overturned by _Heller_.



> The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.



(Source: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php)


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> That there are restrictions on firearms sales and ownership that fall short of the "total ban" enacted by the DC law which was overturned by .
> 
> 
> 
> (Source: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php)



Ok, but who said there were no restrictions?


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Ok, but who said there were no restrictions?



OK, I think I see what you're saying. Let me rephrase: I don't agree that "no one can do anything about the guns in the USA," on the grounds that I believe that there are as-yet-unrealized statutory measures which are both effective and Constitutionally permissible under _Heller_. (I also maintain my belief that _Heller_ is not immune from negation, possibly in the near future, but that's sort of tangential to what I think you're saying here.) I'd agree that total bans and seizures of legally-purchased weapons from private citizens are forbidden under the current interpretation of the Constitution.


----------



## ThomasUV777 (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> B) The second amendment says people can have weapons, so it's illegal to take away people's guns.



Amendments can be changed. That's why they're called amendments. To amend. etc.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> OK, I think I see what you're saying. Let me rephrase: I don't agree that "no one can do anything about the guns in the USA," on the grounds that I believe that there are as-yet-unrealized statutory measures which are both effective and Constitutionally permissible under _Heller_. (I also maintain my belief that _Heller_ is not immune from negation, possibly in the near future, but that's sort of tangential to what I think you're saying here.) I'd agree that total bans and seizures of legally-purchased weapons from private citizens are forbidden under the current interpretation of the Constitution.





bostjan said:


> My stance is that *no one can do anything about the guns in the USA, much more than they've already done,* because there is too much opposition at the federal level, so the entire "Guns are bad / Don't take my guns" argument is entirely pointless.


 (emphasis added)

For the record, _Heller v District of Columbia_ placed *more* restriction on gun control laws, not less, as it may seem to some people from your posts (unless they read the actual decision), therefore there is less gun control because of it (in DC, which was the scope of the decision). Micro-analyzing the details of how the decision made it clear that it did not completely declare *any* gun control laws unconstitutional is really contrary to the point you seem to be trying to make that stricter gun control laws than the ones that exist are coming because of the wording of the decision.

So, to summarize in very broad terms, _Heller_ determined that gun bans in Washington DC (the entire argument was centered around that city, as it was not part of any state, therefore, the decision means little or nothing in other cities, whether you are pro-gun-ban or anti-gun-ban) are unconstitutional. 

So, is this discussion even relevant to anything? I predict this goes right back to "Guns are bad" / "It's my right."



ThomasUV777 said:


> Amendments can be changed. That's why they're called amendments. To amend. etc.



Agreed. However, an amendment is a change, not something that can or cannot be changed. Did you see my point though? You need a 2/3 majority to amend the US Constitution. That simply won't happen, whether there are Republicans or Democrats, when it comes to any of the first ten amendments. I'm not saying it cannot legally happen, just that it's extremely unlikely to happen. If anyone wants to bet me a six pack of their favourite beverage that the second amendment to the US Constitution will be amended in, say, the next four years, I'd be game. I'd wager much more, but I'm not a gambler.


----------



## ThomasUV777 (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> You need a 2/3 majority to amend the US Constitution. That simply won't happen, whether there are Republicans or Democrats, when it comes to any of the first ten amendments.



Sad truth :/


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> For the record, _Heller v District of Columbia_ placed *more* restriction on gun control laws, not less, as it may seem to some people from your posts (unless they read the actual decision), therefore there is less gun control because of it (in DC, which was the scope of the decision). Micro-analyzing the details of how the decision made it clear that it did not completely declare *any* gun control laws unconstitutional is really contrary to the point you seem to be trying to make that stricter gun control laws than the ones that exist are coming because of the wording of the decision.
> 
> So, to summarize in very broad terms, _Heller_ determined that gun bans in Washington DC (the entire argument was centered around that city, as it was not part of any state, therefore, the decision means little or nothing in other cities, whether you are pro-gun-ban or anti-gun-ban) are unconstitutional.
> 
> So, is this discussion even relevant to anything? I predict this goes right back to "Guns are bad" / "It's my right."



I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was that there are as-yet-unenacted statutory measures which are *less* restrictive than the ban struck down in _Heller_, but *more* restrictive than the current federal gun control laws - closing various loopholes in background-check laws, for example, or additional bans on specific types of weapons. We should also be clear that while _Heller_ as written leaves it uncertain whether state laws are subject to the ruling, _McDonald v. City of Chicago_ makes it explicit that state laws *are* subject to _Heller_. Most of the gun control laws challenged post-_Heller_ have, however, been deemed constitutional (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Post_ruling_impacts).


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

You're right, I'm totally missing your point.  Personally, I feel like I'm trying to hit a moving target, though.

If your point is that there could potentially be a bill written in US Congress that introduces more gun control, then I'd say that's basically a given, no argument here. 

It seemed to me, that you had flat out stated that I was wrong when I said that the conservatives were legally in the right on the issue of taking away people's guns. Then it seemed like your point was that whoever said there couldn't be restrictions on firearms was wrong. Then it seemed like your point was that _Heller_ somehow lead to more restrictive gun control. If I would have known, from the beginning, that all you were saying was that there could potentially be some sort of bill in the future introducing more gun control, then we could have had an entirely different discussion. Sorry, I tend to get rather defensive when someone flat out says I'm wrong about something that I believe I am right about. I think that's only human. 

Now, as far as more restrictive gun control measures, short of banning firearms, I don't think it would have stopped this guy in this instance.  I can't really comment on any details until I know the parameters, of this yet-unwritten bill for more gun control that might or might not be brought before US Congress for a vote.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> You're right, I'm totally missing your point.  Personally, I feel like I'm trying to hit a moving target, though.
> 
> If your point is that there could potentially be a bill written in US Congress that introduces more gun control, then I'd say that's basically a given, no argument here.
> 
> ...



This guy was able to buy "legal" guns because he was handled with kitten mitts by the FBI. They had AMPLE opportunity and reason to list him.

They didn't, and as to why, that is a whole-nother sorta discussion.

You all should be pissed that our reasonable EXISTING gun laws were basically torpedoed by policy here, resulting in massive loss of life.


----------



## Drew (Jun 15, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> This guy was able to buy "legal" guns because he was handled with kitten mitts by the FBI. They had AMPLE opportunity and reason to list him.
> 
> They didn't, and as to why, that is a whole-bother sorta discussion.
> 
> You all should be pissed that our reasonable EXISTING gun laws were basically torpedoed by policy here, resulting in massive loss of life.



Um, I think there's a misunderstanding here, because under our "reasonable EXISTING gun laws," he was totally legally able to buy guns. 

*His investigation on the Federal terrorism watch list was closed in 2013, because they were unable to find any links to extremist groups. In the wake of the shooting, investigators have still failed to uncover any contact with extremist groups. He was a "lone wolf" shooter in the strictest sense of the word, with no evidence of personal or digital/social media contact with extremist groups. 
*Even if he HAD been on the watch list, federal law prohibits checking to see if a gun buyer is on the watch list at the time of sale, so had there been any evidence of contact with extremist groups, the sale would have still gone through. 
*This is a moot point, because Florida doesn't even require an universal background check as part of the gun buying process, so no one would have bothered to check if he was under investigation for ties to known terrorist groups. 
*Furthermore, the shooter had a history of domestic violence, but Florida is one of the majority of states who allow people convicted of domestic violence to purchase guns, even though they're known and have been proved within a reasonable doubt to have a tendency for violence.

Handy link, because this continues to blow my effing mind how lax most states are: 

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/458829225/heres-where-gun-laws-stand-in-your-state

So, tell me, where did policy break down and where should our existing gun laws have stopped this?


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2016)

Drew said:


> So, tell me, where did policy break down and where should our existing gun laws have stopped this?



Gun law is lacking in options on this but good old fashion detective/surveillance work isn't. 

I don't understand what a guy does that puts him on the terrorist/no-fly list, but he can just be put on and off of it occasionally. "Well, he said 'Death to all Americans' but he hasn't said it in a couple months, so he must be over that? Let's cross him off the list." ...? I don't get how the can arbitrarily remove this guy from a list to where he can WALK DOWN MAINSTREET WITH A LONG RIFLE TWO DAYS AFTER ANOTHER CLUB WAS SHOT UP, AND MEET NEARLY NO RESISTANCE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT?

I agree that there's gotta be some movement on gun laws to fit where we're at in this country but other levels of enforcement could've helped prevent this and they didn't do jack sh_i_t.


----------



## bloodfiredoom (Jun 15, 2016)

Guns are unfortunately necessary, and the awful side-effects are unavoidable.

I have an idea.

Make a person wait three days before they can pick up their weapons. Don't want to wait? Get a psych. eval, pass a drug/background check, and a high level interview of your friends, family, and coworkers on a yearly basis.

This simple set of steps would reduce a lot of our problems. There will still be the guys who get them illegally, but I suspect that is a low percentage of people, since I can go buy all the handguns and rifles I want right this second.

Don't want progress? Then get used to the funerals and memorials.


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2016)

bloodfiredoom said:


> Guns are unfortunately necessary, and the awful side-effects are unavoidable.



Are they? So as a society, we're accepting of vigilantism or we have such low confidence in the competency our law enforcement and we think there's no options to make them more effective?


----------



## bloodfiredoom (Jun 15, 2016)

Randy said:


> Are they? So as a society, we're accepting of vigilantism or we have such low confidence in the competency our law enforcement and we think there's no options to make them more effective?



yes and yes


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> This guy was able to buy "legal" guns because he was handled with kitten mitts by the FBI. They had AMPLE opportunity and reason to list him.
> 
> They didn't, and as to why, that is a whole-nother sorta discussion.
> 
> You all should be pissed that our reasonable EXISTING gun laws were basically torpedoed by policy here, resulting in massive loss of life.



If this were true, then Congress wouldn't be currently debating a bill that does exactly what you claim current law already allows. I didn't even need to *look* to figure that out - NPR was reporting it on my drive home.


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2016)

bloodfiredoom said:


> yes and yes



I'd be inclined to say "no and kinda"


----------



## flint757 (Jun 15, 2016)

Randy said:


> Are they? So as a society, we're accepting of vigilantism or we have such low confidence in the competency our law enforcement and we think there's no options to make them more effective?



That really depends on response times just as much as it would on the competence of the police department. As an example, my uncle owns a ranch and he lives an hour from the nearest town. It'd be awhile before the police got to him if something were to happen and people have tried to steal his animals in the past. I can see the inherent value in having a weapon in your home if you live somewhere it'd take the police 20 minutes or more to get to you.


----------



## mongey (Jun 15, 2016)

bloodfiredoom said:


> yes and yes




each their own man but you do realize the USA is the only "western" country in the world that see's it that way 

I'm curious what about the USA makes it so gnarly that having the general population armed is a necessity, is it the fact that everyone is armed ? its a circle of violence


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 15, 2016)

mongey said:


> each their own man but you do realize the USA is the only "western" country in the world that see's it that way
> 
> I'm curious what about the USA makes it so gnarly that having the general population armed is a necessity, is it the fact that everyone is armed ? its a circle of violence



Having an armed populace isn't a "necessity" - it is a feature!

Would you live anywhere else? The reason for this, in part, is because of our unique "features" (rights).....

Wow.


----------



## works0fheart (Jun 15, 2016)

Science_Penguin said:


> Only one shooter at the night club, yes. He may be referring to the separate incident in California. A heavily-armed man by the name of James Howell was arrested after being discovered in his car with various weapons and possible explosives, and proclaiming his intentions to shoot up a gay pride parade. This happened at 5:00AM Pacific time on Sunday.
> 
> No known connection between the two incidents.



This is not what I was referring to. People here that were at the place (the victims) have said that there was more than one shooter and one was seen running off towards ORMC (a hospital) which the police locked down afterwards and the guy was not caught. Everyone here thinks that the media isn't releasing this information so everyone isn't sent into a mass hysteria.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

Society accepting of vigilantes? A little, but mostly not. Maybe 10% so.
Society mistrust police? I'd say mostly so, but it depends. In rural VT, people trust the police a lot more than Detroit. Other US cities I've visited lean more toward the attitude in Detroit: Sacramento, St. Louis, Indianapolis... but nowhere in the USA are police 100% trusted by the people. Worst case, someplace like Detroit, police are so mistrusted that some people don't even bother calling 911 if they are in danger. So, maybe 80% overall true.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Having an armed populace isn't a "necessity" - it is a feature!
> 
> Would you live anywhere else? The reason for this, in part, is because of our unique "features" (rights).....
> 
> Wow.



It's the 21st century. These freedoms are in place across most of the developed world - apart, obviously, from gun rights, which not everyone in America considers a "feature" either.


----------



## bloodfiredoom (Jun 15, 2016)

mongey said:


> each their own man but you do realize the USA is the only "western" country in the world that see's it that way
> 
> I'm curious what about the USA makes it so gnarly that having the general population armed is a necessity, is it the fact that everyone is armed ? its a circle of violence



my state allows open carry without any kind of license, so a majority of colorado thinks it is fine.

don't get me wrong, i hate it, but this country loves weapons. when there are enough guns to arm every man woman and child, with some left over, it is hard to argue with the fact that they are necessary. good luck stopping the cycle. there is no hope.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

works0fheart said:


> This is not what I was referring to. People here that were at the place (the victims) have said that there was more than one shooter and one was seen running off towards ORMC (a hospital) which the police locked down afterwards and the guy was not caught. Everyone here thinks that the media isn't releasing this information so everyone isn't sent into a mass hysteria.



I don't believe that for a hot second. First, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, especially under fire. Second, if the authorities in Orlando had credible information about a second shooter, the priority would be to find him, which means maximum media exposure.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> It's the 21st century. These freedoms are in place across most of the developed world - apart, obviously, from gun rights, which not everyone in America considers a "feature" either.



Every population that has suffered genocide in the last 100 years, has been legally disarmed....

I get what you are saying, but I don't think you get what I am saying.

'It is far better to have and not need, than to need and not have.'


----------



## bloodfiredoom (Jun 15, 2016)

i debated even getting involved in this thread, but i wanted to see how my comments would be received.

I noticed those with a moderate view tend to get beat up more than those who are fanatical for guns and those who are against (or want major reform). it is something that, in america, is never going to change unless the country collapses into chaos or tyranny, both of which are completely possible. this is a feature of america: a lot of big talking with no action.

so, it isnt something worry or talk about much.

as you were, im out.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Every population that has suffered genocide in the last 100 years, has been legally disarmed....
> 
> I get what you are saying, but I don't think you get what I am saying.
> 
> 'It is far better to have and not need, than to need and not have.'



But not every population with fewer gun rights than the US has suffered a genocide event. I find that to be extremely unpersuasive reasoning, especially in light of the substantial evidence that having a populace well-supplied with guns produces a significant increase in violence *right now*.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 15, 2016)

celticelk said:


> But not every population with fewer gun rights than the US has suffered a genocide event. I find that to be extremely unpersuasive reasoning, especially in light of the substantial evidence that having a populace well-supplied with guns produces a significant increase in violence *right now*.



Exactly, but EVERY population who has suffered genocide has been disarmed.... 

And the "level of violence" is significantly down in the last 20 years, as the number of guns in private hands have gone way up.

So what point are you trying to make?


----------



## pwsusi (Jun 15, 2016)

I don't think anyone can define a precise set of criteria that - if met, guarantees a person will not commit a crime with a fire arm and - if not met, will guarantee a person would commit a crime with a firearm. So if we can't define the problem i'm not sure how can we pass laws to fix it.

There are currently licensing requirements to purchase and own a firearm. There are background checks, waiting periods, etc. We could look at additional training for prospective gun owners too but that would have absolutely no impact on whether or not a person is going to shoot up a night club. It's a great idea to keep people from accidentally shooting themselves or someone else, but will not keep someone from doing what was done in Orlando. 

Laws do not prevent crime; they define it. The only thing that laws do is limit the freedoms of people who are willing to follow them.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 15, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Exactly, but EVERY population who has suffered genocide has been disarmed....
> 
> And the "level of violence" is significantly down in the last 20 years, as the number of guns in private hands have gone way up.
> 
> So what point are you trying to make?



That trying to defend gun rights with an appeal to fear over some entirely hypothetical future genocide when actual people are actually dying from actual gunshots right now is grotesque. YMMV.


----------



## Drew (Jun 15, 2016)

Randy said:


> Gun law is lacking in options on this but good old fashion detective/surveillance work isn't.
> 
> I don't understand what a guy does that puts him on the terrorist/no-fly list, but he can just be put on and off of it occasionally. "Well, he said 'Death to all Americans' but he hasn't said it in a couple months, so he must be over that? Let's cross him off the list." ...? I don't get how the can arbitrarily remove this guy from a list to where he can WALK DOWN MAINSTREET WITH A LONG RIFLE TWO DAYS AFTER ANOTHER CLUB WAS SHOT UP, AND MEET NEARLY NO RESISTANCE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT?
> 
> I agree that there's gotta be some movement on gun laws to fit where we're at in this country but other levels of enforcement could've helped prevent this and they didn't do jack sh_i_t.



Because I overthink things for fun, I did some reading into what got him flagged. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/noor-zahi-salman-omar-mateen.html

Essentially, he bragged to coworkers in a fight that he had ties too Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Paraphrasing, the investigators figured it probably wasn't credible anyway, since one is a predominantly Shiite group and the other predominantly Sunni and a member of one wouldn't be a member of the other, but they looked into it anyway. When interviewed he said he was just trying to get them to stop making fun of him for his Muslim heritage, ad they found zero evidence of any actual contact with either groups or any other known extremist/terrorist organizations. After 9 or 10 months, with nothing to show for it, they closed the file and pulled him off the list. 

This is a moot point, of course, because this wouldn't have stopped him from buying guns in the first place, since background checks aren't allowed to reference the terror watch list.


----------



## Drew (Jun 15, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Every population that has suffered genocide in the last 100 years, has been legally disarmed....
> 
> I get what you are saying, but I don't think you get what I am saying.
> 
> 'It is far better to have and not need, than to need and not have.'



Do you have anything other than empty slogans to contribute to this conversation? I'm still curious what this "policy" failure you speak of was, perhaps you could start there.


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2016)

Drew said:


> This is a moot point, of course, because this wouldn't have stopped him from buying guns in the first place, since background checks aren't allowed to reference the terror watch list.



Well, semi moot. They couldn't stop him from buying the gun (which is the real moot point IMO, since the San Bernardino shooter acquired his gun from a straw purchaser), but they'd have still been surveilling him and potentially been alerted to other cues he was about to carry out an attack.


----------



## SD83 (Jun 16, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Exactly, but EVERY population who has suffered genocide has been disarmed....



I had written a longer blog entry on that a while ago when some US politician said "The holocaust would never have happened if the jewish population would have been as well armed as the US population is" and why I think that is not only not necessarily true, but would actually have made things way worse (in German, wouldn't mind translating though). Because it would mean that everyone in that country would have had a gun, not only the rather small minority being under attack, but also the vast majority supporting the attacking government. If you had a gun or several in every single German house by 1940, including military grade equipment, my country would have turned into the Afghanistan of the 40s. It might have reduced that death toll for the Genocide, but it might have also prolonged the war into the 50s, maybe longer.
If the Tutsi in Rwanda would have been well armed, would they have stopped the Genocide? Probably not, because they were outnumbered by their attackers 9 to 1 and those would have been well armed as well, years of civil war, hoorray. (now that I think about it, if I remember correctly that one was actually in part carried out by a rather not-so-well armed militia with machetes and such, stuff that might have been readily available to the attacked as well).

Don't get me wrong, as citizen of current day USA, where all I know is from the news and places like this, I would want to have a gun. Just like I would want to have a gun as a citizen of Somalia, Syria, Libya or Iraq. Which is as far as I know a rather common view here, sadly.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 16, 2016)

pwsusi said:


> There are currently licensing requirements to purchase and own a firearm. There are background checks, waiting periods, etc. We could look at additional training for prospective gun owners too but that would have absolutely no impact on whether or not a person is going to shoot up a night club. It's a great idea to keep people from accidentally shooting themselves or someone else, but will not keep someone from doing what was done in Orlando.



Background checks, licensing, etc. apply to *handgun* purchases. Rifles and shotguns don't get the same treatment under federal law, and most states don't regulate them either. I could walk into a local sporting goods store right now and walk out with an AR-15 variant with no more waiting time than the length of the line at the register.



pwsusi said:


> Laws do not prevent crime; they define it. The only thing that laws do is limit the freedoms of people who are willing to follow them.



In counterpoint:



> Experts say the increased use of guns in terror attacks is an alarming trend. Arie Perliger, director of terrorism studies at the U.S. Military Academy, said that U.S. terrorists are turning to guns because since Sept. 11, the federal government has monitored the use of explosives and the trade of materials that can be turned into explosives. People on the terrorism watch list arent barred from buying guns, by contrast, although such a ban probably wouldnt have stopped the Charleston or San Bernardino shootings, because the suspects werent on the watch list.



Source: Terrorists Are Turning To Guns More Often In U.S. Attacks | FiveThirtyEight


----------



## Drew (Jun 16, 2016)

Randy said:


> Well, semi moot. They couldn't stop him from buying the gun (which is the real moot point IMO, since the San Bernardino shooter acquired his gun from a straw purchaser), but they'd have still been surveilling him and potentially been alerted to other cues he was about to carry out an attack.



True. And this is where things get kind of sticky. 

He was dropped from the list in 2013 because there was no evidence he had been in contact with extremists, either via in person contact, phone or email conversation, or through websites he'd visited or social media entities he's followed, and because the original tip-off had been determined to be not a credible threat. This was at a time when the FBI was facing increasing heat for leaving people on the list for long periods of time without credible evidence they were a threat, and at a time when they were slammed with caseloads. So, there has to be a trade-off where we can't monitor a US citizen indefinitely without some plausible basis for wrongdoing, yet on the other hand you want to ensure that we're really properly evaluating threats. Security vs civil liberty, which is a tough tradeoff to balance, and is super easy to second guess in hindsight. 

That doesn't mean there aren't other things that should have made it problematic to be selling this guy a gun - he evidently had a history of domestic violence, though to be fair I don't know if he'd ever been convicted. And, I think it's pretty undeniable that if he'd gone into this club with a couple handguns instead of a semiautomatic rifle with high capacity magazines, the body count would have been a LOT lower - he likely wouldn't have survived the shootout with two police officers out front before he even got inside.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 16, 2016)

Drew said:


> And, I think it's pretty undeniable that if he'd gone into this club with a couple handguns instead of a semiautomatic rifle with high capacity magazines, the body count would have been a LOT lower - he likely wouldn't have survived the shootout with two police officers out front before he even got inside.



The way our current gun laws are set up, it was substantially easier for him to get the semiautomatic rifle than it would have been to get a couple of pistols - there's no federal background check required for non-handgun purchases, and FL has very little state regulation on guns in general (banning open carry of firearms is the notable exception).


----------



## technomancer (Jun 16, 2016)

Just some perspective in the wake of this tragedy, the homicide rate in the US is at a 51 year low according to the latest compiled statistics (which are for 2014) and violent crime has actually been decreasing as gun ownership has increased.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 16, 2016)

technomancer said:


> Just some perspective in the wake of this tragedy, the homicide rate in the US is at a 51 year low according to the latest compiled statistics (which are for 2014) and violent crime has actually been decreasing as gun ownership has increased.



I'm seeing rather conflicting information on that, and honestly, all I can find are polls and not actual sales data so not exactly good for a basis of a conclusion.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation so it really doesn't matter without additional supporting evidence either way.

That being said, good article that takes a stab at debunking the correlated point that gun ownership as led to a decrease in violent crime: A history of violence | The Economist


----------



## Drew (Jun 16, 2016)

technomancer said:


> Just some perspective in the wake of this tragedy, the homicide rate in the US is at a 51 year low according to the latest compiled statistics (which are for 2014) and violent crime has actually been decreasing as gun ownership has increased.
> 
> https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1
> 
> ...



Correlation =/= causation. Coincidently enough I was reading an interesting peice on Bloomberg News this morning that argued this may have a lot more to do with falling lead levels, that on a localized basis it tracked well on a one-generation lag with public projects to remove lead from public infastructure, and a broader national trend began to emerge one generation after the Clean Air Act, which removed lead from gasoline. 

I don't claim to be an expert on the science nor do I know how reliable this is (save that Bloomberg news is neither particularly liberal nor prone to pseudo-science), and I mention it mostly as an example of how fiendishly complicated it is to draw conclusions in non-controlled situations. 

I will say, however, that a lack of a decline in violence in Yemen, Serbia, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq does sort of poke holes into the theory that the mere presence of guns is a deterrence.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 16, 2016)

I am very aware correlation does not equal causation.

The actual crime statistics (which are linked in my post) do show the ZOMG VIOLENCE IS WORST EVER WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!! crowd is not in touch with reality, which was my key point. It can also clearly not be argued that violent crime is escalating due to gun ownership as violent crime is in fact decreasing.

Drew: I will also say the situation here has zero resemblance to any of the countries you mention in that we are not a war zone, surrounded by a war zone, or controlled by a completely unstable government so the comparison is a bit disingenuous...

Anyways not getting sucked into the endless debate, just wanted to point out the actual statistics do not support the gloom and doom gun nut society view that people seem to like to portray.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 16, 2016)

technomancer said:


> Just some perspective in the wake of this tragedy, the homicide rate in the US is at a 51 year low according to the latest compiled statistics (which are for 2014) and violent crime has actually been decreasing as gun ownership has increased.
> 
> https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1
> 
> ...



Total *number of guns owned* is increasing, but the rate of gun ownership among US households has actually declined significantly over the past forty years: http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf. That suggests that a large part of the increase in guns-in-circulation is to collectors and other (mostly white and relatively wealthy) gun enthusiasts, where they are statistically less likely to be involved in violent crime. As a result, I don't put much stock in that correlation. I'm also of a mind that "better than it used to be" is, in this case, not equivalent to "good" or even "acceptable" - the US still has substantially higher per-capita violent crime, and especially gun crime, rates than other developed-world nations.


----------



## Randy (Jun 16, 2016)

technomancer said:


> Just some perspective in the wake of this tragedy, the homicide rate in the US is at a 51 year low according to the latest compiled statistics (which are for 2014) and violent crime has actually been decreasing as gun ownership has increased.
> 
> https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1
> 
> ...



Law enforcement technology has come a long way in the same period of time, and it's paid dividends. License plate readers, coordination of records on things such as gangs and violent offenders, closed circuit cameras, etc.

Also, you've got things like funding for initiatives to combat poverty and combat urban blight which are both well known breeding grounds for crime and especially violent crime.

If I wanted to drift into more speculative waters, I'd even say that basic things like expanded access to cell phones has helped, where people can more easily report disturbances before they escalate to the point of violence.

Likewise, since I'm feeling particularly bold, I would bet all the lawless cities people bring up (Chicago, etc) have a lack of all or some of these things. You frequently see things like ineffective leadership or law enforcement, increased poverty (which includes people with no phone, limited access or they just assume the police won't do anything anyway) in these same places, and the gun laws are tossed in as a bandaid to systemic problem. Gun regulations are useless with no or poor enforcement... in fact it has the opposite effect because people assume (rightfully) they can get away with anything.

That's all beside the point, because "mass shooter" type situations (you know, like what we're here to discuss) don't follow that model at all. Just like they also don't follow the blanket "violent crime" stats people selectively decide to put out there.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 16, 2016)

You point out the world isn't ending with actual statistics that show violence is decreasing and get condescending bullsh1t in response... this is why I never bother to post in here 

I should have known better.


----------



## Randy (Jun 16, 2016)

No harm meant. I didn't hear anybody saying the world was coming to an end, so the statistics being injected at the point in the conversation when they were came across a certain way. I also had the window open and was adding to my post over time, so I hadn't seen you clarified your remarks.

My apologies if I sounded snarky or like I was attacking you. I misread the conversion.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 17, 2016)

Technology is a tool that either side (law/crime) can utilize.

Also, this is not just directed at Drew, but I see "Correlation =/= causation" repeated a lot lately, often in contexts where it's not really an argument. If someone claims something causes something else, and someone else posts a reverse correlation of such, it's absolutely pertinent to the discussion.

The origin of the "correlation =/= causation" meme is actually "Correlation does not imply causation." In technical speak, this can be generalized as "if A is related to B, B does not necessarily follow B." So, more correctly, "Correlation is not sufficient information to necessitate causation."

The converse of this statement is another matter, because causation _does_ imply correlation.

So if I say "guns cause violence," then, it implies that more guns should correlate to more violence, all else equal.

Can we at least all agree on that - just the simple logic involved, notwithstanding other variable's influence?

Sorry to become that guy who tries to correct usage and grammar, but once I see it for the second time in one day, I have to bring it up, even if I've brought it up before, on another day...


----------



## Randy (Jun 17, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Technology is a tool that either side (law/crime) can utilize.



Well, by all means, please explain how violent crime has outpaced law enforcement in its use of technology.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 17, 2016)

Randy said:


> Well, by all means, please explain how violent crime has outpaced law enforcement in its use of technology.



It's not outpacing law enforcement, and I didn't say it was. If anything, on average, the two are keeping up with each other. I also did not add the qualifier of violent crime, but I'm game for adding that to the discussion, since it is relevant and you brought it up.

One prime example of criminals using technology to enable nonviolent crime was the Silk Road and the Dark Web, with the use of bitcoins to buy illegal contraband, including weapons. Because law enforcement had put a lot of technical resources into tracking serial numbers on US currency and watching the internet, yet criminals took existing backdoor sites and existing cryptocurrency and decided to use it to enable criminal activities that made law enforcement technology obsolete.

As a broad example of violent crime using technology: drugs used by rapists, cell phones (or, more specifically, GSM relay devices) used as detonators, plastic handguns that are more difficult to detect with conventional metal detectors, and such are used by criminals to enable their crimes or to avoid detection by law enforcement and/or security.


----------



## Drew (Jun 17, 2016)

technomancer said:


> You point out the world isn't ending with actual statistics that show violence is decreasing and get condescending bullsh1t in response... this is why I never bother to post in here
> 
> I should have known better.



 Sorry man. I tried to come back with some legitimate information to add to the discussion, and I hope it didn't come across as condescending. Apologies if it did. 

I'm going to make a similarly suspect correlation leap, though - if you look at a list of countries with highest per-capita gun ownership, you get: 

United States	112.6
Serbia	75.6	2	
Yemen	54.8	3	
Switzerland	45.7 4
Cyprus	36.4[9]	5	
Saudi Arabia	35	6	
Iraq	34.2	7	
Uruguay	31.8	8	
Sweden	31.6	9	
Norway	31.3	10

I deleted a few notes here - the biggest being the Switzerland total includes guns owned by members of the militia, and per capita ownership drops from 45.7 to 25 without them, and Norway, where only 6.5% of the population owns guns, but they seem to own a LOT of them. I pulled these numbers from the wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country 

Anyway, you generally only see levels of gun ownership comparable to ours in countries that ARE war zones, surrounded by war zones, or ruled by completely unstable governments. The top ten per capita gun ownership countries are essentially those countries, the USA, and countries with mandatory military conscription. So, while on one hand it's a little bit of an unfair comparison, on the other, there really aren't any other countries in the world which are at peace, surrounded by countries at peace, and have similarly high levels of gun ownership in civilian hands. So, it's not that you're wrong that Bagdhad and Austin are very different environments, at all, it's just we're kind of exceptional in the rate at which we allow civilians to buy guns, so it's kind of hard to make better comparisons than that.


----------



## Drew (Jun 17, 2016)

bostjan said:


> One prime example of criminals using technology to enable nonviolent crime was the Silk Road and the Dark Web, with the use of bitcoins to buy illegal contraband, including weapons. Because law enforcement had put a lot of technical resources into tracking serial numbers on US currency and watching the internet, yet criminals took existing backdoor sites and existing cryptocurrency and decided to use it to enable criminal activities that made law enforcement technology obsolete.



Not to be intentionally somewhat obtuse, but wouldn't using the internet and paying up in cryptocurrencies to engage in nonviolent crime ALSO cause a reduction in violent crime, which is what Techno had originally brought up? 

Also, to be fair, "correlation =/= causation" is just shorthand - I'm a nerd, I own the XKCD correlation t-shirt, I'm pretty clear on the formal definition, it's just a lot faster to write that.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 17, 2016)

Drew said:


> Not to be intentionally somewhat obtuse, but wouldn't using the internet and paying up in cryptocurrencies to engage in nonviolent crime ALSO cause a reduction in violent crime, which is what Techno had originally brought up?
> 
> Also, to be fair, "correlation =/= causation" is just shorthand - I'm a nerd, I own the XKCD correlation t-shirt, I'm pretty clear on the formal definition, it's just a lot faster to write that.



In the old days, we called it "jumping to conclusion."

I know you are a usage and grammar nerd yourself, which is why I was clear in pointing out that my post was not directed so much at you.

I'm not sure what, precisely, you're getting at with your first statement, but if people can hire a hitman or purchase a weapon off of the dark web using bitcoins, then I'm not at all seeing how one should expect a decrease in violent crime as a direct result of that.

As far as Switzerland is concerned, the militia supplies a weapon to each member to keep forever, and enlistment is compulsory, so, basically, everyone not excused from militia service should have a weapon. It's really a different system from everywhere else.

I don't think you are going to really draw a lot of comparative statistics on different countries that are like the USA in all ways except one, because we don't live in that sort of world. Every place on Earth is unique for more than one reason. That said, the statistics are still valid for discussion, but a grain of salt is prudent.

Again, the debate always goes:

Anti-gun person: We should ban guns, because here are statistics that prove my point.
Pro-gun person: .... you, the Constitution says I get a gun!

There's no common wavelength here. None. You won't get anything accomplished with this debate. No one will agree. Maybe the statistics say you'd be safer without a gun - but, does that address the Constitution? Of course not. And maybe the Constitution says people can own weapons if they want to, but does that address the statistics? Of course not.

To top it all off, really, the statistics do not definitively say what the anti-gun people are saying it says. Basically, sure, but definitively, no. And the Constitution doesn't say people can have any damn weapon they want, like the pro-gun people make it out to say, but does it say that the federal government can't take away people's weapons? You're damn straight it does.

So it's like arguing if a zebra is black or white. Both are correct for all practical purposes, but you can always point out that there is a little tiny bit of beige in the white and a tiny bit of brown in the black. Arguing that back and forth won't get you anywhere, whether the statements are contradictory or not. Or you can get into all kinds of minutiae that totally miss the more important stuff.

Maybe this is just an exercise in rhetoric for both sides.

Anyway, murder is bad, mmkay, don't do murder, mmkay.


----------



## Randy (Jun 17, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Again, the debate always goes:
> 
> Anti-gun person: We should ban guns, because here are statistics that prove my point.
> Pro-gun person: .... you, the Constitution says I get a gun!



I think you're half right.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Jun 17, 2016)

Stepping in again:

Lets say we not only allow guns, but we also make them an over-the-counter item. Nobody can legally be refused the right to own a gun immediately with no background checks whatsoever, which is, frankly, where the logical conclusion of the NRA's position seems to be.

What, after that is set in stone and the earth of that discussion burned and salted, do we then do if everyone having guns, DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 17, 2016)

Randy said:


> I think you're half right.



Which half of it is wrong and why?



GuitarBizarre said:


> Stepping in again:
> 
> Lets say we not only allow guns, but we also make them an over-the-counter item. Nobody can legally be refused the right to own a gun immediately with no background checks whatsoever, which is, frankly, where the logical conclusion of the NRA's position seems to be.
> 
> What, after that is set in stone and the earth of that discussion burned and salted, do we then do if everyone having guns, DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM?



The first step of solving any problem is to define what the problem is. If we are referring to murder as the problem, I don't think anything will solve the problem short of the complete extermination of life on Earth, because murder exists, simply stated. No place on Earth with a population of 2+ people is necessarily murder-free.

If the problem is people using guns in murders, then, obviously, the only solution is to destroy all guns on planet Earth. But, few people who own guns will volunteer to be the first to destroy theirs, so that isn't ever going to be obtained. I'd even argue that guns will exist on Earth longer than living humans.

If the problem is something else, then we need to define what it is and go from there.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 17, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Again, the debate always goes:
> 
> Anti-gun person: We should ban guns, because here are statistics that prove my point.
> Pro-gun person: .... you, the Constitution says I get a gun!



Am I the only person here that thinks that this is a gross oversimplification of both sides of the argument? (To be sure, I *have* encountered some people online whose attitude is basically the pro-gun stance you're describing, but I hardly think it's fair to pigeonhole the entire pro-gun-rights population that way.)


----------



## Randy (Jun 17, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Which half of it is wrong and why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I appreciate that you argue in a mostly coherent and non-argumentative tone, but all of your posts in this threads are constant counterpoint to the point of being meaninglessly cryptic. I get it, you want to poke holes in emotional or farcical arguments, without explicitly expressing any of your own. Message received but, for all the seemingly smart things you say, I hear a whole lotta nothing.

I think we'd all benefit from your contributions to this discussion a lot more if you weren't going out of your way to dance around whatever your flavor of bias happens to be, which it's obvious there is, but you seem to refuse to express explicitly.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 17, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Am I the only person here that thinks that this is a gross oversimplification of both sides of the argument? (To be sure, I *have* encountered some people online whose attitude is basically the pro-gun stance you're describing, but I hardly think it's fair to pigeonhole the entire pro-gun-rights population that way.)



If it's an oversimplification or not, both sides are not even having the same argument.



Randy said:


> I appreciate that you argue in a mostly coherent and non-argumentative tone, but all of your posts in this threads are constant counterpoint to the point of being meaninglessly cryptic. I get it, you want to poke holes in emotional or farcical arguments, without explicitly expressing any of your own. Message received but, for all the seemingly smart things you say, I hear a whole lotta nothing.
> 
> I think we'd all benefit from your contributions to this discussion a lot more if you weren't going out of your way to dance around whatever your flavor of bias happens to be, which it's obvious there is, but you seem to refuse to express explicitly.



If it aids the discussion, I have no problem with that.

I personally believe that people who have not been convicted of violent crimes should have the right to own weapons, within limitations. I happen to think that fully automatic weapons *could* be used in home defense, although I would qualify that by stating that if you needed a fully automatic weapon to defend your home, it would be a no-win situation - more importantly, knowing that people may own automatic weapons is still a deterrent of certain behaviours, which, I believe is what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind. I do not believe people should have access to weapons that are more aggressive than that, for the reason that something like a bazooka is not a defensive weapon, except the very specific instance that a tank happens to be attacking your home.

I'm not married to this philosophy. If the government took away everyone's weapons, I would not immediately pack my bags for Canada, or such.

Perhaps my greatest downfall in contributing to this discussion is that I can sympathize with the main point from both sides: gun violence is out of control. I agree. Taking people's guns away could, IMO, decrease gun violence. *BUT*, it's *not* going to *end* gun violence.

I do not own a handgun and I do not own any sort of automatic weapon. I have no desire to purchase one. I do kind of like having the option of doing so, in case things go completely sideways and I cannot retreat somewhere else.

I think that the point that countries in war zones have more guns says a lot. The USA is sort of the country that was always prepared to go to war, if necessary, but didn't want to. (That's kind of an early 19th century thing, now) It's similar to the idea behind Switzerland. You might say Switzerland is a peaceful country. They are. But, they are in the middle of Europe. In the past, Switzerland was in a very dangerous place as a tiny landlocked country smack in the middle of a bunch of big countries that were perpetually at war with each other. How did they remain peaceful? They stayed out of other countries' crap, and they kept a strong militia. This militia was optimized for defense, not attack. If someone else tried to invade Switzerland during, say WWI, they would have had way more trouble than it was worth.

That philosophy used to be what the USA did in the 19th century.

Well, now we are involved in every other conflict in the world, it seems (I know, not really, but you get my point), so things have changed. And are we better off for it?!

So, in short, I guess I'm a moderate. I'm anti-gun-ban, pro-gun-control, and I think that the problem of mass murder lies not in the weapon used, but in the insanity of the people who use them. Sadly, the more crazy people we have on the loose, the crazier our world will be.


----------



## SD83 (Jun 18, 2016)

bostjan said:


> In the past, Switzerland was in a very dangerous place as a tiny landlocked country smack in the middle of a bunch of big countries that were perpetually at war with each other.



Which is pretty much exactly the opposite of the USA which is between only Mexico and Canada which are way inferior in terms of military strength and wasn't at thread of invasion from overseas since not very long after they won the war against Britain. The Swiss militia might be pointless these days, the ned for a militia in the US seems to be rooted a bit in paranoia to me.



bostjan said:


> So, in short, I guess I'm a moderate. I'm anti-gun-ban, pro-gun-control, and I think that the problem of mass murder lies not in the weapon used, but in the insanity of the people who use them. Sadly, the more crazy people we have on the loose, the crazier our world will be.


Totally agree with that, also with the "as long as there are people, there will be murder" argument. You can not entirely stop that. But you could reduce the numbers. Guns are not THE reason, they are not THE problem, but at this point to say that they are not part of the problem (which some, though maybe not around here) seems to make as much sense as to insist on the sky being green with red dots.


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 18, 2016)

I found an interesting article that outlines Russia, whose population owns far less guns than the US, had almost twice as many murders. The statistics are a few years outdated so take from that what you will. I don't know how much of that is attributed to terrorist or military operations considering they are in a pretty volatile location. But point being more guns = more violence is not always the case.
With Murder Rate Far Beyond US Levels, Russia Legalizes Carry of Guns for Self-Defense - Breitbart


----------



## bostjan (Jun 18, 2016)

SD83 said:


> Which is pretty much exactly the opposite of the USA which is between only Mexico and Canada which are way inferior in terms of military strength and wasn't at thread of invasion from overseas since not very long after they won the war against Britain. The Swiss militia might be pointless these days, the ned for a militia in the US seems to be rooted a bit in paranoia to me.
> 
> 
> Totally agree with that, also with the "as long as there are people, there will be murder" argument. You can not entirely stop that. But you could reduce the numbers. Guns are not THE reason, they are not THE problem, but at this point to say that they are not part of the problem (which some, though maybe not around here) seems to make as much sense as to insist on the sky being green with red dots.



Yeah, Canada is basically a peaceful place. It used to be part of Great Britain, mortal enemy of the early USA, with many towns just minutes walk from the border.

Also, the early USA was very mistrusting of governments.

Also, guns at that time were far less capable of destruction.

Also, duelling was a thing.

Times are very different now, but not permanently.

Guns enable violence, that's silly to deny, but the threat of violence in retaliation for violence can determine violence, as odd as that sounds. Look, violent criminals almost always target people they see as nonthreatening. If grandma's packing a 38 in her purse, she's not so vulnerable anymore. The point is that if an attacker knows some grandmas are armed and most are not, he will think twice before trying to assault her. That is maybe slightly dubious, but the gist of it is true.

And since the US legal system is so hopelessly buggered, with violent criminals either skating or getting out in a couple months and no one reforming unless they are on death row, the USA is a dangerous place. I've seen it firsthand in Detroit, and in Indianapolis, and now here in rural Vermont, even. Detroit has gotten better since they started concealed carry (I don't know if it's the cause of it getting better), and there is not much violent crime here (it might or might not have anything to do with the small population, but in case it is pertinent to anyone, Vermont is an open carry state), but what little violent crime there is, 90% of it is perpetrated by people known to be insane, many who have been in and out of prison before.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Jun 19, 2016)

I think it'd be interesting to see the statistics of historical "rampage" random attacks, detailed by country and per capita, and most importantly, before the invention of useful firearms. I just would like to see what kind of damage people did in a world where guns didn't exist. It'd be next to impossible for any country to completely remove every firearm in citizen's posessions'. Even from those who comply with the idea... My whole point here is I am curious as to how more or less common and/or successful would random attacks be in a world without guns, which ended after the invention and industrialization of the firearm.


----------



## Randy (Jun 19, 2016)

Something I find interesting is the apathy surrounding the volume of firearms in circulation. So many things that can be done and undone, but when it comes to firearms, I hear almost universally that the ones on the Earth today are going to be here until the end of human existence and beyond. Is that belief unique to firearms or are there other manmade things people are universally convinced we're stuck with forever?


----------



## celticelk (Jun 19, 2016)

@DistinguishedPapyrus: Finding reliable data sources for pre-firearms occurrence of mass violence would be the tricky part.


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 19, 2016)

Randy said:


> Something I find interesting is the apathy surrounding the volume of firearms in circulation. So many things that can be done and undone, but when it comes to firearms, I hear almost universally that the ones on the Earth today are going to be here until the end of human existence and beyond. Is that belief unique to firearms or are there other manmade things people are universally convinced we're stuck with forever?



It seems like alcohol gets a free pass. Over 88k alcohol related deaths per year, almost 10k alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2014 in the US alone.. Globally in 2012, 3.3 million deaths attributable to alcohol.
No one says a peep about that and it is ecouraged to drink. You can't go a block in most cities without seeing some sort of establishment or advertisement related to drinking. 
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics


----------



## will_shred (Jun 19, 2016)

asher said:


> To note, this is the worst mass shooting in US history.



Wounded Knee *cough*


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 19, 2016)

bostjan said:


> And since the US legal system is so hopelessly buggered, with violent criminals either skating or getting out in a couple months and no one reforming unless they are on death row, the USA is a dangerous place. I've seen it firsthand in Detroit, and in Indianapolis, and now here in rural Vermont, even. Detroit has gotten better since they started concealed carry (I don't know if it's the cause of it getting better), and there is not much violent crime here (it might or might not have anything to do with the small population, but in case it is pertinent to anyone, Vermont is an open carry state), but what little violent crime there is, 90% of it is perpetrated by people known to be insane, many who have been in and out of prison before.



It is not only the legal system, but also the health care system in terms of mental health. Individuals who would have been in long-term psychiatric care facilities last century are now in group homes or fending for themselves. Deinstitutionalization in the eighties led to far more schizophrenic individuals being homeless.

On a personal note, I lived in Indy for a short time and worked in the Shadeland area. That area is still not good at all.


----------



## Randy (Jun 19, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> It seems like alcohol gets a free pass. Over 88k alcohol related deaths per year, almost 10k alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2014 in the US alone.. Globally in 2012, 3.3 million deaths attributable to alcohol.
> No one says a peep about that and it is ecouraged to drink. You can't go a block in most cities without seeing some sort of establishment or advertisement related to drinking.
> https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics



Define "free pass"? There are age restrictions on alcohol consumption, there's regulations on who can sell what where and when, obvious regulations on where you can consume alcohol, and what you can do under the influence of alcohol and specifically how much you've consumed. All of these laws have been put in place specifically to limit alcohol related deaths.

Alcohol is regulated infinite times more than fire arms. Do you think alcohol deaths would be any lower if you could drink as much as you want and get in a car or you could drink as much as you want at any age? If you could buy hard alcohol in any store, at any time of day on any day everywhere? Probably not but for some reason we're fed the line that less regulation on fire arms somehow reduces deaths. 

I'm also a little confused why you picked out my quote. I was asking an honest question that doesn't seem at all related to your point.


----------



## Womb raider (Jun 19, 2016)

Randy said:


> Define "free pass"? There are age restrictions on alcohol consumption, there's regulations on who can sell what where and when, obvious regulations on where you can consume alcohol, and what you can do under the influence of alcohol and specifically how much you've consumed. All of these laws have been put in place specifically to limit alcohol related deaths.
> Alcohol is regulated infinite times more than fire arms. Do you think alcohol deaths would be any lower if you could drink as much as you want and get in a car or you could drink as much as you want at any age? If you could buy hard alcohol in any store, at any time of day on any day everywhere? Probably not but for some reason we're fed the line that less regulation on fire arms somehow reduces deaths.
> I'm also a little confused why you picked out my quote. I was asking an honest question that doesn't seem at all related to your point.


Free pass as in there are far more deaths due to alcohol than firearms, yet the MSM or the general public isn't harping on that. I don't know about you, but I personally have known more people that have lost their lives due to drunk drivers than to firearms; in spite of all these regulations in place. 
There are plenty of regulations on firearms as well. It's not like anyone can walk into their local 7-11 and purchase a Mac11 like many are insinuating. 

I'm actually not arguing for deregulation, I would like to see a more uniform set of laws throughout the states. Also, more strict background checks and proper licensing and insuring of guns like you would a car.

I picked out your quote because you left the question out there "Is that belief unique to firearms or are there other manmade things people are universally convinced we're stuck with forever? " Perhaps you meant that firearms as an object last infinitely, but it's hard to tell the way your question is worded. I took it as, are there other manmade objects that we will be living with forever in spite of it's deadliness?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 20, 2016)

Grindspine said:


> It is not only the legal system, but also the health care system in terms of mental health. Individuals who would have been in long-term psychiatric care facilities last century are now in group homes or fending for themselves. Deinstitutionalization in the eighties led to far more schizophrenic individuals being homeless.
> 
> On a personal note, I lived in Indy for a short time and worked in the Shadeland area. That area is still not good at all.





I'm not necessarily for 1960's style sanitariums, but there has to be something better than placing all these people in the situation where they necessarily end up either homeless or in prison.

Seriously, gun control or no, I strongly believe that this issue you brought up simply needs to be addressed. As long as people are screaming about gun control or gun bans or homosexuals or who pees in which bathroom, or whatever, this really important issue gets insufficient attention.

EDIT to avoid double post:

I just saw in the news where Trump had said some things suggesting night club patrons wear concealed weapons in response to this, and got push-back from the NRA, to the point where he had to go back and say that he never said what he said and instead said something else. Demonstrating:

1. How much Trump has learned how to lie and spin like a true politician (making me wonder why his supporters continue to say they support him because he is not like most politicians)
2. How Trump is more extreme than the NRA, which I feel is already somewhat extreme.
3. How nobody really "get's it" in my mind's eye. We are missing the point. I feel if I was drowning in a sink because the water was left on, and two people could save me simply by turning the water off, I might still die, because, if the two people were democrat and republican, they'd just have to have a gun debate before taking any action.


----------



## Drew (Jun 20, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I'm not sure what, precisely, you're getting at with your first statement, but if people can hire a hitman or purchase a weapon off of the dark web using bitcoins, then I'm not at all seeing how one should expect a decrease in violent crime as a direct result of that.



Let me try to elaborate, then, because this is actually kind of potentially interesting. 

I think there are probably two types of violent crime - crime that was always intended to be violent, like murder or rape, and crime where there was some other objective but things escalated into violence. Possibly a third, actually, as I think about it - violent crime where the presence of some other criminal activity creates the potential for violent crime to occur. 

Take selling illegal drugs as an example - production obviously has to happen in the "real world," as does consumption. But distribution can now be handled largely over the net, it seems - you work out a deal on Silk Road and pay in bitcoins. I'm afraid I'm not 100% up on how physical delivery works out, but I'd assume that it can be done via mail...? Compare this to the conventional distribution model, where you have dealers on the street with large stashes of (valuable) drugs carrying large amounts of cash, protected by guys carrying large numbers of weapons. One, the possibility for miscommunication is pretty high in a deal, and it's possible that even a well-intentioned deal can end in someone getting shot. Two, and probably more importantly, a drug dealer basically has a giant target on his back - he has no legal protections, yet is carrying a large amount of drugs, money, and weapons, and is in "control" of the drug market in a section of the city. Come in with your own group of guys with guns, mow them down with the element of surprise, and congrats - you now have a lot of money, a lot of drugs, and a lot of guns, and your own claim to a particular chunk of a neighborhood's drug deal. Violence in the drug trade can become VERY profitable. 

Strip out the physical-world part of distribution, make and receive payments in a perfectly secure cryptocurrency, and work out a deal through a digital and secure communications network such that the parties never have to meet in person... It wouldn't surprise me that suddenly dealing drugs becomes a lot less violent.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 20, 2016)

Drew said:


> Let me try to elaborate, then, because this is actually kind of potentially interesting.
> 
> I think there are probably two types of violent crime - crime that was always intended to be violent, like murder or rape, and crime where there was some other objective but things escalated into violence. Possibly a third, actually, as I think about it - violent crime where the presence of some other criminal activity creates the potential for violent crime to occur.
> 
> ...



I see your point now. Keep in mind, though, that the site also sold illegal weapons for a short time, and even had a marketplace for hiring contract killers. In fact, its operator was initially charged with procuring murder, but the charge was later reduced to money laundering and computer hacking.

To your point, though, even in hiring a killer to kill a person online might result in net less violence than hiring one in person, since the killer might kill his employer as well as his target if they meet in person, in order to collect more money, or maybe he's just crazy.


----------



## Drew (Jun 20, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I see your point now. Keep in mind, though, that the site also sold illegal weapons for a short time, and even had a marketplace for hiring contract killers. In fact, its operator was initially charged with procuring murder, but the charge was later reduced to money laundering and computer hacking.
> 
> To your point, though, even in hiring a killer to kill a person online might result in net less violence than hiring one in person, since the killer might kill his employer as well as his target if they meet in person, in order to collect more money, or maybe he's just crazy.



Well, and let me mention in advance how much of a scumbag I feel like talking this dispassionately about violent crime... 

...presumably the demand for contract killing is pretty inelastic, that the number of people who want to hire someone to kill someone isn't going to fluctuate much based on the mechanism of the hire. I could if anything see it picking up slightly if you could handle it all via Silk Road and pay in bitcoin, which is a little more anonymous than, say, Craigslist and PayPal, but at the end of the day there just aren't that many people who want someone dead enough to pay someone to do it. 

Relatedly, it may make it a little easier to deal in weapons in the black market, which may boost violence at the margins, too. 

But, I'd think the major change would be the reduction in let's call it "frictional violence," where people are getting killed or put in vulnerable positions as a result in nonviolent crime. 

I'd actually REALLY like to see a study on this.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 21, 2016)

^ Me too.

I would contend that contract killing would be less common if it were more dangerous, more difficult to organize, and had greater chance of getting busted by police.

Back to the original topic: a guy reported the shooter to the FBI for terrorist ideologies and it was dismissed according to the article linked. Also, neither here nor there, but interestingly, the shooter was a Hillary Clinton supporter.


----------



## will_shred (Jun 23, 2016)

My bands drummer is %100 convinced that this is a false flag, and is very vocal about it. Is there even any point in trying to bring him to reason?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 23, 2016)

will_shred said:


> My bands drummer is %100 convinced that this is a false flag, and is very vocal about it. Is there even any point in trying to bring him to reason?



I suppose it depends on why he feels that way. It's a thousand times harder to disprove a claim than to prove a claim, in general.

If it were a false flag, then who benefited, and who organized it?


----------



## Drew (Jun 23, 2016)

Womb raider said:


> It seems like alcohol gets a free pass. Over 88k alcohol related deaths per year, almost 10k alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2014 in the US alone.. Globally in 2012, 3.3 million deaths attributable to alcohol.
> No one says a peep about that and it is ecouraged to drink. You can't go a block in most cities without seeing some sort of establishment or advertisement related to drinking.
> https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics



Missed this earlier. Randy is right - I WISH firearms were as heavily regulated as alcohol.


----------

