RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 4, 2019 9:22:38 GMT -8
The statistics on guns stopping gun violence are laughable. The only reason the United States hasn’t done anything about it is because of gun culture and gun advocates. That is an OCConnect method of making a point, citing unspecified "statistics" & then throwing in a canard about "Gun culture and gun advocates". The only thing missing is the chant that the NRA controls Congress. You are implying that removing guns from society is the solution. That is the thinking one would expect from a six year old. Have a DUI problem, just take away everyone's drivers licenses, even from the sober drivers. A more mature way to solve the problem is to focus on its causes, which leads to effective solutions. Most will agree that mass public shootings are a fairly recent occurrence, starting about 35 years ago. You can point to the San Ysidro McDonalds shooting as the starting point. Prior to that, these kinds of mass shootings really didn't happen, despite even easier access to firearms. So what has changed in society during that time frame that may have contributed to this?: - The breakdown of family? Probably not, considering that most mass shooters are white and minorities have higher numbers of single parent households;
- Violence in TV's & movies? Possibly. However, there are many young white men who watch violent shows who don't commit such atrocities, so they may be a contributing factor but not the cause.
- Violent video games? Possibly, but like movies & TV, there are millions who play them & don't commit mass shootings.
- Mental Health treatment? This is an area that has changed quite a bit since the 60's, from where we put mentally ill people to how we treat them. This may be a major cause.
- News Reports? A contributing factor in creating copy cat shootings is how the shooter is described and memorialized.
There are dozens of more things to go through, but it has to be done agenda free. For example, I believe a two parent household is important to the well being of children, but in this situation, it appears that is a non-factor in creating a person who is willing to do a mass shooting. We need to be free of our political leanings in order to figure out the cause. |
|
|
|
Post by sixthman on Aug 4, 2019 12:53:51 GMT -8
The only places that I have studied statistics on are Japan, which virtually had no gun culture, and Australia. Gun control laws were very effective in Australia. Japan has virtually no gun related homicides but I do not believe they apply here. Everyone brings up the taking away cars because of Dui’s so I guess that’s an occ argument as well. You might as well have said guns don’t kill people... The line has been drawn and it is a party line from where I’m standing. I like the fact that you offer solutions and I agree that it is the concern of every American. I believe the solution will not be found within the party lines. We have to put a plan in place and I could care less whose plan it is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Aug 4, 2019 13:04:58 GMT -8
Not so fast MDD. First, we're not talking about every building in terms of scope like AOC, and second, it's not nearly as expensive. Lastly, there is nothing more effective today. Start with high occupancy venues (500+?) and work down. Need a first step that's immediate. The Gilroy Festival was a "hardened" target, yet the shooter found a way. I think hardening targets is a feel-good solution. |
|
|
|
Post by sixthman on Aug 4, 2019 13:08:29 GMT -8
Statistic. 0.79% of people used guns to protect themselves from violent crimes between 2007 and 2011. All crimes was .12%. People don’t use guns to protect themselves.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Aug 4, 2019 13:10:55 GMT -8
- Violence in TV's & movies? Possibly. However, there are many young white men who watch violent shows who don't commit such atrocities, so they may be a contributing factor but not the cause.
- Violent video games? Possibly, but like movies & TV, there are millions who play them & don't commit mass shootings.
True, but everyone who smokes doesn't die of lung cancer, and everyone who drinks and drives doesn't kill someone. The argument shouldn't be that everyone who watches violent movies or plays violent video games doesn't become a psychotic mass murderer, it's that one or two borderline guys every month might be pushed over the edge. With 300 million firearms already in Americans' hands, isn't that all it takes? |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Aug 4, 2019 13:46:40 GMT -8
The Gilroy Festival was a "hardened" target, yet the shooter found a way. I think hardening targets is a feel-good solution. We're seeing Gilroy and hardening targets VERY differently. Security forced him to use wire cutters to breach a fence, and security put him down in under a minute. 3-4 dead v 20. No way we're going to stop everyone in a population of 330 million, who has designs on murdering innocent strangers. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Aug 4, 2019 14:31:30 GMT -8
No way we're going to stop everyone in a population of 330 million, who has designs on murdering innocent strangers. Thank you. That's what I've been trying to get acknowledged. And background checks and smaller magazines aren't going to make much difference either with that many guns already out there. It also brings us back to the question: Why are "designs on murdering innocent strangers" such an almost uniquely American disease? |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Aug 4, 2019 14:35:04 GMT -8
I had a conversation with a friend this afternoon who raised this question, and I'd like to pose it to every poster on this forum: If you could snap your fingers and make every firearm in America disappear (except those in the hands of the military and law enforcement personnel) would you do it? Or is your loyalty to gun ownership and the second amendment so strong that you wouldn't?
I would do it in a heartbeat.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Aug 4, 2019 16:11:33 GMT -8
I had a conversation with a friend this afternoon who raised this question, and I'd like to pose it to every poster on this forum: If you could snap your fingers and make every firearm in America disappear (except those in the hands of the military and law enforcement personnel) would you do it? Or is your loyalty to gun ownership and the second amendment so strong that you wouldn't? I would do it in a heartbeat. Boy do you put a lot of credence and trust in your governments.... yikes. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Aug 4, 2019 16:28:55 GMT -8
I had a conversation with a friend this afternoon who raised this question, and I'd like to pose it to every poster on this forum: If you could snap your fingers and make every firearm in America disappear (except those in the hands of the military and law enforcement personnel) would you do it? Or is your loyalty to gun ownership and the second amendment so strong that you wouldn't? I would do it in a heartbeat. I would not. We do not know what the unintended consequences would be of that alternate reality, and I believe it's misguided to think there wouldn't be any. I believe where we are as a country, warts and all, is far superior to any other. All our choices throughout our development were a factor in our present state. I don't know if removing the freedom of being able to defend your family yourself, and then having to rely on police to do so, would negatively affect the rugged individualism our country was founded upon. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 4, 2019 16:32:00 GMT -8
I would only do it IF I was assured that guns were the only means of visiting harm on others.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Aug 4, 2019 16:54:56 GMT -8
No way we're going to stop everyone in a population of 330 million, who has designs on murdering innocent strangers. Thank you. That's what I've been trying to get acknowledged. And background checks and smaller magazines aren't going to make much difference either with that many guns already out there. It also brings us back to the question: Why are "designs on murdering innocent strangers" such an almost uniquely American disease? Great discussion, and the question above is the one the be examining, rather than going round and round on gun laws, statistics, and scoring cheap political points. I think both the comments below reveal some insight into the role social media may be playing in this phenomena of irrational mass murder going on in recent years. Throw in a couple of decades of systematic demonizing of young white men in America, mental health problems and the overmedication of these same young men, and you've got a toxic mix. |
|
|
|
Post by sixthman on Aug 4, 2019 16:57:30 GMT -8
Yes of course. No question. But I have never owned a gun. I don’t get it. Hunting I get. I have never felt like having a gun would make me feel safer. Been held at gun point three times. If I had pulled a gun any of those three times, I would be dead.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 4, 2019 18:06:10 GMT -8
Statistic. 0.79% of people used guns to protect themselves from violent crimes between 2007 and 2011. All crimes was .12%. People don’t use guns to protect themselves. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That is a statistic without a valid point. First, to determine the effectiveness of carrying a gun as a deterrent, you would need to know what percentage of crimes that were were committed or attempted against those who were carrying or had access immediately to a gun. From there, you could then determine if carrying or having a gun made a difference to the potential victim of a crime. Second, you would need to determine whether it was lawful for the victim to carry a gun in the place where the crime was committed. If not, then you are setting the statistic up for failure, because you have the lawful citizen with no gun and the criminal with one. To draw a conclusion from that scenario that people don't use guns to protect themselves is ludicrous. They are being prohibited from doing it, that is why they don't do it. The amount of deaths and injury in any kind of shooting is determined by the amount of time it takes for a good guy (police, law abiding citizen) to show up on site with a gun. The shorter the time, the lower the number of deaths & injury's. This has been proven time after time. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 4, 2019 18:09:30 GMT -8
- Violence in TV's & movies? Possibly. However, there are many young white men who watch violent shows who don't commit such atrocities, so they may be a contributing factor but not the cause.
- Violent video games? Possibly, but like movies & TV, there are millions who play them & don't commit mass shootings.
True, but everyone who smokes doesn't die of lung cancer, and everyone who drinks and drives doesn't kill someone. The argument shouldn't be that everyone who watches violent movies or plays violent video games doesn't become a psychotic mass murderer, it's that one or two borderline guys every month might be pushed over the edge. With 300 million firearms already in Americans' hands, isn't that all it takes? Agreed, thats why I say it may be a contributing factor. There is a certain, very minute segment of our population whose response to seeing violence is to commit it. Same as there is a small segment of society with dangerous, fatal allergies to peanuts. Peanuts in the hands of the populace isn't the problem, peanuts in the hands of the allergic is. |
|
