Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

The gun must of had mental problems... Couldn't of been the person using it.

I can't understand how people can't see that a proliferation of weapons in society will increase individuals ability to access them.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I can't understand how people can't see that a proliferation of weapons in society will increase individuals ability to access them.

Because criminals will always find a way to get their hands on weapons regardless of gun control laws.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Because criminals will always find a way to get their hands on weapons regardless of gun control laws.

oh right then #### it.


the whole thing is too hard and not worth the effort.


I mean god forbid that the US try a different approach.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Exactly. Gun control doesn't work. It has never worked in any country that has ever tried it. No sir. Reducing the number of firearms in circulation has never, EVER been effective at preventing mass shooting incidents.

In THIS CASE, what method of gun control would prevent a felon from illegally purchasing a weapon?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

oh right then #### it.


the whole thing is too hard and not worth the effort.


I mean god forbid that the US try a different approach.

What methods would you suggest?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Because criminals will always find a way to get their hands on weapons regardless of gun control laws.

As you'll see in the video I posted earlier, Australia passed very restrictive gun control laws in 1996. By your logic, that should not have made a difference on the murder rate because criminals will always find a way to get their hands on firearms or other weapons, right?

So let's take a look at the data:

Homicides per 100,000 population (any method):

2012: 1.11
2011: 0.86
2010: 1.13
2009: 1.28
2008: 1.19
2007: 1.04
2006: 1.25
2005: 0.98
2004: 0.82
2003: 1.41
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.55
2000: 1.78
1999: 1.81
1998: 1.68
1997: 1.73
1996: 1.97 (Gun control law passed here)
1995: 1.90
1994: 1.92
1993: 2.04
1992: 1.90
1991: 2.04
1990: 1.95

So in the years prior to Australia's gun control law going into effect, the country was averaging about two murders for every 100k citizens. Since then, that figure has been cut down to nearly half its former rate.

And here's the data just for gun-related deaths per 100,000 people:

2011: 0.86
2010: 1.09
2009: 1.07
2008: 1.11
2007: 1.14
2006: 1.20
2005: 1.05
2004: 1.17
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.69
2000: 1.70
1999: 1.84
1998: 1.68
1997: 2.32
1996: 2.84 (Gun control law passed here)
1995: 2.61
1994: 2.90
1993: 2.91
1992: 3.49
1991: 3.59
1990: 3.51
1989: 3.29
1988: 4.11
1987: 4.30
1986: 4.26
1985: 4.35
1984: 4.35
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.54
1981: 4.14
1980: 4.70
1979: 3.29

As you can see, there's a VERY huge decline in the rate of firearms-related deaths following the 1996 gun control law. I'm sure that's purely coincidental though, and we can't possibly make a causation argument between gun control and a corresponding reduction in gun deaths though, right?

Data source

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

What methods would you suggest?

I don't have the answer. I am but a simple internet poster.


That being said there are minds greater than I that might be able to come up with an approach/method. But, whatever method will be discussed/decided upon will not be acceptable to the non-gun control peoples.

See for gun control to work, it requires an agreement that it is necessary. I don't see that from you or Canuck-Hater or other anti-gun control side.

There need to be a fundimental shift in your belief(s) before any discussion of types/methods of gun control.

[chemgear]

I've always found the contrast between the US and Japan pretty stark gun-wise.

US - lots o' guns, 320 million people, 310 million people, 10,000 to 20,000 gun homicides a year.

Japan - basically no (access to) guns, 130 million people, 10 to 20 gun homicides a year.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't have the answer. I am but a simple internet poster.


That being said there are minds greater than I that might be able to come up with an approach/method. But, whatever method will be discussed/decided upon will not be acceptable to the non-gun control peoples.

See for gun control to work, it requires an agreement that it is necessary. I don't see that from you or Canuck-Hater or other anti-gun control side.

There need to be a fundimental shift in your belief(s) before any discussion of types/methods of gun control.

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues. The biggest issue that a lot of people on the side of common sense gun laws is that the current system is geared around the appearance of doing something at the detriment to legal owners/users.

The LGR is a pretty good example of this as it has been shown that it actually didn't do a whole lot in doing what it was touted as accomplishing. In fact, there is a recent court case where the federal government and the government of Ontario were sued over the removal of the LGR and sought to make the registration of NR firearms law in Ontario. The case was dismissed due to an overwhelming lack of evidence that not operating a registry violated Sections 7 & 15 of the Charter of Rights and specifically put women at higher risk of firearms related injury or death.

There is also the argument that with the LGR, responding police officers could see if someone was a firearms owner and knowing this might increase safety. Even abolishing the LGR doesn't change the ability of police to determine this as querying for a PAL or RPAL is a functionality built into the search system. Neither the LGR or the standard police search can tell an officer if all the firearms in the house are properly stored of if the owner is going to ambush them.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Because criminals will always find a way to get their hands on weapons regardless of gun control laws.

Rubbish, all guns come from a legal source, if you reduce legal guns you always, over time, reduce illegal ones.

If you concurrently add massively strict sentences to illegal possession and use you can all but eliminate them.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As you'll see in the video I posted earlier, Australia passed very restrictive gun control laws in 1996. By your logic, that should not have made a difference on the murder rate because criminals will always find a way to get their hands on firearms or other weapons, right?

So let's take a look at the data:

Homicides per 100,000 population (any method):

2012: 1.11
2011: 0.86
2010: 1.13
2009: 1.28
2008: 1.19
2007: 1.04
2006: 1.25
2005: 0.98
2004: 0.82
2003: 1.41
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.55
2000: 1.78
1999: 1.81
1998: 1.68
1997: 1.73
1996: 1.97 (Gun control law passed here)
1995: 1.90
1994: 1.92
1993: 2.04
1992: 1.90
1991: 2.04
1990: 1.95

So in the years prior to Australia's gun control law going into effect, the country was averaging about two murders for every 100k citizens. Since then, that figure has been cut down to nearly half its former rate.

And here's the data just for gun-related deaths per 100,000 people:

2011: 0.86
2010: 1.09
2009: 1.07
2008: 1.11
2007: 1.14
2006: 1.20
2005: 1.05
2004: 1.17
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.69
2000: 1.70
1999: 1.84
1998: 1.68
1997: 2.32
1996: 2.84 (Gun control law passed here)
1995: 2.61
1994: 2.90
1993: 2.91
1992: 3.49
1991: 3.59
1990: 3.51
1989: 3.29
1988: 4.11
1987: 4.30
1986: 4.26
1985: 4.35
1984: 4.35
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.54
1981: 4.14
1980: 4.70
1979: 3.29

As you can see, there's a VERY huge decline in the rate of firearms-related deaths following the 1996 gun control law. I'm sure that's purely coincidental though, and we can't possibly make a causation argument between gun control and a corresponding reduction in gun deaths though, right?

Data source

Their declining firearm homicide rate has nearly mirrored those of other countries who did NOT undertake draconian gun control methods.

Speaking of Australia, they just had a mass shooting last week. Nearly identical to this sad story from Florida.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...dd88cffa0a0032

As well, in recent years Australia has made special task forces to deal with the high proliferation of illegally smuggled hand guns that are making their way into cities like Perth and Melbourne. I thought Australia was a big island and banned hand guns, how could this happen?!?

I also get a kick of how when we talk about countries that have undertaken extreme gun control laws we never like to talk about places such as Mexico, where all firearms are 100% banned.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Rubbish, all guns come from a legal source, if you reduce legal guns you always, over time, reduce illegal ones.

If you concurrently add massively strict sentences to illegal possession and use you can all but eliminate them.

Yes, no one will ever stamp out gun crime 100%. There will always be a way to get one if you want it bad enough. But if you reduce the availability and convenience, then I would bet there would be a big dent in gun violence.

Crime is at least partially affected by the opportunity to commit the crime. Reduce the opportunity, and you reduce the crime. It's like locking your car door. It will never 100% stop the possibility of theft from your vehicle, but most people still lock them to make it less convenient for a thief.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues. The biggest issue that a lot of people on the side of common sense gun laws is that the current system is geared around the appearance of doing something at the detriment to legal owners/users.

This is pretty typical of gun nuts. paranoid delusions of losing their 2nd amendment rights and a tyrannical government slowing taking away their freedoms. That and red herring solutions, better mental health programs etc.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues. The biggest issue that a lot of people on the side of common sense gun laws is that the current system is geared around the appearance of doing something at the detriment to legal owners/users.

The LGR is a pretty good example of this as it has been shown that it actually didn't do a whole lot in doing what it was touted as accomplishing. In fact, there is a recent court case where the federal government and the government of Ontario were sued over the removal of the LGR and sought to make the registration of NR firearms law in Ontario. The case was dismissed due to an overwhelming lack of evidence that not operating a registry violated Sections 7 & 15 of the Charter of Rights and specifically put women at higher risk of firearms related injury or death.

There is also the argument that with the LGR, responding police officers could see if someone was a firearms owner and knowing this might increase safety. Even abolishing the LGR doesn't change the ability of police to determine this as querying for a PAL or RPAL is a functionality built into the search system. Neither the LGR or the standard police search can tell an officer if all the firearms in the house are properly stored of if the owner is going to ambush them.

I love shooting and weapons.

I love everything about it, everything.

I have shot all many of weapons.

That being said I am willing to set aside my love of weapons and shooting to have a safer society.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

There is also the argument that with the LGR, responding police officers could see if someone was a firearms owner and knowing this might increase safety. Even abolishing the LGR doesn't change the ability of police to determine this as querying for a PAL or RPAL is a functionality built into the search system. Neither the LGR or the standard police search can tell an officer if all the firearms in the house are properly stored of if the owner is going to ambush them.

As well with this, polled officers replied that this data being available to them was useless, as it wasn't homes of valid firearms owners who they were worried about, and which firearms may be registered, but those that were not authorized to legally own firearms.

Mayerthorpe being case in point.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

In THIS CASE, what method of gun control would prevent a felon from illegally purchasing a weapon?

While it is clearly impossible to reduce the number of gun murders to zero, you surely must recognize that fewer guns in circulation plus fewer avenues to acquire them equals fewer opportunities to use them, right?

Your emotionally charged argument is meaningless - nobody can say whether or not such reductions in the availability of guns would have changed this single incident. But I would feel confident in stating that such controls would significantly reduce the number of similar incidents.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Rubbish, all guns come from a legal source, if you reduce legal guns you always, over time, reduce illegal ones.

If you concurrently add massively strict sentences to illegal possession and use you can all but eliminate them.

Like when the ATF runs guns into Mexico?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Gun laws would help but at present America is pretty much unsalvagable when it comes to guns. Think about that 9-year old who killed the instructor a few weeks ago. She's 9-years old, and she's at a gun range. That unto itself, legal or not, is substantially messed up. 9 year olds should be playing with their friends, playing sports, enjoying reading and comic books, not learning how to pack heat.

And did you notice in the horrific video? She wasn't shooting a bullseye target or a dartboard target. She was shooting a cutout of a human being. She was being shown by her (####ing insane, should be in jail) parents what fun guns are. They even thought "Yup, she should really get into some automatic weapons if she can". That's so deranged, and sadly not even abnormal. It's the gun nut way really, not teaching your kids how awesome guns are is tatamount to treason for these folks.

Welcome to America. Guns are not for protection no matter how much the NRA wants to push that nonsense. They're for pleasure. How exactly can you overcome a mindset like that? Yes there are other issues at play (poverty namely), but until Americans become just a little more revolted and get a little less hard by guns, nothing will change

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Like when the ATF runs guns into Mexico?

Yes, every single gun starts it's life as a legal product.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Rubbish, all guns come from a legal source, if you reduce legal guns you always, over time, reduce illegal ones.

This is actually an outright lie. If you use Toronto (most likely very applicable to the rest of Canada) as an example, ~70% of guns are smuggled illegally into the country from the US. A good chunk of the remaining 30% comes from theft (I think this is illegal as well) and then a small percentage come from actual, legal owners.

Bill Blair acknowledged this and CBC had a special on it.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

While it is clearly impossible to reduce the number of gun murders to zero, you surely must recognize that fewer guns in circulation plus fewer avenues to acquire them equals fewer opportunities to use them, right?

This argument is contingent on criminals suddenly handing in their guns and not trying to source new ones. It would also require a massive joint crackdown on cross-border smuggling by US and Canadian law enforcement, which everyone you ask will support (gun owners included).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

This is actually an outright lie. If you use Toronto as an example, ~70% of guns are smuggled illegally into the country from the US. A good chunk of the remaining 30% come from theft (I think this is illegal as well) and then a small percentage come from actual, legal owners.

Bill Blair acknowledged this and CBC had a special on it.

Wait you don't get waht he is saying.


There is nobody building guns for mass distribution in their garage or lab built in an RV, or the jungle of Columbia.

Every gun is a legal gun when it first starts it's "life".