Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

My god, you are just wonderful with the rhetoric, aren't you?

Your stats don't tell the story you want it to. They show that fewer guns in circulation means drastically reduced odds that they will be used. You've really only succeeded at reinforcing my point.

More guns = less violence works. That's why America, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq are some of the safest places on earth, whereas Canada, Japan, Australia are some of the most dangerous.

[Chill Cosby]

Forgive me for the most basic and uneducated of questions, but for those "gun people," what does a gun provide that is a requirement to your happiness, which could not easily be replaced by something less controversial?

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Forgive me for the most basic and uneducated of questions, but for those "gun people," what does a gun provide that is a requirement to your happiness, which could not easily be replaced by something less controversial?

How are you supposed to fight off a tyranical governments drones, fighter jets, tanks and choppers if you don't have bad ass semi auto rifle?

It has nothing to do with enjoyment.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

My god, you are just wonderful with the rhetoric, aren't you?

Your stats don't tell the story you want it to. They show that fewer guns in circulation means drastically reduced odds that they will be used. You've really only succeeded at reinforcing my point.

The Stats Canada reports show that guns are used in a tiny portion of intimate partner crimes. Assuming that all the guns used in these offenses are in the hands of law-abiding citizens, you reduce the incidence of intimate partner crime by 576 out of 97,500 cases. Keep in mind, these are cases where the most serious weapon found was a firearm. The 2011 StatsCan report measuring violence against women shows an even lower number. Out of 77,943 cases of a violent crime committed against a woman by an intimate partner, only 57 cases involved the pointing, use of or discharge of a firearm. That is 0.073% of all cases.

Your assertion that getting rid of guns will cause a drastic reduction in gun related offenses is mostly correct. Without guns, you can't have gun crime. This assumes that all these offenses were committed by people who would follow a confiscation order if it was implemented. The problem with this is that you have focused primarily on GUNS and not reducing violent crime as a whole.

You'll never hear someone say "we got rid of guns and reduced the amount violent crime against women by an intimate partner from 77,943 cases to maybe only 77,886 cases!". What you'll actually hear is "we banned guns and the majority of gun crimes against women by an intimate partner dropped to almost nothing!". This also assumes that all 57 of those people who used a gun illegally against an intimate partner ONLY want to use their gun and would not use other means of abusing them.

For every other offense, we blame the person who committed the act since you can't assign blame to an amoral object like a car, a bottle of alcohol or a baseball bat. But when it comes to gun crimes, where a similarly amoral object was used, the response is to blame the gun and to call for a ban. Imagine how fast people would have been shouted down if they called for knife control after Matthew de Grood stabbed five people to death in Calgary's worst mass murder. Or how fast people would stop listening after people called for a ban on alcohol after each drunk driving incident. The attitude is that "since it doesn't affect me, I don't care if 2 million people are affected".

@DuffMan; The US has no real gun licensing system, Iraq and Somalia have no laws period and are both in a state of war. I have no idea about Yemen. Gun homicide rates are not available for all three.

The following list is all the countries that have more guns per capita than Canada does, but have a lower amount of homicides by firearm. France, Norway, Sweden, Uruguay, Cyprus, Serbia, Finland and Switzerland. For the rest of the top 13 countries, there is no data available for 3 of them and the US is in the number 1 spot.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Forgive me for the most basic and uneducated of questions, but for those "gun people," what does a gun provide that is a requirement to your happiness, which could not easily be replaced by something less controversial?

How are the shooting sports different than every other sport? The only reason guns are "controversial" is years of people being told that guns are evil, only a criminal would NEED a gun and there is no legitimate use for a gun.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

How are the shooting sports different than every other sport? The only reason guns are "controversial" is years of people being told that guns are evil, only a criminal would NEED a gun and there is no legitimate use for a gun.

Yes, that is the ONLY reason that guns are controversial.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

can't assign blame to an amoral object like a car, a bottle of alcohol or a baseball bat. But when it comes to gun crimes, where a similarly amoral object was used, the response is to blame the gun and to call for a ban. Imagine how fast people would have been shouted down if they called for knife control after Matthew de Grood stabbed five people to death in Calgary's worst mass murder. Or how fast people would stop listening after people called for a ban on alcohol after each drunk driving incident. The attitude is that "since it doesn't affect me, I don't care if 2 million people are affected".

Yes other things can kill people, but these other things do not have the sole purpose of being used to kill. A gun isn't there to prepare your dinner, take you to work, or drink on a patio on a warm weekend. The primary reason a gun exists -- to take life. An object with that express purpose needs to be far more closely regulated than the items you mentioned.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Are you allowed to hunt polar bears?

I think you can buy tags for polar bears buts it's limited to about 500 bears.(not possitive) I know my buddy was pissed that the rich americans useally buy up all the permits, think he said they were about 30k a tag and a lot of politics(besides the $$) involved in getting one.

For the record, I'm not a hunter and I call him a murdering prick at least 3 times a year. but I do get good info from him.

[Resolute 14]

Interesting use of one-way context, Whiteout. Since you like dealing in hypotheticals, answer me this: If Canada had a similar cultural opinion of gun ownership and similar saturation with the weapons itself, do you think that the number and type of such incidents would remain exactly as is, the number would stay the same but use of guns in them would increase, or that the number of incidents would increase, and the number of incidents involving guns would increase?

If I was a betting man, I would bet on the latter.

And I don't understand why you continue to pretend that it is a valid argument to say things only get better if *all* or *every* person complies with a confiscation order.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Interesting use of one-way context, Whiteout. Since you like dealing in hypotheticals, answer me this: If Canada had a similar cultural opinion of gun ownership and similar saturation with the weapons itself, do you think that the number and type of such incidents would remain exactly as is, the number would stay the same but use of guns in them would increase, or that the number of incidents would increase, and the number of incidents involving guns would increase?

If I was a betting man, I would bet on the latter.

And I don't understand why you continue to pretend that it is a valid argument to say things only get better if *all* or *every* person complies with a confiscation order.

I agree. If you moved Canada to a system similar to that of the US, you'd see the use of guns in crimes overall increase and the number of incidents would increase. The US way of doing things pretty much gives free reign to idiots who shouldn't own guns the chance to.

Oddly enough, if there was a referendum on the matter next week, I'd vote against going to a US style of doing things. I'm totally fine with the way a lot of the law in Canada reads, but would just like to see certain parts tweaked to include a bit less confusion and a bit more common sense.

Originally Posted by Igottago

Yes other things can kill people, but these other things do not have the sole purpose of being used to kill. A gun isn't there to prepare your dinner, take you to work, or drink on a patio on a warm weekend. The primary reason a gun exists -- to take life. An object with that express purpose needs to be far more closely regulated than the items you mentioned.

Firearms are probably one of the most regulated items commercially available to civilians in Canada. It might just be a case of US media being so pervasive that the Canadian way of doing things doesn't get a whole lot of attention and therefore the regulations we have are not well known.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The Stats Canada reports show that guns are used in a tiny portion of intimate partner crimes. Assuming that all the guns used in these offenses are in the hands of law-abiding citizens, you reduce the incidence of intimate partner crime by 576 out of 97,500 cases. Keep in mind, these are cases where the most serious weapon found was a firearm. The 2011 StatsCan report measuring violence against women shows an even lower number. Out of 77,943 cases of a violent crime committed against a woman by an intimate partner, only 57 cases involved the pointing, use of or discharge of a firearm. That is 0.073% of all cases.

Your assertion that getting rid of guns will cause a drastic reduction in gun related offenses is mostly correct. Without guns, you can't have gun crime. This assumes that all these offenses were committed by people who would follow a confiscation order if it was implemented. The problem with this is that you have focused primarily on GUNS and not reducing violent crime as a whole.

You'll never hear someone say "we got rid of guns and reduced the amount violent crime against women by an intimate partner from 77,943 cases to maybe only 77,886 cases!". What you'll actually hear is "we banned guns and the majority of gun crimes against women by an intimate partner dropped to almost nothing!". This also assumes that all 57 of those people who used a gun illegally against an intimate partner ONLY want to use their gun and would not use other means of abusing them.

You misunderstand the point of gun control. No one is claiming that reducing access to guns will reduce violence. What gun control advocates argue is that reducing access to guns will reduce the damage caused by that violence.

For example, access to a firearm is likely irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Whiteacre gets drunk, comes home, and takes out the frustrations of his unrealized hopes and dreams on Ms. Whiteacre. However, access to a firearm is likely relevant to whether or not Ms. Whiteacre wakes up in the morning with a black eye and a broken jaw or whether she doesn't wake up at all. Obviously, both options are abhorrent, but one is clearly preferable to the other.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Makarov

You misunderstand the point of gun control. No one is claiming that reducing access to guns will reduce violence. What gun control advocates argue is that reducing access to guns will reduce the damage caused by that violence.

For example, access to a firearm is likely irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Whiteacre gets drunk, comes home, and takes out the frustrations of his unrealized hopes and dreams on Ms. Whiteacre. However, access to a firearm is likely relevant to whether or not Ms. Whiteacre wakes up in the morning with a black eye and a broken jaw or whether she doesn't wake up at all. Obviously, both options are abhorrent, but one is clearly preferable to the other.

Exactly. Kid loses his mind in Newtown and has access to weapons? A whole lot of people are dead. Kid loses his mind here in Pittsburgh, only has access to a knife, quite a few people are hurt, but not a single death.

Again, there are still drunk drivers who kill people. There are still people who don't use seatbelts and are seriously injured or killed in car accidents. But the number of injuries and fatalities are greatly reduced because of the laws in place.

Common sense gun control doesn't take away guns from good citizens, but if sale of weapons/ammo is more controlled, it might keep guns away from criminals and sociopaths, and it would likely result in a reduction of gun related deaths.

No one is saying you have to take away all guns. Just that it should be regulated more heavily than it currently is. The NRA wants open season on guns, as if they're completely harmless toys, not a weapon whose express purpose is to exert deadly force.

[troutman]

Man shoots neighbour's dog on residential street in Colorado:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26...e-city-shot-by

The gun culture here is surreal.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by troutman

Man shoots neighbour's dog on residential street in Colorado:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26...e-city-shot-by

The gun culture here is surreal.

Raymond Martinez, Emily's husband, ran back into their home to grab his gun. By the time he re-emerged from the home, after a couple of minutes, the man who fired the shots had left.

Because that would have helped things and not escalated them any further. Unreal.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by troutman

Man shoots neighbour's dog on residential street in Colorado:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26...e-city-shot-by

The gun culture here is surreal.

So wait, a man expressed concerns about a dog jumping the fence to his neigbour. Evidently, his neighbour does nothing as the dog jumps the fence and attacks another dog at a later date. What a piece of #### owner of the dog who was killed.

Of all the reasons to get rid of guns, protecting yourself from vicious (or protective) dogs and their negligent owners doesn't seem to be the best reason in the world.

Meh, if I have the means to protect myself or my dog from a dog that jumped the fence and attacked me or my dog, I take it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by troutman

Man shoots neighbour's dog on residential street in Colorado:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26...e-city-shot-by

The gun culture here is surreal.

wait Sliver vacations in Denver.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Because that would have helped things and not escalated them any further. Unreal.

It is the whole story that is so bizarre to me. Man shoots dog with concealed gun he carries around residential community. He points the gun at other people and children. The owner of the slain dog runs into his house to get his gun.

A hot topic in Denver now:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26...=hot-topic-bar

Shooter carried the gun in case of coyote attacks.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by troutman

It is the whole story that is so bizarre to me. Man shoots dog with concealed gun he carries around residential community. He points the gun at other people and children. The owner of the slain dog runs into his house to get his gun.

A hot topic in Denver now:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26...=hot-topic-bar

Shooter carried the gun in case of coyote attacks.

and by coyotes he means, Obamas jackbooted henchmen, inner city thugs and zombies.

[Resolute 14]

Fired UPS worker heroically uses his second amendment rights to protect former co-workers from their bosses.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ingham-n209681

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So wait, a man expressed concerns about a dog jumping the fence to his neigbour. Evidently, his neighbour does nothing as the dog jumps the fence and attacks another dog at a later date. What a piece of #### owner of the dog who was killed.

Of all the reasons to get rid of guns, protecting yourself from vicious (or protective) dogs and their negligent owners doesn't seem to be the best reason in the world.

Meh, if I have the means to protect myself or my dog from a dog that jumped the fence and attacked me or my dog, I take it.

Where did it say Clifford attacted the armed man or his dog, maybe he wanted to get friendly.

If I know anything about dogs I would say Clifford wasn't a killer.



Maybe put a small bit of blame on walking your dog next to another one, carrying a pistol and not using your brain.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by T@T

Where did it say Clifford attacted the armed man or his dog, maybe he wanted to get friendly.

If I know anything about dogs I would say Clifford wasn't a killer.

Maybe put a small bit of blame on walking your dog next to another one, carrying a pistol and not using your brain.

The man goes to his neighbour, in a friendly manner no less, and expresses his concerns about the fence and his dog jumping over it. The man appears reasonable at this point, despite legally carrying a gun.

His neighbour is negligent and does nothing about the fence. You've read a very one-sided story from this negligent man and even it paints him in an extremely poor light with any sense of critical thinking. A picture of the dog with a child? We see and hear that everytime a dog attacks, "my dog is perfect and wouldn't hurt anyone."

The man who shot the dog may or may not be an ####### scumbag. We'd have to hear his side of the story. What we do know is the owner of the dog who got shot is an ####### scumbag who doesn't give a #### about his neighbours, dog or probably anything else if he couldn't even secure his fence after being told about it.