Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by T@T

Just wondering, but why does it seem that the bible thumpers love guns more than anyone else?

It's because they're so pro-life.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by driveway

There is a direct correlation between the Obama presidency and the amount of guns being sold in America.

In one of my own posts: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=2731

I link to a Business Insider article which links to an ATF report, here's the gist: Since Obama was elected, gun sales have increased almost exponentially. Between 1986 and 2007 gun sales in America were basically flat. 3,040,934 guns were sold in 1986. 3,922,613 guns were sold in America in 2007. Between 1986 and 2007 there was some fluctuation, the high being 1994 when 5,173,217 guns were sold. The low was 2001 with 2,932,655.

Then 2008 rolls around and it starts looking like Obama's going to get elected.

Here are the number of guns sold per year between 2008 and 2013.

2008 - 4,498,944
2009 - 5,555,818
2010 - 5,459,240
2011 - 6,541,886
2012 - 8,578,610
2013 - 10,884,792

.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...dustry-so-far/

You're exactly right- gun sales went crazy went Obama got elected because Americans felt their right to bear arms would be infringed upon. Ammunition sales also increased ten fold because of the threats of high taxes.

Here's the thing- Obama knew that would happen. Every politician, especially the highest position in the country and quite frankly, the world, knew that would happen. So- is the increase in gun sales Obama's fault?

Of course not.

It's not a topical argument to blame the surge in gun sales for the mass shootings, simply because there is already a trend of increased gun ownership whenever a democrat gets elected.

While the 2nd amendment enthusiasts may be glad to see Obama gun, gun manufacturers will not.

But this still leaves us with the gaping question of WHY so many mass shootings in the past 8 years.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, however people who say 'Oh, it's the Republicans' fault because they are gun toting idiots' sound equally as idiotic. And, of course, this is at the core of the problem. Other problems that contribute:

-Liberals saying Republicans are idiots.
-Republicans saying Liberals are idiots.
-Front runners like whackjob Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or Ben Carson and Hillary Clinton.
-Religion (the utmost downfall of mankind) is the root of all evil, as it makes those who 'believe' superior, and those who do not, 'inferior.'
-Video games and movies do their best to eradicate sensitivity to human life.
-The media coverage (not just FOX but ALL OF IT) glorifies the mass shooters to other whacks that might want their minute in the spotlight.
-Political correctness often backfires for those who feel strongly one way or another, people feel compelled to act irrationally when they feel their beliefs have been questioned- even if they know they are wrong.
-The growth of the capabilities of obtaining information about anyone, anywhere, any place, anything.
-Internet radical websites and message boards help spread the crazy.


The answer won't ever be found, but if we look at a culmination of various things, we may be able to figure out some root causes- but what is that going to solve? Probably nothing.

It's not the guns. There were always guns. There were always a TON of guns in the United States. There has been a steady decline in gun ownership per person in the United States since the 80s, albeit an increase in how many guns that gun owners themselves have. We could throw statistics around about guns until we're blue in the face- but it's not JUST the guns. It's something else. And it's not just one thing.

Those who make smartass comments about 'It's the Republicans fault because they are pro life gun toting idiots' or 'It's the Democrats fault because Obama is a Muslim' are fueling the fire and adding to the problem- and really, looking pretty stupid while doing it.

[driveway]

It doesn't matter if it's the prevalence of guns causing these shootings, what does matter is that the absence of guns would prevent them.

As a society we can, and should, spend a huge amount of time and energy on self-assessment and self-reflection and look to find root causes to problems.

However, if there is an obvious fix to people getting hurt and dying, you do that, while you do the self-reflection in the meantime. Lots of people are being killed by drunk drivers... do we take a long hard look at the root causes of alcohol use and abuse, civic-engineering, and the impact of the car on our lives? Sure, but in the meantime we lower the limit, throw up checkstops, increase penalties, and advertise like crazy.

So yes, you're right, the problem is complex and multi-facted. But the solution isn't.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

But this still leaves us with the gaping question of WHY so many mass shootings in the past 8 years.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, however people who say 'Oh, it's the Republicans' fault because they are gun toting idiots' sound equally as idiotic. And, of course, this is at the core of the problem. Other problems that contribute:

Democrats=/=Republicans. It's just not a logical equivalency. Democrats are relatively typical politician corrupt types. Mostly all politicians are corrupt and capable of being bought.

Republicans are ignoring actual proven science on evolution, on climate change, etc. Republicans are actively trying to close Planned Parenthood because of a small percentage of the services they provide--all services which are protected legally. They claim that birth control is equal to abortion, which is flat out scientifically untrue. They aren't just corrupt, they are flagrantly lying to everyone to drum up support for their causes.

-Front runners like whackjob Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or Ben Carson and Hillary Clinton.

I'm curious as to how you find Bernie Sanders a "whackjob" on par with Trump or Ben Carson? His view of governance is very comparable to that of Nordic countries. He's pretty far left of center, but I've yet to see where anything he's said is "whackjob" worthy. Not anywhere near the realm of "all Mexicans are rapists" and "let's kill Muslims' families" Trump or "pyramids were where Joseph stored grain" and "the earth is 7000 years old" Carson.

It's not the guns. There were always guns. There were always a TON of guns in the United States.

And yet more and more guns are being purchased every year. Since 2008 states all over the US have passed concealed carry and open carry laws, as well as "stand your ground" laws, which basically give everyone the right to shoot first and figure it out later. Lax gun legislation is absolutely a huge part of the problem, as well as the fact that the gun lobby can spend millions every year to make sure that more lax gun policies are passed, that any kind of gun control legislation is viewed as "taking all our guns!"

Guns are the problem. People aren't killing each other with knives or bats or bombs or machetes. They're killing each other with guns. More and more prevalent, more and more easily obtained guns.

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity--they're all partially at fault for this. For excessively spreading the doctrine of their #######ized version of the second amendment, for spreading lies that Obama is a Muslim, for spreading lies that Planned Parenthood is "selling baby parts."

To say both sides are equally to blame for the issues in America right now is flat out wrong.

[T@T]

Besides being a total hardcore socialist the only other thing wrong with Bernie Sanders is his age. who would vote for a 75 year old?

He could drop dead during the presidential inauguration due to excitement.

[jayswin]

Best part of Bernie Sanders running is Larry David doing him on SNL.

[corporatejay]

No one seems to have brought this up but:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uk-prob...ndon-1.3352917


Have to think that the UK's strict gun laws prevented this from being a massacre and frankly just totally eviscerates the arguments made by some in here who say "guns don't kill people, people do, they could use a knife etc.."

Sure they could but they don't inflict a fraction of the damage.

[jayswin]

Is there any non-gun nuts that say "guns don't kill people, people do" as a reason to not go full steam ahead on attempting to reduce the number of guns in the States? It's typically just those that don't want their guns taken away, I don't think there's too many people that actually rationally believe that guns aren't the issue.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

No one seems to have brought this up but:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uk-prob...ndon-1.3352917


Have to think that the UK's strict gun laws prevented this from being a massacre and frankly just totally eviscerates the arguments made by some in here who say "guns don't kill people, people do, they could use a knife etc.."

Sure they could but they don't inflict a fraction of the damage.

I miss my old town, love that the locals were shouting 'you ain't no Muslim, bruv' at the guy as he was dragged away and this is now the trending hashtag in the UK.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

No one seems to have brought this up but:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uk-prob...ndon-1.3352917

frankly just totally eviscerates the arguments made by some in here who say "guns don't kill people, people do, they could use a knife etc.."
Sure they could but they don't inflict a fraction of the damage.

Yes they sure can:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

29 People dead and 140 injured. Also keep in mind that Calgary's worst mass killing was committed with a knife.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-au...0JX09620141219

8 Children killed in Austrailia

Now before people start jumping down my throat, I'm not posting this because I'm against better gun control in the US, I'm posting it as an example that knifes can and do inflict massive casualties. Both of the above attacks happened in countries that boast very strict gun control.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Yes they sure can:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

29 People dead and 140 injured. Also keep in mind that Calgary's worst mass killing was committed with a knife.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-au...0JX09620141219

8 Children killed in Austrailia

Now before people start jumping down my throat, I'm not posting this because I'm against better gun control in the US, I'm posting it as an example that knifes can and do inflict massive casualties. Both of the above attacks happened in countries that boast very strict gun control.

And in both cases, a LOT more people would have been dead with guns

[CaptainCrunch]

So awesome and a real good argument for the whole, if everyone was armed mass shootings wouldn't happen

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...andom-attacks/

Police said Gallion told them he had taken medicine for anxiety in the morning and that he’d had a pizza and a 22-ounce beer before the movie.

Armed Drunk and Stoned, he must be part of the Springfield Naval Reserve

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Yes they sure can:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

29 People dead and 140 injured. Also keep in mind that Calgary's worst mass killing was committed with a knife.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-au...0JX09620141219

8 Children killed in Austrailia

Now before people start jumping down my throat, I'm not posting this because I'm against better gun control in the US, I'm posting it as an example that knifes can and do inflict massive casualties. Both of the above attacks happened in countries that boast very strict gun control.

No, they sure can't.

In the Chinese example, it took eight perpetrators and a rather shoddy response by police to reach that death toll. Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook required only one perpetrator and mere minutes to equal it.

If those eight people used firearms, the death toll would have been in the hundreds.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, the argument isn't that knives can't cause substantial damage. The argument is that firearms create substantially MORE damage than a knife given equal opportunity. Obviously. Bringing up mass stabbings misses the point entirely.

Even 1 to 1, your chances of surviving a knife attack is MUCH higher than a shooting.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, the argument isn't that knives can't cause substantial damage. The argument is that firearms create substantially MORE damage than a knife given equal opportunity. Obviously. Bringing up mass stabbings misses the point entirely.

Even 1 to 1, your chances of surviving a knife attack is MUCH higher than a shooting.

Oh, you're saying you can't run at 1200 feet per second? Pft.

[GoinAllTheWay]

And in both cases, a LOT more people would have been dead with guns

If those eight people used firearms, the death toll would have been in the hundreds.

Ya, guys, I get that. Not sure why anyone thinks I'm arguing to the contrary. My post was directed at the comment

they could use a knife etc.."Sure they could but they don't inflict a fraction of the damage.

which I think is false.

If people woke up to the headline "8 School children killed in Australia", I think it's a safe bet a vast majority of people would assume a gun was involved.

[Coach]

The fact that a knife can kill as many people as a gun in some circumstances, does not mean that gun can't do incredibly more damage.

The only way a knife could do equal damage as a gun in the same amount of time is if there is a finite number of people to kill. (ie, 8 people locked in a room could all be killed with either a knife or a gun. But in a crowd of a few hundred people, the gun will do much more damage given the same amount of time and indiscriminate targets than a knife).

If your argument is that they can both kill things, a stapler can kill things too.

The speed, efficiency, distance, emotional fortitude it takes to kill someone with a gun (or projectile such as a missile) is completely unmatched by any hand-held object. It's not even close.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Ya, guys, I get that. Not sure why anyone thinks I'm arguing to the contrary. My post was directed at the comment which I think is false.

If people woke up to the headline "8 School children killed in Australia", I think it's a safe bet a vast majority of people would assume a gun was involved.

That people would make an incorrect assumption in no way stands as support for your argument that knives do as much damage as guns.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Ya, guys, I get that. Not sure why anyone thinks I'm arguing to the contrary. My post was directed at the comment which I think is false.

If people woke up to the headline "8 School children killed in Australia", I think it's a safe bet a vast majority of people would assume a gun was involved.

But it isn't false, knives do inflict of a fraction of the damage guns do. Unless you're willing to get into semantics and suggest that maybe sometimes in isolated incidents a knife may cause more damage than a gun, but that would be kind of silly.

If you're argument is that while guns cause more damage in general, knives can also do a lot of damage, just not as much....then there's no one on the other side of your argument.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Ok, I think I'm not properly translating what Corporatejay was trying to say....

No, I'm not for a second arguing that a gun wouldn't do more damage than a knife in the same situation, that would indeed be absurd. What I was trying to say is there have been knife attacks that have produced body counts you would normally associate with a gun attack and it sounded to me like corporatejay was implying that wasn't possible with a knife.

My apologies for the confusion. I'm battling a cold from hell and not thinking straight.