Mass Shootings Now Very Common
I'm not posting this to try to convince anyone we need more gun control. I'm posting it just because it's kind of shocking to me.
from the article:
"Multiple mass shootings have occurred in just the past two days — at a courthouse in Masontown, Pennsylvania; a business in Middleton, Wisconsin; and a Rite Aid distribution center in Aberdeen, Maryland.
This is, apparently, not abnormal for 2018. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been nearly as many mass shootings so far this year as there have been days.
“There have been 262 American mass shootings (4+ shot or killed in the same incident, not including the shooter) in the 263 days of 2018,” the Gun Violence Archive tweeted."
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/20/17882888/mass-shootings-us-aberdeen-maryland
Quote: lilredroosterI think there has to be more than 5 killed or shot for it to be headline news. Just 3 or 4 and the story is buried beneath other national news stories.
I'm not posting this to try to convince anyone we need more gun control. I'm posting it just because it's kind of shocking to me.
from the article:
"Multiple mass shootings have occurred in just the past two days — at a courthouse in Masontown, Pennsylvania; a business in Middleton, Wisconsin; and a Rite Aid distribution center in Aberdeen, Maryland.
This is, apparently, not abnormal for 2018. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been nearly as many mass shootings so far this year as there have been days.
“There have been 262 American mass shootings (4+ shot or killed in the same incident, not including the shooter) in the 263 days of 2018,” the Gun Violence Archive tweeted."
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/20/17882888/mass-shootings-us-aberdeen-maryland
We truly live in horrifying times. Sometimes i wished this was 1988 rather than 2018. Mass shootings were extremely uncommon in 1988.
Last night, I was thinking that there has kind of been an evolution in the approach of such things among the killers who are somewhat organized and intelligent.
It seems to me like a person who really wanted to cause as much death as possible could go a lot further than we've seen. Then more might copy.
But on the other hand, perhaps we are really strongly wired not to do such things.
my other half was in the mall at the time.
her cell was off and I couldn't contact her.
it was really scary.
Quote: lilredrooster
“There have been 262 American mass shootings (4+ shot or killed in the same incident, not including the shooter) in the 263 days of 2018,” the Gun Violence Archive tweeted."
That is a pretty thin way to define "mass shooting." All that needs happen is one armed robbery go bad per day. One incident of gang violence.
Moral of the story: dig deeper,
Quote: AZDuffmanThat is a pretty thin way to define "mass shooting." All that needs happen is one armed robbery go bad per day. One incident of gang violence.
Moral of the story: dig deeper,
if you're saying that an armed robbery going bad lessens the impact of the event I disagree. It could easily be a friend or a relative working or shopping in a store. yes, an armed robber may not be as sick or disturbed as somebody out on a thrill kill but that doesn't really matter to me.
Quote: troopscottthere have always been mass shootings there was just not the internet, and a liberal media bent on convincing everyone they dont need guns, guns are of the devil etc
really? can you point to an incident in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s of 20 elementary school children being shot and killed as in Newtown.
or how about the Las Vegas shooter who killed 58 and directly or indirectly left 851 injured.
don't even bother to try buddy. you can't.
Quote: troopscottthere have always been mass shootings there was just not the internet, and a liberal media bent on convincing everyone they dont need guns, guns are of the devil etc
We have always had newspapers reporting the news
Multiple high school students in mass shootings every few months is a reality in this country
Other countries on the planet don't have these incidents on a regular basis
That was not the reality in this country in the 40's, 50's 60's 70's
Quote: lilredrooster
or how about the Las Vegas shooter who killed 58 and directly or indirectly left 851 injured.
1984 McDonald’s shooter for one
Quote: AZDuffman1984 McDonald’s shooter for one
I remember that one
It was huge news back in the day
Today with all the mass shootings happening everywhere in this country, it would be just be a small blip of news
Quote: AZDuffman1984 McDonald’s shooter for one
he killed 21 and injured 19 others.
the Las Vegas shooter killed 58, more than 3 times as many, and 851 were injured, 44 times as many.
also, the McDonalds shooting is the only one I can remember where a number anywhere near that large were killed. also, it was in 1984, although I mentioned the 80s, it is fairly recent. if you go back to the 50s, 60s and 70s I don't think you'll find a single one of that magnitude. if I'm wrong I'll admit it.
Quote: NathanWe truly live in horrifying times. Sometimes i wished this was 1988 rather than 2018. Mass shootings were extremely uncommon in 1988.
No no no a thousand times NO.
ALL crime, including violent crime, has decreased significantly in the past 20 years. The 80’s and 90’s were the absolute deadliest in recent history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time
People get the impression that things are worse “these days” because of our insanely easy access to information, as well as the commercialization of tragedy in today’s corporate media.
There may be increases in violence in some isolated areas like Chicago. And mass shooting situations seem to be a little more common than other decades in history. But by every single statistical measure, right now is the best time to be alive
Mass shootings are scarier than most other crimes because of the randomness and the feeling that “this could have easily happened to me” - but statistically speaking you probably have a better chance of winning a multistate lottery jackpot than being killed by a mass shooter.
Quote: lilredroosterreally? can you point to an incident in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s of 20 elementary school children being shot and killed as in Newtown.
or how about the Las Vegas shooter who killed 58 and directly or indirectly left 851 injured.
don't even bother to try buddy. you can't.
In 1891 (yes 1891) a fella fired multiple shots froma double barrel shotgun during a high school play wounding (some seriously) 14 people
In 1893 there were 4 killed and one wounded in a school shooting
1898 6 killed one wounded
These were non Indian events
There early 1900's were slow with about 25 shootings but none killing more than three
Then we get to 1966 where a gent set up shot in a bell tower killing 18 and wounding 31 with a single shot bolt action rifle
I could go on like a couple years later in Arizona 5 were killed 2 wounded
Mass shootings like las vegas
1949 had the Camden shooting 13 killed 3 wounded which is the 14th deadliest on record
The Easter massacrekillee 11 in 1975.
They went on but most snowflakes and gun control nuts dont want to admit it
Quote: lilredroosterreally? can you point to an incident in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s of 20 elementary school children being shot and killed as in Newtown.
1927, Michigan. Not strictly a shooting, but 38 elementary school children and six adults killed when the schoolhouse was bombed.
Source
As far as actual shootings:
The third deadliest school shooting in the U.S. (17 dead) was in 1966.
The ninth deadliest school shooting (10 dead) happened in 1794.
The eleventh deadliest (7 dead) was in 1976.
Source
The top 5 deadliest mass shootings in the U.S. have all taken place since 2007. However, the sixth, seventh, and eighth deadliest happened between 1966 and 1991. Twelve of the top 27 deadliest mass shootings (10 or more dead) in the U.S. happened before 2000.
Source
So, mass shootings and school shootings seem to be slightly more common since 2000, but both have been happening for decades, and violent crime overall is down.
i.e. in 1957 the homicide rate per 100,000 people was 4.0
in 2014 it was 4.5
but the population of the U.S. in 1957 was about 172 million
and the population of the U.S. now is about 326 million
so, while you as an individual are not much more likely to be a victim of homicides there are about double the number of homicides
it's not only the per capita rate that is important. the increasing number of homicides is also important. it influences how you feel about your society and your neighborhood.
if you considered your neighborhood to be a 5 square block portion of Manhattan and in 1957 there were 2 murders there you feel a certain way about that.
but if in 2014 in that same area there are now 4 murders you are likely to feel differently - more insecure.
there is another issue also. we are about equal in our current homicide rate to most of the 50s and 60s.
which means it hasn't improved since then
as Americans we like to think that as time passes all aspects of our society improves
and we have not improved in this area
https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/homicide-rate-1950-2014
Quote: NathanWe truly live in horrifying times. Sometimes i wished this was 1988 rather than 2018. Mass shootings were extremely uncommon in 1988.
Sure, but then we'd be dealing with Rick Ashley and Tipper Gore.
Give me the mass shootings......
Another bunch at Oklahoma city bombing.
Good Americans mowed down at Ludlow.
Haymarket riot. Veterans murdered by strike breakers.
Millions killed in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Yemen is a slaughterhouse.
Quote: lilredroosterbut if you go back further than the 80s:
i.e. in 1957 the homicide rate per 100,000 people was 4.0
in 2014 it was 4.5
but the population of the U.S. in 1957 was about 172 million
and the population of the U.S. now is about 326 million
so, while you as an individual are not much more likely to be a victim of homicides there are about double the number of homicides
it's not only the per capita rate that is important. the increasing number of homicides is also important. it influences how you feel about your society and your neighborhood.
It influences how low-information people feel. Smart people know that the rate is about the same. We also know that homicides are very concentrated in the few most violent areas (Chicago, DC, St Louis, etc) which skews the rate.
Reality is that gun violence is not a real problem in the USA as far as most people are concerned. Very few people are directly affected by it.
Quote: lilredroosterbut if you go back further than the 80s
I’ll stop you there. Comparing today’s data with data from 60+ years ago is apples to oranges.
They did not collect data on these things with anywhere close same amount of accuracy in that era. It’s likely that a crapload of homocides and other crime went entirely unreported outside of local police departments (or anywhere) in the 50’s.
Quote: gamerfreakI’ll stop you there. Comparing today’s data with data from 60+ years ago is apples to oranges.
They did not collect data on these things with anywhere close same amount of 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 in that era. It’s likely that a crapload of homocides and other crime went entirely unreported outside of local police departments (or anywhere) in the 50’s.
accuracy today?
from NCIC - National Crime Information Center - FBI
2017:
missing males under 21 - 232,179
missing females under 21 - 260,977
missing males over 21 - 96,091
missing females over 21 - 61,888
add it all up it's more than 600,000
I'll grant you a good percentage have chosen to go missing.
But it's only reasonable to surmise that a fair % that have met with foul play
and the authorities don't have a clue
https://www.statista.com/statistics/240387/number-of-missing-persons-files-in-the-us-by-age/
Edit: my post was accurate but didn't include important info. those numbers reflected the no. of cases filed. most of those cases were cleared.
However, at the end of 2017 there were 88,089 active cases of which 36.5% were juveniles under 18.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2017-ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics.pdf/view
New is more precise and available and now bombards us more but similar events took place.
Texas Tower created quite a media stir but all those worried about mass slayings are still likely to die from people they know than from strangers.
More mental health cases? I don't know about that.
No one should think they are immune from this sort of stuff but its not like its a major risk factor in your day.
Quote: FleaStiff
More mental health cases? I don't know about that.
I doubt there are "more" they are more ignored now. I see all kinds of Lunacy cases in the books from the 1800s.
Today "tolerance" means people who are acting looney are allowed to keep doing so. Years ago you did not say you "identified" as Black when you were White, or as a woman when you are really a man. You got a crack in the head and were told to straighten up. If it was really bad, you got locked up.
Today you get pills and told to get on with life.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt influences how low-information people feel. Smart people know that the rate is about the same. We also know that homicides are very concentrated in the few most violent areas (Chicago, DC, St Louis, etc) which skews the rate.
Reality is that gun violence is not a real problem in the USA as far as most people are concerned. Very few people are directly affected by it.
As opposed to what? Islamic terrorists? How does one rationalise that gun violence isn't a real problem but Islamic terrorists are?
Quote: billryanAs opposed to what? Islamic terrorists? How does one rationalise that gun violence isn't a real problem but Islamic terrorists are?
The problem with islam is far greater than just islamic terrorists. But as I have explained you have to understand history and culture at a much higher level to understand the problem. You cannot think that “islamic attack” are the problem and lack of them means no problem.
Gun violence is not a big problem. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. Then take out all the gun deaths where the vic knows the killer or/and was a criminal themself.
It is very rare to get injured in random gun violence. Even that as I pointed out is very concentrated in places with strict gun control laws.
Quote: billryanAs opposed to what? Islamic terrorists? How does one rationalise that gun violence isn't a real problem but Islamic terrorists are?
Hey! Maybe we should ask the NRA. They seem to know a lot about guns:
NRA membership dues tanked last year
On second thought, nevermind.... they seem to be busy with some other problems right now....
Quote: TigerWuHey! Maybe we should ask the NRA. They seem to know a lot about guns:
NRA membership dues tanked last year
On second thought, nevermind.... they seem to be busy with some other problems right now....
What does the NRA have to do with gun violence? Other than nothing I mean.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: TigerWuHey! Maybe we should ask the NRA. They seem to know a lot about guns:
NRA membership dues tanked last year
On second thought, nevermind.... they seem to be busy with some other problems right now....
What does the NRA have to do with gun violence? Other than nothing I mean.
I... I don't even know how to respond to how f***ing stupid this question is....
EDIT: I mean, the NRA?? The National RIFLE Association? You're seriously asking how the NRA is relevant in a discussion about guns and gun violence?? Are you feeling okay, AZ?
Quote: TigerWuQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: TigerWuHey! Maybe we should ask the NRA. They seem to know a lot about guns:
NRA membership dues tanked last year
On second thought, nevermind.... they seem to be busy with some other problems right now....
What does the NRA have to do with gun violence? Other than nothing I mean.
I... I don't even know how to respond to how f***ing stupid this question is....
EDIT: I mean, the NRA?? The National RIFLE Association? You're seriously asking how the NRA is relevant in a discussion about guns and gun violence?? Are you feeling okay, AZ?
Yes, I am asking what the NRA has to do with gun violence. Any educated person would ask this. I have never once seen or heard the NRA call for gun violence. Please explain the connection. Please explain without the ******** about how taking the right of law abiding citizens away will somehow stop gun violence, as that argument never holds up. Somehow gun grabbers think that we can use laws to keep guns from criminals when laws cannot keep heroin out of our prisons. This is the real world.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: TigerWuHey! Maybe we should ask the NRA. They seem to know a lot about guns:
NRA membership dues tanked last year
On second thought, nevermind.... they seem to be busy with some other problems right now....
What does the NRA have to do with gun violence? Other than nothing I mean.
I... I don't even know how to respond to how f***ing stupid this question is....
EDIT: I mean, the NRA?? The National RIFLE Association? You're seriously asking how the NRA is relevant in a discussion about guns and gun violence?? Are you feeling okay, AZ?
I’m outraged Ford didn’t make a statement about OJ fleeing in a Ford Bronco. OMG! Why does no one ever talk about Ford’s involvement in the murder of Nicole??!?!?!!!!
Quote: RSI’m outraged Ford didn’t make a statement about OJ fleeing in a Ford Bronco. OMG! Why does no one ever talk about Ford’s involvement in the murder of Nicole??!?!?!!!!
Didn't Bronco sales tank so bad after that chase that Ford had to stop making them very soon after? Maybe if they had come out with practices like the NRA uses -- they could have kept selling them
Quote: AZDuffmanGun violence is not a big problem. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. Then take out all the gun deaths where the vic knows the killer or/and was a criminal themself.
Suicide, murders of family members or associates, and criminal deaths are significant problems in both the US and the world. They are certainly different problems than mass murders, but still problems. When you say that most gun deaths are suicides, that is about all the evidence we need to prove that the more barriers there are to accessing guns, the fewer gun deaths there will be.
Quote: TomGSuicide, murders of family members or associates, and criminal deaths are significant problems in both the US and the world. They are certainly different problems than mass murders, but still problems. When you say that most gun deaths are suicides, that is about all the evidence we need to prove that the more barriers there are to accessing guns, the fewer gun deaths there will be.
IMO, instead of just taking guns from people or putting huge limitations on the types of guns people can own...why don’t we, ya know, go after the actual problem? If someone can’t kill themselves with a gun, they’re still going to have suicidal thoughts - and if they’re willing to kill themselves with a gun, good chance they’ll at least attempt another method, even if other methods aren’t as “successful”.
Yes, you can put someone in a straight jacket so they can’t hurt themselves. A better solution is to help the person so they don’t want to hurt themselves.
Quote: NathanWe truly live in horrifying times. Sometimes i wished this was 1988 rather than 2018. Mass shootings were extremely uncommon in 1988.
You actually just hinted at the problem without realizing you did. Let's dig deeper, shall we? What major event began in the 90's? The technology boom. I would love to see the correlation and data between the increase of technology in society and suicides and mass shootings. The more this society has become obsessed with gadgets, tech, computers, more mass shootings and suicides began to happen, Hmmm, I wonder why? Could it be that we as a society have forgot how to talk to one another and develop strong interpersonal relationships and create 'real' friends and instead we are glued to our phones, our computers, social media and worrying more about how many likes we can get on our facebook statuses and instagram photos and get massive dopamine to our heads when we see a red notification.
My dad always talks about how in his childhood there were no text messaging or phones. If you wanted to hang out with someone or speak to someone, you had to actually 'physically' take your bike or whatever and ride it to their house to see them. The problem lies right there. There's not enough human interaction and contact anymore. People get depressed, lonely and don't know what to do with themselves. Not to mention the amount of drugs being taken these days that doctors prescribe at will and not to mention the amount of prescribed medication that people can get their hands on illegitimately.
Once again, I'm honestly too smart and ahead of my time, but it is what it is. If only this country was a dictatorship for 4 years and I was president. Oh the possibilities. I would fix everything in this country in a matter of 4 years unless the international bankers and the secret society get rid of me first, but im a step ahead of them too.
NEVER mention the shooters names or make movies and sbows about
them. I bet it would have happend far less if not for all the press.
Quote: TomGDidn't Bronco sales tank so bad after that chase that Ford had to stop making them very soon after? Maybe if they had come out with practices like the NRA uses -- they could have kept selling them
Actually they went up for a couple years. The model was discontinued about 4 years later because by the time of the chase 2-door SUV sales were in a general fall and that model was very old and outdated by then. The public was moving over to the Explorer, one of the best and most popular SUVs ever.
Quote: TomGWhen you say that most gun deaths are suicides, that is about all the evidence we need to prove that the more barriers there are to accessing guns, the fewer gun deaths there will be.
********!
Would you be happier if they just jumped out of windows?
I will give you an actual example to show how silly that is. My grandfather shot himself. He probably would have went within a year, but had lost his wife and dog, and his daughter would have went within the year. He used a gun he had legally purchased and owned for probably over 10 years. I do not know exactly because he had a couple legal guns for 30 or more years but traded a few times. Really, then, you could say it was a legal gun he had for decades.
See, this is how the real world works. You cannot just say, "take away guns and all will be well." People will find a way. If guns scare you, just don't buy one.
Quote: RSIMO, instead of just taking guns from people or putting huge limitations on the types of guns people can own...why don’t we, ya know, go after the actual problem?
The actual problem is that these problems are multi-faceted. One of those parts is how much we celebrate gun culture in this country. How would you react if we tried to go after that?
Quote: RSIf someone can’t kill themselves with a gun, they’re still going to have suicidal thoughts - and if they’re willing to kill themselves with a gun, good chance they’ll at least attempt another method, even if other methods aren’t as “successful”.
But what is that "good chance" exactly. Even if it's 90%, that means 10% of suicide deaths by gun will end up in no attempt at all -- and simply being able to cut down on attempts by that amount would be huge. While like you said, using different methods will often have far lower success rate, especially among young people. Something like 20 attempts for every completed suicide. Pushing people toward attempting methods with lower rates is a good thing. It's what happens inside the mental hospitals, with very few deaths by suicide.
Quote: RSYes, you can put someone in a straight jacket so they can’t hurt themselves. A better solution is to help the person so they don’t want to hurt themselves.
Sounds like a great argument to fully fund Obamacare, or at least the parts dealing with mental illness
Quote: AZDuffman********!
Would you be happier if they just jumped out of windows?
For you to even ask that shows how far out of touch you are
Quote: AZDuffmanI will give you an actual example to show how silly that is.
I love that you've come around to the idea that when it comes to dealing with guns, gun laws, and access to guns, you now believe using a single example lets us arrive at the best conclusion
Quote: AZDuffmanSee, this is how the real world works. You cannot just say, "take away guns and all will be well." People will find a way. If guns scare you, just don't buy one.
The only person who says that is you when you decide to use strawman arguments and put words in other peoples mouths
Quote: TomG
The actual problem is that these problems are multi-faceted. One of those parts is how much we celebrate gun culture in this country. How would you react if we tried to go after that?
What part are you going to go after? The violent rappers? Gun violence in movies? By all means, feel free to go after that.
However, methinks you feel the problem is that redneck who likes to hunt and keeps guns in the house for self-defense but bothers nobody.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat part are you going to go after? The violent rappers? Gun violence in movies? By all means, feel free to go after that.
Mental health would be the most important long term issue that could actually be addressed.
Quote: AZDuffmanHowever, methinks you feel the problem is that redneck who likes to hunt and keeps guns in the house for self-defense but bothers nobody.
Absolutely go after them, the same way we could go after any other legal gun owner. If their gun is stolen and fired, they should be held liable as if the were the ones who pulled the trigger. That would cut down significantly on stolen guns and that would cut down on a lot of teenagers who die by suicide.
Also, because they already own guns, if there was a waiting period to buy one, it would not infringe on their rights to own guns (because they already do own them). The only people who could potentially cite a problem between the second amendment and a waiting period to buy guns would be teenagers -- the very population who would have far less deaths simply by not having access to guns. (And they can just enlist in the military and get paid to shoot weapons).
Quote: TomGMental health would be the most important long term issue that could actually be addressed.
But we do not want to address it. We want to be "tolerant" and say things are normal.
Quote:Absolutely go after them, the same way we could go after any other legal gun owner. If their gun is stolen and fired, they should be held liable as if the were the ones who pulled the trigger. That would cut down significantly on stolen guns and that would cut down on a lot of teenagers who die by suicide.
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard? So are you saying if I steal your car and kill someone YOU should be held liable? Why on earth should someone be held liable if someone commits a crime (steals their gun) then commits another crime with it?
Quote:Also, because they already own guns, if there was a waiting period to buy one, it would not infringe on their rights to own guns (because they already do own them). The only people who could potentially cite a problem between the second amendment and a waiting period to buy guns would be teenagers -- the very population who would have far less deaths simply by not having access to guns. (And they can just enlist in the military and get paid to shoot weapons).
Have you researched any fact on people 17 and under and gun deaths? 18 year olds have and should have every right to buy and own a gun as an adult. Some quick google research shows 1,300 people under 17 killed by guns each year, 38% suicides.
So take the 494 suicides out (which for simplicity I will round to 500) and that leaves just 800. That is not a big number. I'm not going to spend all day doing research, but we can assume a large part of that 800 is kids in gangs and gang violence. Meaning we do not have a "gun problem" as much as a "gang problem."
Sorry, but 800 gun deaths a year is nowhere near reason enough to start grabbing guns from law abiding people. It is a very small number, made to look large. "Gun deaths kill more kids than 'x.'" Well, as few people die so young of course something will be a "leading cause of death."
You seem afraid of guns. You are free not to own one. Learn to live and let live.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard? So are you saying if I steal your car and kill someone YOU should be held liable? Why on earth should someone be held liable if someone commits a crime (steals their gun) then commits another crime with it?
I take responsibility over both my car and my weapons by requiring key access. Why do other gun owners like yourself take so little responsibility over your weapons?
Quote: AZDuffmanHave you researched any fact on people 17 and under and gun deaths? 18 year olds have and should have every right to buy and own a gun as an adult.
But the adults already own weapons, so the only possible constitutional effect on having a waiting period would be for 18-year-olds and no one else.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo take the 494 suicides out (which for simplicity I will round to 500) and that leaves just 800. That is not a big number. I'm not going to spend all day doing research, but we can assume a large part of that 800 is kids in gangs and gang violence. Meaning we do not have a "gun problem" as much as a "gang problem."
A lot of gang violence involves illegal weapons, often stolen. I know one way to address that issue. . .
Quote: AZDuffmanSorry, but 800 gun deaths a year is nowhere near reason enough to start grabbing guns from law abiding people.
Absolutely correct. Which is why we should find ways to reduce gun deaths without resorting to grabbing guns. For some reason that idea seems to upset you. I understand why the NRA doesn't like it: because all they care about is the profits from gun sales. But why does it bother you so much?
Quote: RSQuote: TigerWuQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: TigerWuHey! Maybe we should ask the NRA. They seem to know a lot about guns:
NRA membership dues tanked last year
On second thought, nevermind.... they seem to be busy with some other problems right now....
What does the NRA have to do with gun violence? Other than nothing I mean.
I... I don't even know how to respond to how f***ing stupid this question is....
EDIT: I mean, the NRA?? The National RIFLE Association? You're seriously asking how the NRA is relevant in a discussion about guns and gun violence?? Are you feeling okay, AZ?
I’m outraged Ford didn’t make a statement about OJ fleeing in a Ford Bronco. OMG! Why does no one ever talk about Ford’s involvement in the murder of Nicole??!?!?!!!!
Do you guys understand that the NRA is a proponent of gun rights in this country?
Do you guys understand that the NRA probably has statistics and research regarding gun usage, both recreational and possibly even criminal?
Do you guys understand why that would be relevant information in a thread about mass shootings?
Do you guys understand that I never once accused the NRA of being responsible for, or even remotely involved with mass shootings?
Because I don't think either you or Duffman understand any of that, based on your bizarre and irrelevant responses to my post.
Quote: TomGI take responsibility over both my car and my weapons by requiring key access. Why do other gun owners like yourself take so little responsibility over your weapons?
If my gun is in my home or car then that is all that need be done to secure it.
Quote:But the adults already own weapons, so the only possible constitutional effect on having a waiting period would be for 18-year-olds and no one else.
We already have a wait period and background checks. Sorry to break it to you, but Bloods and Crips do not buy across a gun store counter.
Quote:A lot of gang violence involves illegal weapons, often stolen. I know one way to address that issue. . .
Use Rudy-style broken window police methods? Roust gang members? Pick them up on Mopery and Loitering charges like the old days? All would work.
Quote:Absolutely correct. Which is why we should find ways to reduce gun deaths without resorting to grabbing guns. For some reason that idea seems to upset you. I understand why the NRA doesn't like it: because all they care about is the profits from gun sales. But why does it bother you so much?
What NRA gun sale profits? The NRA does not manufacture or sell guns. What bothers me is looney ideas like holding a gun owner responsible for their stolen weapon being used in a crime. Draconian laws that make it hard to impossible for law abiding people to buy and own guns. And the idea that the "guns" are the problem when it is a people-problem.
By the numbers, gun deaths are not a serious problem.
Quote: TigerWu
Do you guys understand that the NRA is a proponent of gun rights in this country?
Yes, and I sleep better knowing they are around.
Quote:Do you guys understand that the NRA probably has statistics and research regarding gun usage, both recreational and possibly even criminal?
I don't know or care if they do. What is the point of the statement?
Quote:Do you guys understand why that would be relevant information in a thread about mass shootings?
No, why would it be?
Quote:Do you guys understand that I never once accused the NRA of being responsible for, or even remotely involved with mass shootings?
You sure infer that the NRA is a problem. FWIW, nobody with an IQ over 90 can legitimately think the NRA is remotely responsible for gun violence.
Quote:Because I don't think either you or Duffman understand any of that, based on your bizarre and irrelevant responses to my post.
Well, if the NRA is not an issue, don't bring the NRA up when discussing gun violence. Remember, the correlation is that places with the most gun violence have the most restrictive gun laws.
Quote: FinsRuleI have an IQ above 90 and I believe that if there were no nra, there would be less deaths from guns in this country. So your post is incorrect (again).
I challenge you to prove it with more than saying "because."
How can I prove the FBI didn’t send a 16 year old to have sex with a 30 year old guy for money so they could arrest him? I can’t prove it, it is just a ludicrous idea.
In this case, without the NRA, we might have an assault weapons ban, and tougher background check laws, and I just have to think that this would at least cause gun deaths to decrease at least by a little. I mean, you wouldn’t think that would increase gun deaths.
But all I needed to do to prove your post wrong was to legitimately believe that the NRA contributes to the increase in gun deaths. I think I accomplished that.
Now I need to prove that I have an IQ above 90. Which I don’t care enough to do.
