Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

[TenEightyOne]

You are simply obsessed with that 88 guns per capita, as if it means that for every 100 people, very nearly 88 of them (a) own a gun and (b) have it with them at all times.

Get this straight: It does not mean that.

He's wrong. It's 121 guns per 100, about 40% of the world's privately owned guns. Per Capita means exactly what you just described, but that's not meant to be taken as a literal division of the total amongst people - it never means that.

 

[PocketZeven]

You are simply obsessed with that 88 guns per capita, as if it means that for every 100 people, very nearly 88 of them (a) own a gun and (b) have it with them at all times.

Get this straight: It does not mean that.

I posted this a while ago, but it is more about the sheer amount and easy availability of guns. I debated with @Danoff in length about this. I never claimed that 88 of 100 people own guns. Get your facts straight.
I'll try to state it differently, it is easier and cheaper for a criminal to obtain a gun in the USA (legal or illegal) then other developed countries. for example a Smith & wesson M&p 9 costs about 950-1100 Euro here in the netherlands, while it sells in the usa for about 420 USD in the USA.

He's wrong. It's 121 guns per 100, about 40% of the world's privately owned guns. Per Capita means exactly what you just described, but that's not meant to be taken as a literal division of the total amongst people - it never means that.

I mainly used these sources:
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

But after your post I looked at wikipedia and some other sources and your right its even much higher at 120/121 guns per 100 people. That is almost triple that of switzerland/finland.

[/QUOTE]

Wrong.

You arm yourself to negate their advantage.

Wrong.

1. Criminals use knives here as well. Arming yourself negates that advantage as well although in the US, using a weapon in self defense against a criminal with a knife requires absolute proof your life was in immediate danger.
2. Compared to other countries, maybe. In reality, only 25% of the US population has a weapon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wners-thats-a-problem/?utm_term=.8f3414692ef0

Gun ownership is also on the decline.



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despit...-of-households-owning-guns-is-on-the-decline/


He already has an advantage carrying; only 25% of the population carries a weapon. Out of 4 possible people he could rob, only 1 is likely to brandish a weapon.

Civilians and criminals aren't looking for gunfights to begin with; neither wants to lose a life. Most criminals looking to brandish a weapon more than likely don't intend to use it. It's there for intimidation & to force cooperation.


That's not what I said, now was it?

Them, as in face-to-face. Robbing an area is a different matter completely; again, most robberies happen with the victims gone. For a criminal, that eliminates the chance of an armed person altogether.

You are not putting yourself in the criminal's shoes. A dutch criminal has less need for a gun to rob. A american criminal does, because at least 1/4 of of the potential victims have a gun. Imagine if the chance was 5/100? Then the criminal has much less risk to be shot. Or do you think all criminals are dumb?

Also I made the point about high gun ownership area's vs low gunownership area's, because there are area's that have high gunownership and still have high crime rate. The statistic that is far more consistent with low crimerate is the poverty rate.

You just claimed that there was less incentive to rob people with guns, so why wouldnt the criminals rob areas with less guns more? How isnt that logical thinking?

That last statement doesnt make sense? You just made a point that owning a gun doesnt prevent robbery.

edit: added reaction to @McLaren

 

[Johnnypenso]

I posted this a while ago, but it is more about the sheer amount and easy availability of guns. I debated with @Danoff in length about this. I never claimed that 88 of 100 people own guns. Get your facts straight.
I'll try to state it differently, it is easier and cheaper for a criminal to obtain a gun in the USA (legal or illegal) then other developed countries. for example a Smith & wesson M&p 9 costs about 950-1100 Euro here in the netherlands, while it sells in the usa for about 420 USD in the USA.



I mainly used these sources:
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

But after your post I looked at wikipedia and some other sources and your right its even much higher at 120/121 guns per 100 people. That is almost triple that of switzerland/finland.





You are not putting yourself in the criminal's shoes. A dutch criminal has less need for a gun to rob. A american criminal does, because at least 1/4 of of the potential victims have a gun. Imagine if the chance was 5/100? Then the criminal has much less risk to be shot. Or do you think all criminals are dumb?

Also I made the point about high gun ownership area's vs low gunownership area's, because there are area's that have high gunownership and still have high crime rate. The statistic that is far more consistent with low crimerate is the poverty rate.

You just claimed that there was less incentive to rob people with guns, so why wouldnt the criminals rob areas with less guns more? How isnt that logical thinking?

That last statement doesnt make sense? You just made a point that owning a gun doesnt prevent robbery.

edit: added reaction to @McLaren

121 guns per 100 people looks bad. According to Ten's link, "between 2006 and 2017, US gun owners acquired some 122 million new guns.". Gun ownership is going through the roof in the United States. Using the simplistic cause/effect of more guns=bad that you seem to favour, it must be like the wild west there in terms of the number of murders and violent crime. Can you explain these two charts then ?:

 

[PocketZeven]

121 guns per 100 people looks bad. According to Ten's link, "between 2006 and 2017, US gun owners acquired some 122 million new guns.". Gun ownership is going through the roof in the United States. Using the simplistic cause/effect of more guns=bad that you seem to favour, it must be like the wild west there in terms of the number of murders and violent crime. Can you explain these two charts then ?:

I didnt claim more guns= bad. I claimed less guns = less mass shootings

Overlay this one over your graphs:

 

[Johnnypenso]

I didnt claim more guns= bad. I claimed less guns = less mass shootings

Overlay this one over your graphs:

But you are claiming more guns = more mass shootings which is the same as more guns = bad just in a very specific way.

So what mechanism is in play that would cause gun ownership to increase dramatically, while at the same time murder and violent crime rates are falling just as dramatically, and yet mass shootings are rising? Clearly, based on the graphs I've shown, levels of gun ownership are at least independent of crime and murder rates if not negatively correlated. So how is it they can be move independently or in opposite directions when comparing the most common of violent crimes to gun ownership but you can somehow draw a conclusion that the opposite relationship is true in a very specific area of violent crime? Do you not think there is some other element in play here?

 

[PocketZeven]

But you are claiming more guns = more mass shootings which is the same as more guns = bad just in a very specific way.

So what mechanism is in play that would cause gun ownership to increase dramatically, while at the same time murder and violent crime rates are falling just as dramatically, and yet mass shootings are rising? Clearly, based on the graphs I've shown, levels of gun ownership are at least independent of crime and murder rates if not negatively correlated. So how is it they can be move independently or in opposite directions when comparing the most common of violent crimes to gun ownership but you can somehow draw a conclusion that the opposite relationship is true in a very specific area of violent crime? Do you not think there is some other element in play here?

There is no evidence in the researches that gunownership had any significant influence on this decline.

Factors that did influence the violent crimerate:

1. The number of police officers increased considerably in the 1990s.[7]
2. On September 16, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act into law. Under the act, over $30 billion in federal aid was spent over a six-year period to improve state and local law enforcement, prisons and crime prevention programs.[8] Proponents of the law, including the President, touted it as a lead contributor to the sharp drop in crime which occurred throughout the 1990s,[8] while critics have dismissed it as an unprecedented federal boondoggle.[8]
3. The prison population has rapidly increased since the mid-1970s.[7]
4. Starting in the mid-1980s, the crack cocaine market grew rapidly before declining again a decade later. Some authors have pointed towards the link between violent crimes and crack use.[7]
5. Legalized abortion reduced the number of children born to mothers in difficult circumstances, and difficult childhood makes children more likely to become criminals.[9]
6. Changing demographics of an aging population has been cited for the drop in overall crime.[10]
7. Rising income.[11]
8. The introduction of the data-driven policing practice CompStat significantly reduced crimes in cities that adopted it.[11]
9. The lead-crime hypothesis suggests reduced lead exposure as the cause; Scholar Mark A.R. Kleiman writes: "Given the decrease in lead exposure among children since the 1980s and the estimated effects of lead on crime, reduced lead exposure could easily explain a very large proportion—certainly more than half—of the crime decrease of the 1994-2004 period. A careful statistical study relating local changes in lead exposure to local crime rates estimates the fraction of the crime decline due to lead reduction as greater than 90 percent.[12]
10. The quality and extent of use of security technology both increased around the time of the crime decline, after which the rate of car theft declined; this may have caused rates of other crimes to decline as well.[13]
11. Increased rates of immigration to the United States.[14][15]

source: wikipedia

 

[Johnnypenso]

There is no evidence in the researches that gunownership had any significant influence on this decline.

Factors that did influence the violent crimerate:

1. The number of police officers increased considerably in the 1990s.[7]
2. On September 16, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act into law. Under the act, over $30 billion in federal aid was spent over a six-year period to improve state and local law enforcement, prisons and crime prevention programs.[8] Proponents of the law, including the President, touted it as a lead contributor to the sharp drop in crime which occurred throughout the 1990s,[8] while critics have dismissed it as an unprecedented federal boondoggle.[8]
3. The prison population has rapidly increased since the mid-1970s.[7]
4. Starting in the mid-1980s, the crack cocaine market grew rapidly before declining again a decade later. Some authors have pointed towards the link between violent crimes and crack use.[7]
5. Legalized abortion reduced the number of children born to mothers in difficult circumstances, and difficult childhood makes children more likely to become criminals.[9]
6. Changing demographics of an aging population has been cited for the drop in overall crime.[10]
7. Rising income.[11]
8. The introduction of the data-driven policing practice CompStat significantly reduced crimes in cities that adopted it.[11]
9. The lead-crime hypothesis suggests reduced lead exposure as the cause; Scholar Mark A.R. Kleiman writes: "Given the decrease in lead exposure among children since the 1980s and the estimated effects of lead on crime, reduced lead exposure could easily explain a very large proportion—certainly more than half—of the crime decrease of the 1994-2004 period. A careful statistical study relating local changes in lead exposure to local crime rates estimates the fraction of the crime decline due to lead reduction as greater than 90 percent.[12]
10. The quality and extent of use of security technology both increased around the time of the crime decline, after which the rate of car theft declined; this may have caused rates of other crimes to decline as well.[13]
11. Increased rates of immigration to the United States.[14][15]

source: wikipedia

Which.....is exactly my point. There are a myriad of factors that go into correlations and causal relationships including gun ownership vs murder/violent crime rates. This is true within a country or between countries, even between different areas of the same country. Gun ownership can go down while crime goes up and vice versa. So given that is the case and you believe it is since that is your quote above, why do you then throw out all the other factors that play into the specific crime of mass shooting and wrap it all up with a simple, "less guns = less mass shootings" when that is demonstrably not the case when it comes to other gun related crimes?

 

[McLaren]

You are not putting yourself in the criminal's shoes. A dutch criminal has less need for a gun to rob. A american criminal does, because at least 1/4 of of the potential victims have a gun. Imagine if the chance was 5/100? Then the criminal has much less risk to be shot. Or do you think all criminals are dumb?

This statement is because you continue to think a criminal is only arming themselves in preparation of running into the 1 American with a gun.

Who gives a flying **** what risk a criminal has to be shot to begin with? I don't care if you try to rob a house and the homeowner beats you over the head with a baseball bat. Yes, all criminals are dumb. If you decide in life you want to steal from others & incur the risk of being harmed/killed, yes, you're a dumb piece of dirt.

You just claimed that there was less incentive to rob people with guns, so why wouldnt the criminals rob areas with less guns more? How isnt that logical thinking?

That last statement doesnt make sense? You just made a point that owning a gun doesnt prevent robbery.

I never said either of these. I've said the exact opposite.

The less incentive comes from what danoff said; if you know the population is armed, there’s less incentive to attempt to rob them. I didn't say it would stop robberies altogether.

Them, as in face-to-face. Robbing an area is a different matter completely; again, most robberies happen with the victims gone.

Owning a weapon can help prevent you, your person, your physical being, etc. from being robbed. I just elaborated this to you.

 

[JoeDaSnow]

I condemned what had happened on that day. It's a good thing I didn't go to Twitch too see it. I found out about this on Wikipedia and YouTube. I hope this will never be duplicated.

 

[mustafur]

The Gun debate is almost identical to the Islam debate.

Despite more guns the Gun death rate is down, but mass shootings are up.

Despite more Muslims the Crime rate is going down, but terrorism attacks by Muslims are more frequent.

Just saying.

 

[UKMikey]

The Gun debate is almost identical to the Islam debate.

Despite more guns the Gun death rate is down, but mass shootings are up.

Despite more Muslims the Crime rate is going down, but terrorism attacks by Muslims are more frequent.

Just saying.

Are Muslims associated with crime?

 

[mustafur]

Are Muslims associated with crime?

The idea being the mass migration of such in Europe has lead to supposed rise in crime yet the statistics say otherwise.