Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

[ryzno]

'Kay.


So...what about Chicago?

-------------------------------

For someone who frequently claims to pay no mind to the right-wing talking heads and instead rely on gut instinct, you parrot their talking points kind of perfectly. This is particularly disheartening when one factors in your propensity to denigrate others for getting suckered by what you claim to be false narratives and suggest they seek alternate sources.

I know, I know...you're tired of me breaking down everything you say and as such you've opted to ignore me, but here I am, hat in hand, respectfully suggesting you reevaluate the way you take in information--not even alternate sources, just how you accept and regurgitate what they say--and that you adopt a less pejorative and adversarial stance.

It should be known that this is not to be interpreted as me telling another how to participate in this forum, as a certain someone is inclined to do [hypocritically even], and that I'm compelled to make such an acknowledgement is, frankly, disgusting.

You might as well give up. I don't care what you think of my posts. You constantly disagree cause it's right wing. He's using the same Left wing talking points yet you say nothing. That is why I ignore you... I've corrected myself when I was wrong after you pointed something out. But God the way you are there every time I post anything is borderline harassment IMO. Leave me alone and ignore me so you don't have to see ANYTHING I post.

First thing that comes up in Google...
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/08/20/chicago-shootings-police-press-conference-vpx.cnn

 

[TexRex]

You might as well give up.

Why? Because you're only interested in an echo chamber? Color me surprised...

Tell you what...you do you and I'll keep doing me. If I respond to anything anyone says or not, it's my choice.

I don't care what you think of my posts.

Your choice to respond contradicts such an assertion.

You constantly disagree cause it's right wing.

I disagree on a fundamental level and the fact that it's so obviously a right-wing narrative simply doesn't enter into it.

There are people out there who pick themselves an enemy and who form their opinions around how they relate to their enemy--I'm not one of these people. I won't be. I can't be.

He's using the same Left wing talking points yet you say nothing.

Gee, why should I pile on?



(end sarcasm)

Again...I've responded as I have to whom I have at my own discretion.

I've corrected myself when I was wrong after you pointed something out.

Yes, you have. You've also not. But that's not really the point. I don't look for people to admit that they're wrong as it doesn't accomplish anything.

If you provide a solid foundation for positions you have and remarks you make, others may disagree based on similarly solid foundations to the contrary but there's nothing to be held against you. If you can't provide a solid foundation, perhaps you should reevaluate the position before making remarks.

That's how discussion works. It isn't a series of slights between individuals who disagree until one, some, many or all decide they've had enough.

God the way you are there every time I post anything is borderline harassment IMO.

If you feel you've been harassed, I suggest you report it to forum moderators so that they can decide if action is appropriate.

That said, it seems to me you're blowing things out of proportion. Indeed the use of "every time" to describe the frequency with which I address you suggests you can't provide a single instance where I didn't, and I find that very hard to believe.

Leave me alone and ignore me so you don't have to see ANYTHING I post.

I'd rather not. If I can't see your remarks, I can't respond to you or to anyone else that cites them. Sure, this may mean I hold a position that runs contrary to yours and thus result in a response to something you say, but the other side of that coin is if someone rejects something you say and I deem that rejection inappropriate either foundationally or in general, I just might chime in--it seems to me the latter occurred fairly recently, and while I didn't do it for acknowledgement, you acknowledged it.

You, however, have the option to not see my remarks--to you or anyone else.

Fair warning, opting to not see my remarks may result in confusion should you see another's response to something I've said, and this is why I don't take the decision to ignore someone lightly. Because of this snag in the line, there's only one individual I've opted to ignore at present, but the plus side is their remarks are often such that responses often tell me when others are responding to this individual and the subject matter they're addressing.

First thing that comes up in Google...
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/08/20/chicago-shootings-pol

And just what is that supposed to be indicative of?

 

[ryzno]

And just what is that supposed to be indicative of?

Call me heartless but do you not think that is just as bad if not worse than the topic of this thread?
More laws, "less guns", does nothing.
We are a nation founded on fighting and taking things.

 

[Dan_]

No you dont understand the goal I am debating for. The goal is less guns.
79% of 93 is still better then 79% of 893.

Edit: I live in a <5 guns per 100 citizen country.

Cool, could you post a similar graph on homicide rates?

Brazil has one of the lowest rates of civil gun possession globally and is always near the top of homicides every single year.

Limiting the rights to civil possession of firearms and expecting homicide rates to drop accordingly is at best a naive use of correlation.

 

[TexRex]

Call me heartless but do you not think that is just as bad if not worse than the topic of this thread?

Now I'm supposed to call you heartless? Why? I don't have the slightest idea whether you're heartless, but I certainly believe you to be misguided.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...hicago-shootings-violence-20180804-story.html

Starting about midnight Saturday, at least 41 people were shot citywide, five fatally, in a period of less than seven hours as gunmen targeted groups at a block party, after a funeral, on a front porch and in other gatherings, according to authorities.

Indeed, the sum of the lives lost and/or directly affected by these incidents is greater than that of those from the single incident in Jacksonville, but you've got multiple incidents at multiple locations on multiple occasions undoubtedly perpetrated by multiple assailants compared to a single assailant at a single location on a single occasion in a single incident.

So I ask again, what is that supposed to be indicative of?

More laws, "less guns", does nothing.

That's what you want it to mean. That's what those who are opposed to regulations for firearm possession want it to mean and indeed present it to mean. That's not what it means.

 

[McLaren]

I wasnt called out. I was proposing that the usa change their 2nd amendment to reduce the amount of guns sold.

You proposed much more than that.

And you aren't understanding the fact these "proposals" of yours are already in effect! Unless you plan on never leaving your house with the gun you will have to go to classes and receive training to legally posses the gun. Even than you are required to have guns secured when stored.

Yes criminals steal guns to commit crimes, but there are many more who commit crimes with legally bought guns.

In the last 10 years, a group known as the Violence Policy Center reported only 31 mass shootings have been carried out by a legal concealed carry owner, & 1,259 deaths. Chicago alone, last year had half that number of deaths from shootings.
http://concealedcarrykillers.org/

I'll note that this only keeps tally of concealed owners, so it's likely higher adding in legally purchase, but not with a concealed permit. However, the increase is likely minimum. There's also this chart conducted by the government from back in 2004 that depicted 40% are illegally purchased, and nearly 30% are committed through illegal straw-purchases.

If the question is actually “What percentage of criminals legally buy a gun and commit a crime with it,” the percentage is extremely small. The last data suggests that a fraction of one percent of those who commit a gun related crime will legally purchase a gun and then commit a crime with it. Most of those crimes are “crimes of domestic violence,” essentially crimes of passion, and the gun happened to be in the house. If no gun were present, some other weapon, knives, clubs, fists or something else, would have been used instead. While the overwhelming majority of professional criminals will use stolen “street guns” that are cheap but very definitely illegal.

However, if the question is “What percentage of crimes are committed with legally purchased guns” the answer is about six percent of murders – and very few other crimes. Amateurs buy guns at a dealers; which involves extensive paperwork, identification, FBI background checks, and so on. Pros buy guns on the street, where the only requirement is money – or other valuta.

The overwhelming majority of gun related crimes are committed with guns that have been stolen, and traded for drugs. Those guns are passed from criminal to criminal, sold and resold, and may very well be used in hundreds of crimes before they are recovered from someone accused of a crime.

http://extranosalley.com/what-percentage-of-crimes-committed-with-illegal-and-legal-guns/

If it is harder to buy a gun the result will be l;ess guns and then my proposition is already succesfull.

Less guns doesn't automatically deter gun theft which is the crime you claim a criminal would have to commit under your proposition. If anything, it makes those who aren't rejected ownership under your proposition a bigger target for thieves.

eradicating all crime is almost impossible but greatly reducing is already a great step. Less guns = Less gun theft. How is this logic not sound?

Because you think it's black and white.

Less guns equals less gun thefts, yet I just shared a link in Australia where gun theft was on a rise in a few areas. According to the sources below, gun theft in Australia has doubled in the last 10 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-09/gun-thefts-in-australia-double-in-a-decade/9631484
https://www.guncontrolaustralia.org/gun_theft_skyrockets_over_ten_years
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...-period-new-figures-show-20161129-gt08fv.html

I am not sharing this as a means to criticize Australia's gun laws, but to point out to you that even in a country with some of the strictest gun laws, theft as a result to commit future crimes is not deterred by said laws. I can't find it right now, but there was a story years ago in Australia from a gun collector who stated that he was a primary target for gun thieves, despite the fact that he followed every law and that local authorities would stop by his home to make sure his weapons were locked up every so often.

Thanks for bringing up australia. So how many mass shootings have occured in the past decade compared to the USA?

Irrelevant discussion. We are discussing gun theft to commit crimes because again, you claimed that was a criminal's only solution. You repeatedly ignore that has already been an issue. The majority of mass shootings in the US are committed with stolen weapons anyhow.

 

[PocketZeven]

You might as well give up. I don't care what you think of my posts. You constantly disagree cause it's right wing. He's using the same Left wing talking points yet you say nothing. That is why I ignore you... I've corrected myself when I was wrong after you pointed something out. But God the way you are there every time I post anything is borderline harassment IMO. Leave me alone and ignore me so you don't have to see ANYTHING I post.

First thing that comes up in Google...
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/08/20/chicago-shootings-police-press-conference-vpx.cnn

I am using my outside viewpoint. As stated I am not American and relatively neutral.

You proposed much more than that.


In the last 10 years, a group known as the Violence Policy Center reported only 31 mass shootings have been carried out by a legal concealed carry owner, & 1,259 deaths. Chicago alone, last year had half that number of deaths from shootings.
http://concealedcarrykillers.org/

I'll note that this only keeps tally of concealed owners, so it's likely higher adding in legally purchase, but not with a concealed permit. However, the increase is likely minimum. There's also this chart conducted by the government from back in 2004 that depicted 40% are illegally purchased, and nearly 30% are committed through illegal straw-purchases.

http://extranosalley.com/what-percentage-of-crimes-committed-with-illegal-and-legal-guns/

Less guns doesn't automatically deter gun theft which is the crime you claim a criminal would have to commit under your proposition. If anything, it makes those who aren't rejected ownership under your proposition a bigger target for thieves.

Because you think it's black and white.

Less guns equals less gun thefts, yet I just shared a link in Australia where gun theft was on a rise in a few areas. According to the sources below, gun theft in Australia has doubled in the last 10 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-09/gun-thefts-in-australia-double-in-a-decade/9631484
https://www.guncontrolaustralia.org/gun_theft_skyrockets_over_ten_years
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...-period-new-figures-show-20161129-gt08fv.html

I am not sharing this as a means to criticize Australia's gun laws, but to point out to you that even in a country with some of the strictest gun laws, theft as a result to commit future crimes is not deterred by said laws. I can't find it right now, but there was a story years ago in Australia from a gun collector who stated that he was a primary target for gun thieves, despite the fact that he followed every law and that local authorities would stop by his home to make sure his weapons were locked up every so often.

Irrelevant discussion. We are discussing gun theft to commit crimes because again, you claimed that was a criminal's only solution. You repeatedly ignore that has already been an issue. The majority of mass shootings in the US are committed with stolen weapons anyhow.

My proposition was my ideas of how changes of the second amendment could be implemented. Civil gunownership is excluded to people with a permit, this will reduce the number of guns.

You are completely overblowing this australia news report. There have been no major Mass shootings during this rise of guntheft. The topic was not gun theft but mass shootings. Less gun ownership also equals to less relative gun theft. And even if it is relatively higher then the USA (Icant find stats) I think gun theft is a crime I prefer to mass shootings. If you could reduce yearly mass shootings by only 10% you are already saving a lot of innocent lives. Guntheft is on the rise in australia in the pas decade, but it doesnt show a rise in gunrelated deaths.

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths

This weekend there was a crazy person swho stabbed 2 random americans in central station Amsterdam. Imagine if the guy was carrying a gun how much more damage he could have done. It is much easier to (illegally) obtain a gun in a country with 80+ guns per 100 people then a country with <5 per 100 people. You are right I have no real knowledge on how gunlaws are implemented per state in the USA. But as a non citizen I primarely look at the symptoms and related statistics.

• 80+ guns per 100 people
• more gunrelated crime
• large relative number of yearly mass shootings
• large relative number of accidental gun deaths
• large relative number of schoolshootings

So my conclusion is to reduce the number of guns. As a result these symtoms will go down. Is that so wrong of me?

Cool, could you post a similar graph on homicide rates?

Brazil has one of the lowest rates of civil gun possession globally and is always near the top of homicides every single year.

Limiting the rights to civil possession of firearms and expecting homicide rates to drop accordingly is at best a naive use of correlation.

Brazil has problems with crime, corruption, drugs, gang related crime. So there are a lot of other factors in play. I could not find any stats concerning public mass shootings in brazil compared to the USA.

To be fair the comparance should be made with another developed country. You are using the same rhetoric some far rightwing people use when using Venezuala as an example of Socialism, while ignoring countries like denmark, Norway, Sweden and even the Netherlands. Even if you take in account brazil the weighted average will always conclude that less guns=less mass shootings. Do the math yourself. Better yet this article already did the math. Please look at the stats neatrally in this article and apply Occam's razor.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Also note that comparing a less developed country to a developed one is not fair.

Less cars=less car accidents
Less drugs=less drug overdoses
Less sugar = Less risk to diabetes

These are all veryfiable conclusions. So why would it not work with less guns?

 

[Northstar]

How are the mass shooting statistics who have these requirements?

Again, I can only speak for Minnesota, but we've only had 2. One involved a 16 year old killing his grandpa, stealing his gun before heading to his school, the other was a 36-year old who had no history on the records.

relatively neutral.

Civil gunownership is excluded to people with a permit, this will reduce the number of guns.

And what about all the guns that are already out there?

Brazil has problems with crime, corruption, drugs, gang related crime.

And the U.S. doesn't?

Less cars=less car accidents
Less drugs=less drug overdoses
Less sugar = Less risk to diabetes

These are all veryfiable conclusions. So why would it not work with less guns?

All of those are very much over-simplified.

- Currently there are more cars on the road than ever before, yet road deaths have actually been going down. This is likely due to governments taking on the "why" question and tackling issues like driver training, car and road safety and making sure people are punished for things like drunk driving.

- The U.S. has had a "war on drugs" since the 70's, yet the number of overdoses has risen, especially in recent years with an alarming number of opiod related deaths (this sadly took a co-worker of mine a month ago, he was 23). Drugs are a good example of why only trying to treat the "how" isn't a great idea if you actually want positive results.

- You can cut all the sugar you want, it won't make a difference if you have a sedentary lifestyle and overall poor diet, which alot of American's do.

 

[PocketZeven]

Again, I can only speak for Minnesota, but we've only had 2. One involved a 16 year old killing his grandpa, stealing his gun before heading to his school, the other was a 36-year old who had no history on the records.







And what about all the guns that are already out there?



And the U.S. doesn't?



All of those are very much over-simplified.

- Currently there are more cars on the road than ever before, yet road deaths have actually been going down. This is likely due to governments taking on the "why" question and tackling issues like driver training, car and road safety and making sure people are punished for things like drunk driving.

- The U.S. has had a "war on drugs" since the 70's, yet the number of overdoses has risen, especially in recent years with an alarming number of opiod related deaths (this sadly took a co-worker of mine a month ago, he was 23). Drugs are a good example of why only trying to treat the "how" isn't a great idea if you actually want positive results.

- You can cut all the sugar you want, it won't make a difference if you have a sedentary lifestyle and overall poor diet, which alot of American's do.

Is it correct that minnesota has more strict gunlaws? Then your state already proves it works. But my problem is that, perhaps it is illegal to move guns from one state to another, the states dont have border control like countries have.
Gun buyback program similar to australia.

Are you really directly comparing Brazil's crime with usa? If Brazil had more guns per capita the death rate would increase immensely.

Sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.

I agree with your arguments. But you are overcomplicating. Try to look at it as simple as possible.
If there are less cars, there are less caraccidents (if other factors stay the same). More drugs= more overdoses you can agree with that? I was talking specifically about the risk of getting diabetes with all remaining factors being the same.

 

[Northstar]

Are you really directly comparing Brazil's crime with usa?

Nope, merely pointing out that the U.S. also has the issues you pointed out. Not sure why you can take those into account when discussing Brazil but not the U.S.

But you are overcomplicating.

Life is complicated. It's easy to say "just make it so there's less "insert issue here"", but actually making a policy that works is never that easy, especially when you only focus on the "how". If you focus on the "why" on the other hand, the "how" becomes less of an issue.

 

[Obelisk]

Is it correct that minnesota has more strict gunlaws? Then your state already proves it works. But my problem is that, perhaps it is illegal to move guns from one state to another, the states dont have border control like countries have.
Gun buyback program similar to australia.

Are you really directly comparing Brazil's crime with usa? If Brazil had more guns per capita the death rate would increase immensely.

View attachment 763388View attachment 763389

Sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.

I agree with your arguments. But you are overcomplicating. Try to look at it as simple as possible.
If there are less cars, there are less caraccidents (if other factors stay the same). More drugs= more overdoses you can agree with that? I was talking specifically about the risk of getting diabetes with all remaining factors being the same.

Dude, it really isn't as cut and dry as you think it is. Your argument that less guns is less gun violence falls apart when you look at the places with the strictest gun laws, like Chicago. Then you have to factor in America's weird economy and the ever-increasing divide between the poor and the rich, plus the "every man for himself" attitude.

I'll come back and cite sources for what I'm saying, but I want to make it clear to you:
It isn't that simple. It is not single cause and single effect.

You come in these threads to criticize our gun policies when you have a very poor grasp of the unique (and bad) cultural and socioeconomic flaws of the United States as a whole.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope, merely pointing out that the U.S. also has the issues you pointed out. Not sure why you can take those into account when discussing Brazil but not the U.S.



Life is complicated. It's easy to say "just make it so there's less "insert issue here"", but actually making a policy that works is never that easy, especially when you only focus on the "how". If you focus on the "why" on the other hand, the "how" becomes less of an issue.

So at least you agree the example of brazil having high gunrelated deaths but low gunownership is not a good comparison? Their relative crimerate per capita is also much higher and directly relates to the high homicide rate.

Dude, it really isn't as cut and dry as you think it is. Your argument that less guns is less gun violence falls apart when you look at the places with the strictest gun laws, like Chicago. Then you have to factor in America's weird economy and the ever-increasing divide between the poor and the rich, plus the "every man for himself" attitude.

I'll come back and cite sources for what I'm saying, but I want to make it clear to you:
It isn't that simple. It is not single cause and single effect.

You come in these threads to criticize our gun policies when you have a very poor grasp of the unique (and bad) cultural and socioeconomic flaws of the United States as a whole.

I am not arguing that at all. It means state gun laws dont work. There are no borders between states. Gunlaws should be nationally implemented. Ofcourse the issue is more complicated and nuanced. But sometimes you should approach a complicated situation by finding the simplest solution. (Occams razor)

If you have a classroom of toddlers with some hitting eachother with sticks. What do you do? Give all of them sticks or take them away?

How to achieve the solution is a lot more difficult ofcourse. And that I am not arguing. But it starts with a goal and in my opinion that goal should be to reduce the amount of guns in the US.

edit: cleaned up post

 

[BobK]

But it starts with a goal and in my opinion that goal should be to reduce the amount of guns in the US.

Why? Is that an end in and of itself?

What are you really trying to accomplish? To reduce deaths overall, only deaths by mass shootings, or deaths only by gunfire?

Having read through this discussion, it seems to me that you want to first and foremost get rid of guns period while ignoring the other ways which can and have been used to inflict mass mayhem.

Do you know why we have the Second Amendment?

 

[Northstar]

So at least you agree the example of brazil having high gunrelated deaths but low gunownership is not a good comparison?

Considering I'm not the one that made the comparison, yes. I'm trying to understand why you take other factors into one countries issues, but not the others though.

It means state gun laws dont work.

Then your state already proves it works.

 

[TexRex]

Do you know why we have the Second Amendment?

Since you ask, one presumes you're comfortable addressing a response...so what does the Second Amendment mean to you? What do you suppose it meant to those responsible for it being drafted? How do you feel the existence of a standing military for just about as long as the Constitution has been in effect bears out the significance of the Second Amendment?

 

[PocketZeven]

Considering I'm not the one that made the comparison, yes. I'm trying to understand why you take other factors into one countries issues, but not the others though.

Brazil doesnt have a problem with mass shootings like the USA

I know I made contradictory statements, but that was in reaction to your comments about your state laws. So I made a small error. My overall personal opinion still is gun laws should be implemented nationally. Mass shootings are a national problem and not just national.

Why? Is that an end in and of itself?

What are you really trying to accomplish? To reduce deaths overall, only deaths by mass shootings, or deaths only by gunfire?

Having read through this discussion, it seems to me that you want to first and foremost get rid of guns period while ignoring the other ways which can and have been used to inflict mass mayhem.

Do you know why we have the Second Amendment?

Reduce mass shootings. The goal of the proposed solution is to reduce the amount of guns and subsequently mass shootings. You probably missed a few posts in this thread.

I already commented that that the 2nd amendment should be repealed or replaced and I stated earlier that this particular amendment does not translate well to modern times. Imagine having the 18th amendment (prohibition) still in place in modern times?

edit: added comment

 

[Dan_]

Brazil has problems with crime, corruption, drugs, gang related crime. So there are a lot of other factors in play. I could not find any stats concerning public mass shootings in brazil compared to the USA.

To be fair the comparance should be made with another developed country.

Cool, because Finland which has a high rate of civil gun ownership is also one of the safest countries in the world.

Your entire argument is that making acquisition of firearms through legal means difficult for civilians has a direct effect on the number of killings. By highlighting Brazil's huge drug and weapon trafficking problems you just rendered your whole point moot, since nearly no citizens at all own firearms here but the criminals have fully automatic rifles and army grade weaponry at their disposal. Civilian crimes with registered firearms are minimal compared to what straw-purchases, gun theft and weapon trafficking inflict in society.

The logic that "less guns = less crime" willfully ignores where those guns come from and to whom. I wonder how many mass shootings take place at rural producers events and shooting sports gatherings? Your logic ignores the single main point of carrying a gun: DISSUASION.

Also, Venezuela is the definition of a full Socialist state. Latin America has toyed with this genocidal and totalitarian ideology for far too long and it shows on our socioeconomic indicators. The goverment which was democratically elect at first, took hold of the productive enterprises, the military and instituted popular councils, which would represent the people within the goverment, basically supressing the parlament and installing a full on dictatorship of the proletariat. You can't go more Socialist than that. We're watching that trainwreck from the front row seats and we're not letting it happen here. Academia can have their marxist BS as much as it wants, it doesn't work in the real world. You just revealed your true colors.

Are you really directly comparing Brazil's crime with usa? If Brazil had more guns per capita the death rate would increase immensely.
Sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.

Your oversimplification is so blatant that it is borderline funny. This is unsubstantiated and proven to be not true. Disarming the common folk was the single most effective measure to install chaos and crime everywhere around here. My parents would tell me that in the 60's and 70's no one would rob you because you could shoot a burglar or rapist point blank and the state would ensure your right of self defense. The state was economically and socially frail but crime wasn't a problem. Nowadays policemen are persecuted for engaging in combat with underage criminals who shot at them. It's ridiculous.

. The goverment passed a major anti-gun policy in 2005( even though the public choose to keep the right to bear firearms in a public poll https://acervo.oglobo.globo.com/em-...referendo-favor-do-comercio-de-armas-17786376) meaning that outside of security guards no civilian can possess any firearms. So, a few bureaucrats in power unilaterally removed our rights of self defense in a state where police fears persecution for fighting criminals. These same bureaucrats thought highly of Chavez and their "New Socialism" and now deny any involvement with the regime ( Which banned guns in 2012, leading to a massive spike in violence, but never mind. )

Freak events can't starve you of your fundamental rights. Hysteria is the fastest road towards totalitarianism.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nobody has a good solution to prevent people from committing crimes.

It is a difficult problem to solve. But specifically for mass shootings it should be a much higher priority. A crazy person with a gun/rifle can do much more damage with a gun then with a knife.

Cool, because Finland which has a high rate of civil gun ownership is also one of the safest countries in the world.

Your entire argument is that making acquisition of firearms through legal means difficult for civilians has a direct effect on the number of killings. By highlighting Brazil's huge drug and weapon trafficking problems you just rendered your whole point moot, since nearly no citizens at all own firearms here but the criminals have fully automatic rifles and army grade weaponry at their disposal. Civilian crimes with registered firearms are minimal compared to what straw-purchases, gun theft and weapon trafficking inflict in society.

The logic that "less guns = less crime" willfully ignores where those guns come from and to whom. I wonder how many mass shootings take place at rural producers events and shooting sports gatherings? Your logic ignores the single main point of carrying a gun: DISSUASION.

Also, Venezuela is the definition of a full Socialist state. Latin America has toyed with this genocidal and totalitarian ideology for far too long and it shows on our socioeconomic indicators. The goverment which was democratically elect at first, took hold of the productive enterprises, the military and instituted popular councils, which would represent the people within the goverment, basically supressing the parlament and installing a full on dictatorship of the proletariat. You can't go more Socialist than that. We're watching that trainwreck from the front row seats and we're not letting it happen here. Academia can have their marxist BS as much as it wants, it doesn't work in the real world. Your just revealed your true colors.




Your oversimplification is so blatant that it is borderline funny. This is unsubstantiated and proven to be not true. Disarming the common folk was the single most effective measure to install chaos and crime everywhere around here. My parents would tell me that in the 60's and 70's no one would rob you because you could shoot a burglar or rapist point blank and the state would ensure your right of self defense. The state was economically and socially frail but crime wasn't a problem. Nowadays policemen are persecuted for engaging in combat with underage criminals who shot at them. It's ridiculous.

. The goverment passed a major anti-gun policy in 2005( even though the public choose to keep the right to bear firearms in a public poll https://acervo.oglobo.globo.com/em-...referendo-favor-do-comercio-de-armas-17786376) meaning that outside of security guards no civilian can possess any firearms. So, a few bureaucrats in power unilaterally removed our rights of self defense in a state where police fears persecution for fighting criminals. These same bureaucrats thought highly of Chavez and their "New Socialism" and now deny any involvement with the regime ( Which banned guns in 2012, leading to a massive spike in violence, but never mind. )

Freak events can't starve you of your fundamental rights. Hysteria is the fastest road towards totalitarianism.

Dont be a troll. I am not oversimplifying what you are describing. I am proposing a solution for mass shootings in the USA (by citizens). the USA has 88 guns per 100 citizens and finland has 45 per 100 citizens, that is almost double. And you forget Finland is democratic socialist country with strict gun laws already implemented. I also never stated less guns=less crime that would be idiotic since not all crime is gunrelated. I was referring to less guns=less mass shootings.

Solving Brazil's crime is another thread. You have to understand that there is much much bigger chance to be robbed walking around in Brazil then it is in the USA or Europe. You are comparing brazils crime problem with mass shootings in the USA?

 

[Dan_]

Dont be a troll. I am not oversimplifying what you are describing. I am proposing a solution for mass shootings in the USA (by citizens). the USA has 88 guns per 100 citizens and finland has 45 per 100 citizens, that is almost double. And you forget Finland is democratic socialist country.

Finland is socialist? I'm outta here. The term "Social Democracy" has as much relation to socialism as "Social Network". You brought Venezuela up in the discussion, you can't organize your own thoughts past the kindergarten logic of less guns = less killings specially after Northstar refuted you into orbit.

A much more productive discussion could be had on how hard it is to identify potential psychopaths ( like the ragequit shooter ) in society. He was 24, I bet he still had a drivers license, could he not barrel through a crowd to hit his targets killing dozens? This is a mental health issue.

Solving Brazil's crime is another thread you can post in. You have to understand that there is much much bigger chance to be robbed walking around in Brazil then it is in the USA or Europe.

How many of these robberies are comitted by registered gun carriers?

Exactly.

 

[PocketZeven]

Finland is socialist? I'm outta here. The term "Social Democracy" has as much relation to socialism as "Social Network". You brought Venezuela up in the discussion, you can't organize your own thoughts past the kindergarten logic of less guns = less killings specially after Northstar refuted you into orbit.

A much more productive discussion could be had on how hard it is to identify potential psychopaths ( like the ragequit shooter ) in society. He was 24, I bet he still had a drivers license, could he not barrel through a crowd to hit his targets killing dozens? This is a mental health issue.



How many of these robberies are comitted by registered gun carriers?

Exactly.

I was referring to the american altright using Venuzuela as a bad example of socialism while ignoring the democratic socialist systems (combining both capitalism and socialism) in europe which do work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

So yes socialism is implemented in the Nordic model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Which robberies are you talking about? We are still talking about mass-shootings. I am not discussing crime in Brazil anymore in this thread. Since that is a whole other topic.

Northstar and I were in a healthy and respectfull debate. You however really need to mellow a bit. I have no idea what set you off.

 

[Dan_]

I was referring to the american altright using Venuzuela as a bad example of socialism...

Say no more, your line of thought is clear.

Which robberies are you talking about? We are still talking about mass-shootings. I am not discussing crime in Brazil anymore in this thread. Since that is a whole other topic.

Good. Address the point below which you willingly chose to ignore from my previous post:

A much more productive discussion could be had on how hard it is to identify potential psychopaths ( like the ragequit shooter ) in society. He was 24, I bet he still had a drivers license, could he not barrel through a crowd to hit his targets killing dozens? This is a mental health issue.

 

[PocketZeven]

Say no more, your line of thought is clear.



Good. Address the point below which you willingly chose to ignore from my previous post:

A much more productive discussion could be had on how hard it is to identify potential psychopaths ( like the ragequit shooter ) in society. He was 24, I bet he still had a drivers license, could he not barrel through a crowd to hit his targets killing dozens? This is a mental health issue.

What are you talking about? I was referring to examples like these:

I have nothing against Venezuela, but It is not the kind of socialism Bernie Sanders was running for. He was opting for the Nordic model. What do you think my lie of thought is?

Yes he could barrel through a crowd. But the logistics wouldnt have worked out (I believe it was inside a mall). Driving into a crowd normally is even more effective then a gun. Your logic doenst work out. This weekend in Amsterdam there was a crazy guy (rumored to be terrorist related) who stabbed two americans. I am confident that he could have done far more damage with a gun. And no you cant drive a car that easily into amsterdam central station.

I agree that mental health was also an issue and should also be adressed, but in my opinion the high availability of guns in the US (88 guns per 100 persons !!!) could have saved more lives in mass shootings.

We have perfectly good healthcare here in the Netherlands. Although not perfect. Yet once in a while a crazy person still will go around raping, stabbing in public etc. I am just happy it is so hard to find a gun here, this person cannot do more damage. (<5 guns per 100 people)

 

[ryzno]

I am confident that he could have done far more damage with a gun.

What if he only had the knife and they had a gun?

 

[PocketZeven]

What if he only had the knife and they had a gun?

They survived the attack. And so did the crazy guy. But I think the crazy guy would be dead if the 2 americans had gun. Most likely if the americans were allowed to have a gun the crazy guy would probably also have one and then at least 1 american and probably a lot more would have been dead and probably the crazy one too. Central Station is a very public space.

But what was your point? Are you willing to live in a world where everyone is carrying a gun for their protection?

 

[TexRex]

A much more productive discussion could be had on how hard it is to identify potential psychopaths ( like the ragequit shooter ) in society.

Potentially productive? Absolutely! More productive? Well that depends on one's perspective. Indeed a discussion isn't likely to go anywhere when participants are unwilling to acknowledge every aspect of it.

He was 24, I bet he still had a drivers license, could he not barrel through a crowd to hit his targets killing dozens?

His targets were inside the GLHF Game Bar which shares space with Chicago Pizza at the Jacksonville Landing indoor marketplace.

I suppose he could have approached from the north along Hogan St and cut across greenscape avoiding trees on the way to the shared entrance, but vehicles don't tend to carry a significant amount of speed once they collide with structures. More to the point...he didn't.

This is a mental health issue.

This incident represents a number of failings culminating in what ultimately transpired--it isn't any one thing.

What if he only had the knife and they had a gun?

What if our hands were where our feet are and our feet were where our hands are?

 

[PocketZeven]

What if our hands were where our feet are and our feet were where our hands are?

I am going to steal that one from you. That made my day.

 

[TexRex]

I am going to steal that one from you. That made my day.

I appreciate you finding it humorous but I wonder if the time it took to acknowledge such might have been better utilized by considering the arguments of others as well as your own.

 

[ryzno]

What if our hands were where our feet are and our feet were where our hands are?

Took you long enough...

But what was your point?

They could have not been possibly injured. I assume they were since you said they survived and they could have held him for the police.
No one hurt.
Not every time the good guy pulls out their gun they pull the trigger.

Are you willing to live in a world where everyone is carrying a gun for their protection?

I answered "C" if you would have actually read my response to your ABC question yesterday...

 

[Obelisk]

Are you willing to live in a world where everyone is carrying a gun for their protection?

Yes, to be blunt.

 

[TexRex]

Took you long enough...

Begging forgiveness if my response wasn't delivered as promptly as you would have liked. I opted to employ more care in responding to comments that I deemed more worthy of response; counterfactuals are low on the totem pole.