Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

[McLaren]

That is perhaps true. But again I want to refer you to developed countries with low gunownership. Legal ownership is allowed if you abide the rules and reqirements. I personally believe legal ownership under strict laws should be allowed.

Which is exactly what happens in the US. Follow the rules, you get a gun. Break the rules, even before a gun is involved, and your rights are possibly revoked depending on what you did. But, the statistics already show the majority of legal gun owners (those who follow the rules in place to own a gun) are law-abiding citizens and not responsible for gun crime in the US. This goes back to the Pittsburgh data I shared with you, yet you completely ignored it and went into a completely different discussion about gun ownership in the US vs the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.68fe9c54ed26

In the study, led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, researchers partnered with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to trace the origins of all 893 firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008.
79% - Perpetrator was carrying a firearm owned by someone else.
18% - Perpetrator was legal owner of gun.
3% - Unknown

Nearly 80% of the crime data in the survey was committed by a stolen/straw-purchased weapon. Why must a point be repeatedly shared with you?

Even Sanders has thrown his opinion into the discussion for his home state.

I think guns and gun control is an issue that needs to be discussed," he said on Thursday's Morning Edition. "Let me add to that, I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people."

"If anyone thinks that gun control itself is going to solve the problem of violence in this country, you're terribly mistaken. So, obviously, we need strong, sensible gun control and I will support it. But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems. It is not," he said.

"I can understand that if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice; they're not into guns. But, in my state, people go hunting and people do target practice. Talking about cultural divides in this country, you know, it is important for people in urban America to understand that families go out together and kids go out with their parents and they hunt and they enjoy the outdoors and that is a lifestyle that should not be condemned."

The underlined part is a topic I believe @Danoff has repeatedly argued for; there is a violence issue in this country that goes behind trying to limit weapons. You can see it when looking at the infamous FBI statistics; double the amount of murder victims die from someone's bare hands than a shotgun, one of the most relaxed yet deadly weapons on the market; they require no permit to buy, use, or conceal.

 

[baldgye]

I mean, think about it. If you took away guns you’d just end up replacing all the mass shootings every year with mass stabbings... or large scale brawls!

 

[PocketZeven]

Not irony, just you analyzing it and coming up with your own assumption rather than reading and understanding what is being said. No where do I say that any solution that messes with the second amendment is wrong nor hint at that. If I had I would say to arm more people, and to allow any weapons to be purchased without stringent check and limitation. All I've said it fix the system in place so it works and thus limits those "legal" purchases that shouldn't happen from happening.



I actually did give evidence, go back and read my posts. We've had weapons bans and various incidents still have occurred during that time frame with banned weapons or stolen weapons despite laws in place.

Also I find it strange you claim the norm is your experience yet who dictates this "norm", just because certain developed nations think that is the best course for them doesn't mean it's the norm. There are other nations just as developed and even more so in certain areas with many of their citizens with guns.



As there will always be, since the world isn't a perfect bubble where bad things wont happen because people wish it. I've already viewed it and thought about it from the outsider view. The conclusion is always the same and usually proven as you've done. Not educated enough to understand the laws, on mental health and ownership of firearms. And typically thinking it is a cut and dry, copy and paste solution from whatever country to the U.S. and everything gets fixed. Many time the cultural aspect is ignored.



Those exist, FFL dealers are highly regulated and have to be licensed (hence the L) to sell firearms to the public in the first place. Buying guns is a lot more difficult than liquor. I take alcohol to a counter pay for it and move on, very rarely do I get checked for an ID and even when I do it's a quick 30 second transaction. When I go to buy a gun, I have to show documentation, wait for an FBI background check, depending on the state have a wait period, only can buy a certain amount at one time and so forth. If I want to purchase certain items or certain weapons I have to actually go through even more invasive checks, pay a tax and then keep up to date with that item, along with it being registered with the government. Again my issue with you on this topic is you're not a legitimate proponent to protect people, if you were you'd educate yourself and analyze the issues in depth. Rather you've seen the topic come up one too many times, and want to sound off without any research.



You didn't research, typically when a person misspeak it tends to mean they spoke out of term or incorrectly by mistake but aren't ignorant to the subject.

The 2nd amendment is used as such that one always comes back to it with the principle that it can not be changed. I already gave the example of the 21 amendment repealing the 18th amendment. But to not be completely ignorant, I understand you need 2/3 of congress and the senate to pass such a repeal. And with the current political division between party lines, it would be impossible to get enough votes. But one can hope and try. The examples you gave were not on a national level.

As a european I am not versed in US law, so you are right I am ignorant in the details of state law and its implimentation. But as I stated I am trying to provide a somewhat outside view. I acknowledged that the problem is multi faceted and law enforcement (how background checks are handled and how gunlaws are implemented) and mental healthcare (disturbed people should be reckognised timely and treated). I choose to concentrate on the fact that there is an abnormal number of guns in the US. If you fail to see the connection between guns per capita and mass shootings with all the evidence there is. And not once do you ask how come do we have so many mass shootings, but other developed countries dont? The problem is so unique to the USA one really should explore the options by outside view. And I am not claiming this is the one solution or cut and dry. As stated the problem is multi faceted. My problem is a large portion choose to completely ignore this option and a smaller portion actually do acknowledge it.

I do know somewhat about guns ( I am a fan of westerns) and I miswrote. I dont need to do additional research to know it. I dont remember a single action revolver being used in a mass shootings. My mistake was there were not any single action guns available at the time of writing the contitution.

Which is exactly what happens in the US. Follow the rules, you get a gun. Break the rules, even before a gun is involved, and your rights are possibly revoked depending on what you did. But, the statistics already show the majority of legal gun owners (those who follow the rules in place to own a gun) are law-abiding citizens and not responsible for gun crime in the US. This goes back to the Pittsburgh data I shared with you, yet you completely ignored it and went into a completely different discussion about gun ownership in the US vs the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.68fe9c54ed26

Nearly 80% of the crime data in the survey was committed by a stolen/straw-purchased weapon. Why must a point be repeatedly shared with you?

Even Sanders has thrown his opinion into the discussion for his home state.

The underlined part is a topic I believe @Danoff has repeatedly argued for; there is a violence issue in this country that goes behind trying to limit weapons. You can see it when looking at the infamous FBI statistics; double the amount of murder victims die from someone's bare hands than a shotgun, one of the most relaxed yet deadly weapons on the market; they require no permit to buy, use, or conceal.

My apologies, I wasnt clear. I meant ownership through the means I proposed and not under current law. Meaning ownership through permits and strict registration of guns. I found this interesting bit about the difference between how this works in Switzerland, which also has an abnormal high gun per capita ratio (46 per 100):

"Another important difference is that in Switzerland the onus of getting permission to possess a firearm is on the buyer, not the sellerexternal link. A buyer in Switzerland needs to get a permit-to-purchase issued by the cantonal police (specific weapons for hunting or sports are exempt). Permits are denied to applicants with criminal records, addiction problems, or a debilitating psychiatric condition. This system is based on direct access to criminal records through local law enforcement, and is both more thorough and less burdensome than the current US system, which suffers from widely acknowledged loopholes and information inaccuraciesexternal link. A Scientific American article noted that the ten US states that do require a permit-to-purchase have seen a proven reduction in gun violenceexternal link."

 

[Obelisk]

Take away the guns and they'll pick up knives.

Take away the knives and they'll throw bombs.

Take away the bombs and they'll drive trucks into people.

Take away the trucks and they'll hurl rocks.

etc, etc. Taking away a class of weapon only prompts use of another weapon class. And trust me, it doesn't change much when people are violent.

 

[baldgye]

Take away the guns and they'll pick up knives.

Take away the knives and they'll throw bombs.

Take away the bombs and they'll drive trucks into people.

Take away the trucks and they'll hurl rocks.

etc, etc. Taking away a class of weapon only prompts use of another weapon class. And trust me, it doesn't change much when people are violent.

Agreed, mass knifings are a real problem here in the UK.

 

[UKMikey]

Agreed, mass knifings are a real problem here in the UK.

I don't profess to completely understand the situation but I can't see them driving trucks into classrooms. Perhaps they'll follow kids home and pick their cars off on the roads Duel-style.

 

[baldgye]

I don't profess to completely understand the situation but I can't see them driving trucks into classrooms. Perhaps they'll follow kids home and pick their cars off on the roads Duel-style.

Nah the traffic would be a nightmare.
I think he is referring to the great Lollipop-lady massacre of 1990. I imagine, if they were packing heat, they would have been able to shoot at the drivers as they were being run over-thus saving thousands of lives.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Agreed, mass knifings are a real problem here in the UK.

With 37,000+ knives used in crimes in the latest year of recorded statistics, I'd say knives are something to worry about over there.

 

[PocketZeven]

With 37,000+ knives used in crimes in the latest year of recorded statistics, I'd say knives are something to worry about over there.

How does it compare to guns?

Take away the guns and they'll pick up knives.

Take away the knives and they'll throw bombs.

Take away the bombs and they'll drive trucks into people.

Take away the trucks and they'll hurl rocks.

etc, etc. Taking away a class of weapon only prompts use of another weapon class. And trust me, it doesn't change much when people are violent.

I rather much prefer trucks (with traffic in my country he'll be stuck in it anyway) and rocks.

 

[baldgye]

and rocks.

Just remember the song; sticks and stones, it's not sticks and guns.

 

[Johnnypenso]

How does it compare to guns?

Don't know, I was responding to a glib remark about knifings from a country that's had a fairly dramatic rise in knifings in recent history. And acid attacks for that matter.

 

[Danoff]

I mean, think about it. If you took away guns you’d just end up replacing all the mass shootings every year with mass stabbings... or large scale brawls!

I don't know if you're familiar, but we do bomb people over here. And James Holmes (the Aurora Theater Killer) had plans for covertly stabbing many people in a national park.

 

[PocketZeven]

Don't know, I was responding to a glib remark about knifings from a country that's had a fairly dramatic rise in knifings in recent history. And acid attacks for that matter.

Ah ok. The UK is unique in the sense that the majority of police do not carry firearms. So perhaps there is a corrolation.

 

[baldgye]

Ah ok. The UK is unique in the sense that the majority of police do not carry firearms. So perhaps there is a corrolation.

To be fair, there isn't any correlation between the banning on handguns after the Dunblane massacre and the prevention of mass shootings.

 

[UKMikey]

Ah ok. The UK is unique in the sense that the majority of police do not carry firearms. So perhaps there is a corrolation.

There is a correlation between the drop in police funding and the rise in crime.

 

[PocketZeven]

To be fair, there isn't any correlation between the banning on handguns after the Dunblane massacre and the prevention of mass shootings.

In what sense? Europe does have isolated incidents with mass shootings. We had one most recent in the Netherlands in 2011. But what makes the problem unique for the USA is the sheer volume. My proposition isnt neccesarily outright banning of guns but reduce the amount.

there is no end all solution, you cant prevent mass shootings a 100%, but reducing it by X% is already saving a lot of lives.

Edit: added some text

 

[Danoff]

there is no end all solution, you cant prevent mass shootings a 100%, but reducing it by X% is already saving a lot of lives.

Is your goal to save lives or prevent mass shootings? Because preventing mass shootings is not the most effective way to save lives.

 

[baldgye]

In what sense? Europe does have isolated incidents with mass shootings. We had one most recent in the Netherlands in 2011. But what makes the problem unique for the USA is the sheer volume. My proposition isnt neccesarily outright banning of guns but reduce the amount.

there is no end all solution, you cant prevent mass shootings a 100%, but reducing it by X% is already saving a lot of lives.

Edit: added some text

I was being sarcastic, because this whole situation is a joke.

No one really cares about sorting it, so children and innocent people will be killed year after year. The way you stop mass shootings, is to remove the tool which allows these shootings to take place, that tool, being the gun.

The argument that you can't 100% prevent gun crime by making guns illegal is as idiotic as saying you can't reduce crime to zero with a police force, so better to not have one.
American's aren't genetically or socially more aggressive than anyone else, people who say that are people that clearly haven't travelled. We are all broadly the ****ing same, regardless of where we are from or brought up. The second amendment, is an amendment, so why the **** it can't be amended I'll never understand.

 

[Danoff]

No one really cares about sorting it, so children and innocent people will be killed year after year. The way you stop mass shootings, is to remove the tool which allows these shootings to take place, that tool, being the gun.

That is one way to stop mass shootings yes. It's also pretty much impossible in the US due to the bill of rights, and for good reasons. You're acting like this is simple, and it's not helping anyone (except maybe it helps you feel good about yourself).

The argument that you can't 100% prevent gun crime by making guns illegal is as idiotic as saying you can't reduce crime to zero with a police force, so better to not have one.

The reason that gets brought up is because there is a real cost to banning guns. I know you don't see it, but the rest of us do.

American's aren't genetically or socially more aggressive than anyone else, people who say that are people that clearly haven't travelled.

Then why is our non-gun murder rate higher than the UK's entire murder rate?

We are all broadly the ****ing same, regardless of where we are from or brought up.

As a species yes, but what about your "socially" remark?

The second amendment, is an amendment, so why the **** it can't be amended I'll never understand.

Because it enshrines a basic human right (as discussed at length by the supreme court in the majority and concurring opinions in DC v Heller, if you want some reading).

 

[Johnnypenso]

I was being sarcastic, because this whole situation is a joke.

No one really cares about sorting it, so children and innocent people will be killed year after year. The way you stop mass shootings, is to remove the tool which allows these shootings to take place, that tool, being the gun.

No one cares?

The argument that you can't 100% prevent gun crime by making guns illegal is as idiotic as saying you can't reduce crime to zero with a police force, so better to not have one.

Agreed. Who is making this argument?

American's aren't genetically or socially more aggressive than anyone else, people who say that are people that clearly haven't travelled. We are all broadly the ****ing same, regardless of where we are from or brought up. The second amendment, is an amendment, so why the **** it can't be amended I'll never understand

Can you explain how the U.S. ended up in 94th on the Global Peace Index, just ahead of Haiti and just behind Bolivia?

 

[Johnnypenso]

delete double

 

[PocketZeven]

I was being sarcastic, because this whole situation is a joke.

No one really cares about sorting it, so children and innocent people will be killed year after year. The way you stop mass shootings, is to remove the tool which allows these shootings to take place, that tool, being the gun.

The argument that you can't 100% prevent gun crime by making guns illegal is as idiotic as saying you can't reduce crime to zero with a police force, so better to not have one.
American's aren't genetically or socially more aggressive than anyone else, people who say that are people that clearly haven't travelled. We are all broadly the ****ing same, regardless of where we are from or brought up. The second amendment, is an amendment, so why the **** it can't be amended I'll never understand.

I couldnt deduce from that specific post you were being sarcastic. The only argument against stricter gun laws, that cant be disproven is the 2nd amendment, which is written in such a way that it can be interpeted in a lot of ways.

No one cares?
Agreed. Who is making this argument?

Can you explain how the U.S. ended up in 94th on the Global Peace Index, just ahead of Haiti and just behind Bolivia?

To be fair he exaggerated. There are a lot of americans who are for stricter gun laws. the issue is the conservatives and NRA who actively oppose and want to dismantle any proposed and existing gun laws. They litterally dont care.

edit: added response to @Johnnypenso

 

[baldgye]

I couldnt deduce from that specific post you were being sarcastic.

Yeah that's fair enough, I wasn't trying to catch you out

 

[Danoff]

I couldnt deduce from that specific post you were being sarcastic. The only argument against stricter gun laws, that cant be disproven is the 2nd amendment, which is written in such a way that it can be interpeted in a lot of ways.

To be fair he exaggerated. There are a lot of americans who are for stricter gun laws. the issue is the conservatives and NRA who actively oppose and want to dismantle any proposed and existing gun laws. They litterally dont care.

edit: added response to @Johnnypenso

The 2nd amendment has been extensively researched by very smart legal researchers who laid out their research in a document for you to read. "Blame the NRA" isn't even remotely doing the conversation justice. You don't seem to be the least bit interested in actually understanding the issues, so it will continue to perplex you.

 

[TexRex]

Don't know, I was responding to a glib remark about knifings from a country that's had a fairly dramatic rise in knifings in recent history. And acid attacks for that matter.

You say you don't know, but you were able to present an approximate figure for the number of knives used in crimes in the latest year of record. How is it you came to know such a figure and how is it so much more difficult to come by a similarly approximate figure for firearms?

Edit: Oh look...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...est-england-wales-rise-increase-a8177161.html

Forces registered 37,443 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument in the year ending September 2017 – the highest tally since comparable records started in the 12 months to March 2011. Gun crime saw 6,694 recorded offences.

All I had to do was search "gun crime england wales" and that turned up.

 

[PocketZeven]

The 2nd amendment has been extensively researched by very smart legal researchers who laid out their research in a document for you to read. "Blame the NRA" isn't even remotely doing the conversation justice. You don't seem to be the least bit interested in actually understanding the issues, so it will continue to perplex you.

Are you talking about the ones who wrote the amendment? In another century? You do understand times change, so laws should too. The problem with laws that are written in such a way, is that they can be interpeted in a biased way. Without the original writers to explain their intent, it is impossible to inerpet it the way it was intended. I use the example of the 18th amendment again. It was deemed neccasary at the time, but outdated 13 years later.

I am not blaming the NRA. I am only saying the NRA are immorral in the fact their only agenda is about selling more guns, by claiming they are "protecting"the 2nd amendment, with little regard for mass shooting victims.

I am so sick of "the only way that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". That is saying the only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb.

 

[TetsuKobura]

I am not blaming the NRA. I am only saying the NRA are immoral in the fact their only agenda is about selling more guns, by claiming they are "protecting"the 2nd amendment, with little regard for mass shooting victims.

I am so sick of "the only way that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". That is saying the only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb.

Their agenda is far from the one you're describing. It would help if you actually bothered doing research on what the NRA stands for. The problem with society in America nowadays is that these mass shooting victims keep blaming the NRA even though some of their spokespersons have advocated for a national crime database, that way all potential red flags on an individual could be brought up from anywhere in the country. The problem with this, however, is that in certain situations, like Sutherland Springs, TX, the Air Force FAILED to report how the shooter had a domestic violence charge before he purchased the guns used in that attack, as has been brought up multiple times in the past couple of shootings threads, which you ignorantly decided not to pay attention to. Ironically enough, the Sutherland Springs shooter was brought down by someone else with a rifle, so the notion of bad guys with guns can be stopped by good guys with guns actually can happen.

Also, the Parkland shooter had numerous red flags, which the Broward County Sheriffs Office and FBI kept ignoring, and yet, as a result, a lot of innocent children were murdered. So, again, because I can't believe I have to keep saying this to you in particular, we have LAWS IN PLACE TO PREVENT THESE ISSUES FROM HAPPENING, but they are NOT ENFORCED.

 

[Danoff]

You say you don't know, but you were able to present an approximate figure for the number of knives used in crimes in the latest year of record. How is it you came to know such a figure and how is it so much more difficult to come by a similarly approximate figure for firearms?

Seems like something that could be addressed by the person who wants to know.

Are you talking about the ones who wrote the amendment? In another century?

DC v Heller. This century (like that matters).

You do understand times change, so laws should too.

Not rights.

I am so sick of "the only way that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". That is saying the only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb.

I'm not following you. You kinda drifted off into a strange place.

 

[PocketZeven]

Their agenda is far from the one you're describing. It would help if you actually bothered doing research on what the NRA stands for. The problem with society in America nowadays is that these mass shooting victims keep blaming the NRA even though some of their spokespersons have advocated for a national crime database, that way all potential red flags on an individual could be brought up from anywhere in the country. The problem with this, however, is that in certain situations, like Sutherland Springs, TX, the Air Force FAILED to report how the shooter had a domestic violence charge before he purchased the guns used in that attack, as has been brought up multiple times in the past couple of shootings threads, which you ignorantly decided not to pay attention to. Ironically enough, the Sutherland Springs shooter was brought down by someone else with a rifle, so the notion of bad guys with guns can be stopped by good guys with guns actually can happen

Also, the Parkland shooter had numerous red flags, which the Broward County Sheriffs Office and FBI kept ignoring, and yet, as a result, a lot of innocent children were murdered. So, again, because I can't believe I have to keep saying this to you in particular, we have LAWS IN PLACE TO PREVENT THESE ISSUES FROM HAPPENING, but they are NOT ENFORCED.

No one is blaming the NRA. They are being shamed for their agenda and actively working against and dismantling proposed and existing gun control laws.

Like i stated multiple times. Law enforcement is only part of the problem. The wide availability of guns is also a part of the problem. I am acknowledging you, but you are ignoring me. I repeat 88 guns per 100 people is not normal.

Seems like something that could be addressed by the person who wants to know.



DC v Heller. This century (like that matters).



Not rights.



I'm not following you. You kinda drifted off into a strange place.

We are talking about an amendment, nothing more. Only in USA they apparantly consider bearing arms a right, but not healthcare. But you are suggesting the rest of the developed world are violating human rights?

the quote was referring to the narrative of the NRA for mass shootings.

edit: added response to @Danoff

 

[Danoff]

Like i stated multiple times. Law enforcement is only part of the problem. The wide availability of guns is also a part of the problem. I am acknowledging you, but you are ignoring me. I repeat 88 guns per 100 people is not normal.

What's a normal number? I own 6 (none of which were used to kill 2 people in jacksonville).