Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[Joey D]

Accidental/Animal-related: 4

Accidental/Auto-erotic asphyxiation: 3

Given the amount I actually hear about this, that number seems low. Maybe people in Utah just like to strangle themselves while getting off though.

 

[Danoff]

We could start by trying to figure out why it happens. It's easy to just say anyone involved is just stupid but I don't agree. Carseat deaths aren't something that I've looked into recently or deeply, but some of the cases I've seen appear to be accidents. You'd think a child would be at the front of someone's mind but having something important slip is pretty human. Something we might need is a backup when the mind fails us.

Now that you wrote it, I think I agree. Didn't think about a sensor. That's something easy (I suppose) that could and should be implemented. Still, forgetting one's sun or daughter in the back seat is so strange to me.

Here's how it happens. 99% of the time you drive straight from home to work in the morning. This morning, things are different, and you have your daughter in the back seat (rear-facing). Your kid is quiet, and when it comes time to turn toward the daycare, you turn to work on autopilot instead. Your kid falls asleep. You autopilot all the way to work and never even look at the back seat again.

Cars already have weight sensors to prevent airbag injuries involving children in the front seat, I don't see why something similar can't be used in a car seat that would remind the parent of their child.

Something which should be optional for purchase.

 

[Famine]

There's a lot of dogs in there - usually one's own dog (and fatal attacks are usually on kids). Which actually leads us to another fun statistic that the most dangerous dog in the UK in terms of attacks on humans is...

... the labrador retriever.

As we all know, labradors are seething balls of hate and fury just looking for a chance to savage any human they can get. And we also know that the USA has an enormous dog attack problem: the UK's death rate from labrador attacks alone is roughly 0.013 a week, while the USA dog attack rate is almost 15 times higher* despite only having 5 times the population.

The solution is of course to prevent private ownership of labrador retrievers.


Wait, no, they're literally the most placid animals in the entire universe (except maybe capybaras and quokkas). The reason they're the largest group of dogs involved in attacks on humans is because there's so piggin' many of them and so many bad dog owners, and we're completely ignoring the >50% of deaths caused by dogs that aren't labradors.

There's an analogy in there somewhere, but I forget what it is.


*Approximately 2.2 deaths a year from dog attacks in the UK, with roughly a third of all dog attacks from labradors breeds. The USA has roughly 30 deaths annually from dog attacks, though these are mainly pit bull breeds rather than labradors.

 

[Danoff]

There's a lot of dogs in there - usually one's own dog (and fatal attacks are usually on kids). Which actually leads us to another fun statistic that the most dangerous dog in the UK in terms of attacks on humans is...

... the labrador retriever.

As we all know, labradors are seething balls of hate and fury just looking for a chance to savage any human they can get. And we also know that the USA has an enormous dog attack problem: the UK's death rate from labrador attacks alone is roughly 0.013 a week, while the USA dog attack rate is almost 15 times higher* despite only having 5 times the population.

The solution is of course to prevent private ownership of labrador retrievers.


Wait, no, they're literally the most placid animals in the entire universe (except maybe capybaras and quokkas). The reason they're the largest group of dogs involved in attacks on humans is because there's so piggin' many of them and so many bad dog owners, and we're completely ignoring the >50% of deaths caused by dogs that aren't labradors.

There's an analogy in there somewhere, but I forget what it is.


*Approximately 2.2 deaths a year from dog attacks in the UK, with roughly a third of all dog attacks from labradors breeds. The USA has roughly 30 deaths annually from dog attacks, though these are mainly pit bull breeds rather than labradors.

There's a selection bias in there. Bad dog owners tend to pick dogs that are known for being easy to own. But if you managed to get rid of the labradors, you know those bad dog owners would just go pick a different breed. You're right... it does feel like there's an analogy here.

 

[zzz_pt]

There's a lot of dogs in there - usually one's own dog (and fatal attacks are usually on kids). Which actually leads us to another fun statistic that the most dangerous dog in the UK in terms of attacks on humans is...

... the labrador retriever.

As we all know, labradors are seething balls of hate and fury just looking for a chance to savage any human they can get. And we also know that the USA has an enormous dog attack problem: the UK's death rate from labrador attacks alone is roughly 0.013 a week, while the USA dog attack rate is almost 15 times higher* despite only having 5 times the population.

The solution is of course to prevent private ownership of labrador retrievers.


Wait, no, they're literally the most placid animals in the entire universe (except maybe capybaras and quokkas). The reason they're the largest group of dogs involved in attacks on humans is because there's so piggin' many of them and so many bad dog owners, and we're completely ignoring the >50% of deaths caused by dogs that aren't labradors.

There's an analogy in there somewhere, but I forget what it is.


*Approximately 2.2 deaths a year from dog attacks in the UK, with roughly a third of all dog attacks from labradors breeds. The USA has roughly 30 deaths annually from dog attacks, though these are mainly pit bull breeds rather than labradors.

If labradors were (capable and) being used by some people to maul 10,20,30+ complete strangers, including innocent children, to death in a couple of minutes, several times per year, I bet the UK would do something about it.

But if only 2 people die per year due to a dog attack, I can't see the analogy at all. Especially, as you've mentioned, often the owners are the ones getting attacked. I also believe even labradors can injure people when they don't want. A labrador is a large dog and behaves independently from their owner's will. If he runs and bumps into a todler because he just wants to play, there's a small chance the child can get injured or die from the fall. It's not a clear cut as it happens with guns, where a user has to make a decision about pulling a trigger. The gun literally won't do anything if there's not a bullet inside the chaimber and no one pulls a trigger.

I get the analogy you're trying to make, but I don't think it works tbh.

edit: Also, if a dog is attacking someone who's attacking it, it's basially acting in self defense. Are deaths occourring in self defense counted in the stats? Because I wouldn't count those and blame the animal. As I wouldn't count as a homicide people who shoot somoene else who is trying to kill them.

 

[Keef]

I hope @Keef is alright and wonder if he can shed light on the shooting in Dayton, OH where a further nine people were killed yesterday.

I'm fine and so is everyone I know. Thanks for asking!

I wasn't at home at the time as I'm working in a different city. I have a lot of friends who frequent that bar area because it's the most popular spot in the city. There are always cops in the area on foot and driving through simply because it's so popular. The area is not upscale at all and is surrounded by some grungy stuff. That said, apparently the crime wasn't related to the area at all. The Dayton area is a small enough city that this has affected basically everybody in the city in some way.

Supposedly the guy was a far-left extremist, but still an extremist. Just goes to show that no matter what side of the coin you're on, those extreme ideologies always resort to some form of violence. The bottom line is people are getting more mentally unstable and more angry and have more access to weird ideas and more time to aborb themselves into it.

 

[CopperySinger]

VFOURMAX1 "Mass Shootings are a white male problem"

https://www.splcenter.org/20180723/terror-right

 

[zzz_pt]

VFOURMAX1 "Mass Shootings are a white male problem"

https://www.splcenter.org/20180723/terror-right

SPLC, really?

 

[Exorcet]

My focus was on non accidental killing of children by a stranger tho. It seems to be one if not the most important difference making mass shootings the reason to talk about gun control. Children can't carry a gun to kill in self defense, after all.

Children are vulnerable to many things compared to an adult. I see what you're saying but I'm not sure if the mass shooting threat is all that different from other dangers when it comes to kids. In any case, I'd rather not see anyone die. Even if adults are killed instead of children that's still a pretty grim situation for the child potentially. Losing a parent can be devastating.

Here's how it happens. 99% of the time you drive straight from home to work in the morning. This morning, things are different, and you have your daughter in the back seat (rear-facing). Your kid is quiet, and when it comes time to turn toward the daycare, you turn to work on autopilot instead. Your kid falls asleep. You autopilot all the way to work and never even look at the back seat again.



Something which should be optional for purchase.

Yes, I find myself adapting to routines all of the time. There are things that I just don't think about, and I can see how that can lead to an error or omission. I haven't suffered for it yet, but every day is another chance for an issue to surface. Not to mention that with 10 billion of us on the planet, even a 1/1,000,000,000 chance daily event will occur ten times a day.

I also agree on the optional nature of a system like the one I described. I only intended to point out a concept that might help with the issue my post.

 

[CopperySinger]

SPLC, really?

yes really, Whats the problem, do you disagree?

 

[zzz_pt]

@Exorcet Of course it can be devastating. I was just trying to make a point about why I think mass shootings gather so much attention despite the low number of victims, statistically speaking. Because a large part of those victims are children/minors who are killed by a complete stranger on purpose and their parents can't do absolutely nothing to save them. It's not quite the same as having a child who dies in an accident. Not sure it I'm being clear, but that's what I was trying to say. And I know the response to mass shootings is not 100% rational, but it's 100% human(e).

In every culture around the world, tragedies that involve children and teens are in the spotlight and usually carry some kind of consequence, either political or social.

yes really, Whats the problem, do you disagree?

They pick and choose information and are obviosuly driven by a(n identitarian) political agenda, rather than facts and transparency.

 

[Exorcet]

@Exorcet Of course it can be devastating. I was just trying to make a point about why I think mass shootings gather so much attention despite the low number of victims, statistically speaking. Because a large part of those victims are children/minors who are killed by a complete stranger on purpose and their parents can't do absolutely nothing to save them. It's not quite the same as having a child who dies in an accident. Not sure it I'm being clear, but that's what I was trying to say. And I know the response to mass shootings is not 100% rational, but it's 100% human(e).

In every culture around the world, tragedies that involve children and teens are in the spotlight and usually carry some kind of consequence, either political or social.

Yeah I'd say that's accurate, it's probably biologically ingrained to a degree. I was just a little confused to see it brought up in reply to my carseat post since I wasn't originally posting that in response to anything shooting related. It's clear now what you're saying though.

 

[CopperySinger]

They pick and choose information and are obviosuly driven by a(n identitarian) political agenda, rather than facts and transparency.

This is ironic because what you stated are the exact beliefs of those white terrorists that set missions to kill and destroy. But what i would like to know is what do you feel is untrue?

 

[zzz_pt]

This is ironic because what you stated are the exact beliefs of those white terrorists that set missions to kill and destroy. But what i would like to know is what do you feel is untrue?

I rest my case.

 

[CopperySinger]

I rest my case.

So wait, correct me if im wrong. You respond to me with short encrypted-like messages, this gives me the notion that you could possibly be one of those who deny the existance of terror acts from white nationalist, correct me if im wrong, and zzz_pt do you believe racism is a hoax?

 

[zzz_pt]

So wait, correct me if im wrong. You respond to me with short encrypted-like messages, this gives me the notion that you could possibly be one of those who deny the existance of terror acts from white nationalist, correct me if im wrong, and zzz_pt do you believe racism is a hoax?

Encrypted? More like concise and clear.

You didn't write a single word of your own on your first post. You shared a link without adding anything to it. I wrote quite a short response to your second post, telling you why I don't think the SPLC is credible at all. You then went on to prove my point and parrot the talking points of articles published on the SPLC's website, filled with identity politics and cherry picking.

Maybe you could take a look into this (left leaning journals btw, you'll get articles with more "spice" from conservative outlets):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...thern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/

The SPCL is a joke at best and a disaster at worst.

Oh, and for the record, I'm on the left, I'm not a US citizen and I don't own any type of gun (and I could).

 

[CopperySinger]

Encrypted? More like concise and clear.

You didn't write a single word of your own on your first post. You shared a link without adding anything to it. I wrote quite a short response to your second post, telling you why I don't think the SPLC is credible at all. You then went on to prove my point and parrot the talking points of articles published on the SPLC's website, filled with identity politics and cherry picking.

Maybe you could take a look into this (left leaning journals btw, you'll get articles with more "spice" from conservative outlets):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...thern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/

The SPCL is a joke at best and a disaster at worst.

Oh, and for the record, I'm on the left, I'm not a US citizen and I don't own any type of gun (and I could).

Why do you ignore the question I asked you I give a hoot about the spcl, I'm talking about the data it presented. It doesent matter if you are on the left or right politically, in my lifetime I have seen and met white nationalist from both parties. You see back in the day in the US, these current right wing racist extremists were all democratic, specifically labeling themselves southern democrats wearing their kkk outfits parade marching through black neighborhoods chanting their vows with their nazi and southern democratic rebel flags tikki torches, I seen this first hand as a child. The republican party is supposed to be the conservative party for corporations above all people. Minorities usually get jobs with better income under republican policies, while democrats like to keep everyone in a safety net while dismantling corporations handing out welfare and slave-like labor keeping you in poverty. This is why blacks didn't give too much of a hoot about the democratic party. News flash, minority blue collar working men in America don't usually like democrat party because it takes too much limitation over ones life and gives too much welfare to the non workers. Bill Clinton enjoyed Black and Hispanic people weed girls and saxophones soo much that the racist groups could not take it anymore so they became republican imo Clinton's psychological political strategy was to shift the racist southern democrats out of the party imo, similar to what Trump is doing to minorities but Trump is too dumb to realize what he is doing imo. But back on topic, I see clearly that your views are politically controlled. It forces you to claim that you are on the left while appearing to sympathize with the alt right. I have to ask you which side are you really on?

 

[zzz_pt]

Why do you ignore the question I asked you I give a hoot about the spcl, I'm talking about the data it presented. It doesent matter if you are on the left or right politically, in my lifetime I have seen and met white nationalist from both parties. You see back in the day in the US, these current right wing racist extremists were all democratic, specifically labeling themselves southern democrats wearing their kkk outfits parade marching through black neighborhoods chanting their vows with their nazi and southern democratic rebel flags tikki torches, I seen this first hand as a child. The republican party is supposed to be the conservative party for corporations above all people. Minorities usually get jobs with better income under republican policies, while democrats like to keep everyone in a safety net while dismantling corporations handing out welfare and slave-like labor keeping you in poverty. This is why blacks didn't give too much of a hoot about the democratic party. News flash, minority blue collar working men in America don't usually like democrat party because it takes too much limitation over ones life and gives too much welfare to the non workers. Bill Clinton enjoyed Black and Hispanic people weed girls and saxophones soo much that the racist groups could not take it anymore so they became republican imo Clinton's psychological political strategy was to shift the racist southern democrats out of the party imo, similar to what Trump is doing to minorities but Trump is too dumb to realize what he is doing imo. But back on topic, I see clearly that your views are politically controlled. It forces you to claim that you are on the left while appearing to sympathize with the alt right. I have to ask you which side are you really on?

This is such a mess I can't even begin to respond to it. Have you read the articles I shared? It seems you haven't.

You didn't present reliable data. You publised a link to the SPLC with selected data to drive a narrative and you keep pushing the same button of race while at the same time telling me I sympathize with the alt right (not as bad as implying I think like mass shooter as before, but still). I told you I'm on the left because after this sentence:

They pick and choose information and are obviosuly driven by a(n identitarian) political agenda, rather than facts and transparency.

You told me I have the "exact beliefs of those white terrorists that set missions to kill and destroy" after that sentence. I'm not the one who's pollitically controlled. You're the one who's racially and politically obsessed.

 

[PocketZeven]

Looks like El Salvador has a way bigger problem than we do.

Why do you think there are so many refugees looking for asylum?

100% difference isn't that much higher? Are you smoking something? And what are you comparing against? Because our non-gun homicide rate is what... 3-4 times the UK's entire homicide rate? Our total homicide rate is many hundreds of percent higher than the UK's homicide rate. We have a lot more murderers per capita, and they pick guns here more often than other countries because they're easier to get here. That's what's happening.

If you could just let go of some of your fixation on the weapon, we would largely agree. In the US, it's absurd how easily one can obtain a firearm. Absurd. An 18 year old on an FBI watch list for school shootings bought a plane ticket to Denver, hoped off the plane, and promptly bought a shotgun at a gun shop. That's insane, and it's a huge problem. The recent Florida shooting was similar.

In the US, you can list your shotgun on (what amounts to) craigslist and put it up for sale (I've heard, though not verified, that craigslist literally has guns in some states). Gun shows can sell firearms to basically anyone. Federal background checks do not apply to private sales of guns, so gun shows and internet classifieds are exempt. It is a total sham that the sales of guns are carefully controlled or that owners are vetted. They're not, anyone can buy one... criminal history, FBI watchlist, documented mental problems... it seems that none of these really stop anyone who is motivated, and we know that a would-be mass murderer is motivated.

So we have problems, and they should be addressed. But our problems are deeper than guns, much deeper.

I have not claimed the problem is solely guns at all. I have discussed this in depth with you. Guns are a big part of the problem. I just need to react when someone tries to claim that the weapon of choice isnt part of the problem. In large parts we agree, but in my opinion gun regulation is something that the goverment can legislate on the short term. All without infringing law abiding citizen's rights. A federal database to register all firearms, would make private sales more transparant. Gunregistration should be linked to a gunlicense. Like with cars private sales should require registration of the change in ownership.

edit: registrations of cars and its database are very usefull in criminal investigations.

Other solutions to other facets of the problem we discussed are much harder to implement.

The idea that the weapons of choice is irrelevant just does not sit with me. If you look at the opioid crisis, one could also argue that the drug of choice is not important. Addicts will be addicts. Would someone who dies by an overdosis painkillers, would probably have died on an overdosis of coke, alcohol? How do you battle such a crisis? In my opinion availability is important and therefore should be regulated and hopefully will reduce addiction and deaths by overdose. It isnt the only solution of course, but a good part of a solution..

Not everyone agrees with you though, so you can't just put mass shootings in their own category and ignore everything else, at least when discussing with other people. Focusing on that particular form of killing is fine if that's what worries you and like I said before, I don't mind having solutions put forward just to deal with the shooting issue. I do want those solutions to respect the rights of people who haven't done anything wrong though.

Just trying to keep this thread on topic. It wasnt my intention to ignore everything else. different violence/crime have different motivations and solutions not related to this thread. Why do a lot of people assume the rights of people are not being respected by stricter gun regulations?

 

[CopperySinger]

You told me I have the "exact beliefs of those white terrorists that set missions to kill and destroy" after that sentence. I'm not the one who's pollitically controlled. You're the one who's racially and politically obsessed.

That is not what I said but I'm not going to deny that is what I am thinking now. However displaying your political bias you described what the spcl website believed. I said that statement referring to the spcl was in exact comparison to the motives of those White mass shooters. I could go back and fourth with you on this SPCL topic but seriously man, that is played out, all you are doing is gaslighting straight data by claiming a website is not credible "fake news" a simple political tactic taken right out of Donald Trump's playbook. If CNN said the sky is blue Trump would cry "Fake news", so everybody is now supposed to believe the sky is the color of an orange clown.

The racist mass shooter Dillian Roof came down to shoot up a Charleston SC AME church full of black people. the sad part about it is this African Methodist church was centered politically on the right, in support for senators like Lindsay graham and governor Nikky hailey. But the misinformed racist alt right Mass shooter wanted kill minorities nevertheless. Again, this is why Clinton in the 90s tactfully kicked those racist out of the democratic party. I find it truly disgusting to see someone sympathizing or turning a blind eye towards racist mass shooters like Dillian Roof.

 

[Joey D]

I have not claimed the problem is solely guns at all. I have discussed this in depth with you. Guns are a big part of the problem. I just need to react when someone tries to claim that the weapon of choice isnt part of the problem. In large parts we agree, but in my opinion gun regulation is something that the goverment can legislate on the short term. All without infringing law abiding citizen's rights. A federal database to register all firearms, would make private sales more transparant. Gunregistration should be linked to a gunlicense. Like with cars private sales should require registration of the change in ownership.

Vehicle registration is just a tax on owning a vehicle. It also only works when someone actually goes through with registering the vehicle. I see cars driving around all the time with tags that are two years out of date, which means the last time someone registered it was 2017. It's incredibly hard to police too since a cop would need to be directly behind you and pay attention to the color of the sticker on your license plate.

Firearms, or at least pistols, are typically already registered depending on the state. Back in Michigan, I had to take some documents to my local county police station that had things like the make, model, and serial number of my pistol. I'm not sure what that really did though other than the serial number going into a database.

I think the problem is that a huge portion of guns used in criminal activity are illegal firearms to begin with. So a registration wouldn't really help.

 

[PocketZeven]

Vehicle registration is just a tax on owning a vehicle. It also only works when someone actually goes through with registering the vehicle. I see cars driving around all the time with tags that are two years out of date, which means the last time someone registered it was 2017. It's incredibly hard to police too since a cop would need to be directly behind you and pay attention to the color of the sticker on your license plate.

Firearms, or at least pistols, are typically already registered depending on the state. Back in Michigan, I had to take some documents to my local county police station that had things like the make, model, and serial number of my pistol. I'm not sure what that really did though other than the serial number going into a database.

I think the problem is that a huge portion of guns used in criminal activity are illegal firearms to begin with. So a registration wouldn't really help.

So you before even implementing such a system, you already presume it wont work?

 

[Joey D]

So you before even implementing such a system, you already presume it wont work?

States already have a registration system, it doesn't work. An expanded registration system would do what exactly? Also, how would it prevent anything with illegal guns, which are used in many crimes?

 

[PocketZeven]

States already have a registration system, it doesn't work. An expanded registration system would do what exactly? Also, how would it prevent anything with illegal guns, which are used in many crimes?

For obvious reasons registration on a state level is not effective. As national registration system would.

It wouldnt prevent crime with illegal unregistered guns, but perhaps you should look at the number of illegals used in shootins vs legal.I presume that number is much smaller then you think. a quick search only found a graph from a 2008 research in pittsburgh:

edit: To clarify there is a disinction between illegally obtained firearms (where registration could help solve / prevent crime) and illegal unregistered firearms (where it would admittedly be very difficult to find the source)

 

[Danoff]

For obvious reasons registration on a state level is not effective. As national registration system would.

It wouldnt prevent crime with illegal unregistered guns, but perhaps you should look at the number of illegals used in shootins vs legal.I presume that number is much smaller then you think. a quick search only found a graph from a 2008 research in pittsburgh:

View attachment 843052

The dark portion there is the percent of guns legally owned, the light portion is guns that were at least initially stolen from the legal owner (or illegal).

https://www.politifact.com/new-york...egal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/

Approximately 60% are illegally obtained.

 

[PocketZeven]

The dark portion there is the percent of guns legally owned, the light portion is guns that were at least initially stolen from the legal owner (or illegal).

I just posted an edit to clarify where national gunregistration could help in the case of illegally obtained legal guns and illegal unregistered guns. Just think of crimes with illegally obtained cars vs crimes with illegal unregistered cars.

edit: forgot to mention I would like to see gun registered to a persons gunlicense in the situation I proposed.

edit 2:

States already have a registration system, it doesn't work. An expanded registration system would do what exactly? Also, how would it prevent anything with illegal guns, which are used in many crimes?

There are only 5 states that actually register gunownership.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

A federal database to register all firearms, would make private sales more transparant.

Actually if you do not believe Big Brother (the Feds) do not already have a database on every new firearm sold in this country then please explain how they can take a guns serial number and easily trace it back to the original selling dealer and purchaser. That my friend is from the records the feds keep that they almost try to pretend they do not have.

Now granted they, the authorities do have a problem when a gun changes hand through a private sale after the initial purchase. As a gun owner myself for over a half a century I personally would have absolutely no problem if all firearms when sold, given away whatever to be legal had to have a background check done the same as when the gun was sold new.

I worked in a sporting goods store selling firearms in my teenage years and even back then in the very early 70's the forms to purchase a firearm were basically the same as they are today. Back then the paper transaction records were kept by the selling dealer and the feds would have to visit the dealers location to pull that specific sales paperwork. Today that information, gun serial number and brand and buyers information is given to the Feds during the background check and would immediately be entered into their database.

The requiring paperwork on all gun transfers would be a good move forward, other restrictive gun laws are just going to affect people that obey the law to begin with.

I do like how that racism is such a big deal when a "mass shooting" occurs but considering there are more shootings every weekend in say Chicago with the shooter being of color then race is never mentioned as the cause or reason for the violence against other citizens.

Same as when a police shooting it is only an issue when a white officer shoots a person of color the his motives are questioned. If a policeman shoots a white person then that person must be a neo nazi or white supremacist and the officers judgement or reasoning to shoot is never questioned.

During the last administrations terms in office the race relations in this country were set back 50 years. It has gotten to where everything now the race card is played one way or the other dividing the country. The only way to eliminate racism is to eliminate race being a factor in society and constantly playing the I am victim because I am whatever race will never accomplish eliminating racism.

Violence in our country is not a race or even a gun problem but a society problem that many are trying to use race as the excuse but it surely is not the answer.

 

[Joey D]

I just posted an edit to clarify where national gunregistration could help in the case of illegally obtained legal guns and illegal unregistered guns. Just think of crimes with illegally obtained cars vs crimes with illegal unregistered cars.

edit: forgot to mention I would like to see gun registered to a persons gunlicense in the situation I proposed.

How would a national registry prevent crime with illegally owned guns? A registry of cars doesn't prevent vehicular manslaughter/homicides at all. As @Danoff mentioned, some 60% of crimes are done with an illegally obtained gun. Having a registry is only going to make that number go up. Nevermind that the US does a horrible job at preventing illegal guns from entering the country because we're too worried about a Mexican coming in to pick fruit.

Assuming we start a national registry that requires me to update my registration yearly (like a car), what's that actually going to do? All I see it doing is fleecing money out of me (like vehicle registration) for the privilege of owning something that's granted to me by right as an American citizen. You'd also have to ignore the horrid job the US government does with tracking anything. The government loses money, weapons, people, documents and hell, we even lost moon rocks. We also have a ton of people on visa overstays that are never addressed despite them being actual job-stealing illegal immigrants.

There are only 5 states that actually register gunownership.

There's more than that, but they're not all "the owner has to do something". Some states require retailers to keep a registry of guns they sell, which essentially is a database of the owners.

 

[PocketZeven]

How would a national registry prevent crime with illegally owned guns? A registry of cars doesn't prevent vehicular manslaughter/homicides at all. As @Danoff mentioned, some 60% of crimes are done with an illegally obtained gun. Having a registry is only going to make that number go up. Nevermind that the US does a horrible job at preventing illegal guns from entering the country because we're too worried about a Mexican coming in to pick fruit.

Assuming we start a national registry that requires me to update my registration yearly (like a car), what's that actually going to do? All I see it doing is fleecing money out of me (like vehicle registration) for the privilege of owning something that's granted to me by right as an American citizen. You'd also have to ignore the horrid job the US government does with tracking anything. The government loses money, weapons, people, documents and hell, we even lost moon rocks. We also have a ton of people on visa overstays that are never addressed despite them being actual job-stealing illegal immigrants.



There's more than that, but they're not all "the owner has to do something". Some states require retailers to keep a registry of guns they sell, which essentially is a database of the owners.

It isnt a solution, but part of a solution to one facet of a problem. MAking crimes more solvable does improve prevention.

 

[Joey D]

It isnt a solution, but part of a solution to one facet of a problem. MAking crimes more solvable does improve prevention.

I don't see how it's a solution or even part of a solution. All it's going to do is provide a list in which you need the actual firearm used in a crime present to even query the database (since you'd need the serial number). Also, if the weapon is stolen all it's going to do is link it to the original owner, not the person who stole or bought a stolen gun in the first place.

There are things that can be done to help with the violence problem in the US. Creating a database of firearm owners isn't one of them.