Regarding Gun Rights & the Growing Trend of Mass Shootings

[tyde]

I'd like to state for the record that although I tend to lean to the right of the political spectrum, I'm neither a Republican, nor do I claim to be a gun enthusiast in the least.

I do not own a gun, have never owned a gun, and have no plans to own a gun, or have any love affair with guns whatsoever.

With that said....regarding the recent trend of church, mall and school shootings/homicides...

My first thought is that guns are not the problem....people are the problem.

There are tens of thousands upon thousands of automobile related deaths in the United States annually....but we don't ban cars, and we certainly don't sanction automakers.

Not to mention smoking or alcohol related deaths. Our elected officials have been effectively muzzled by powerful industry that is fueled by profit and preying upon the health of our youth, and Americans who are too ignorant to organize any kind of legitimate counter attack within the parameters of our corrupt system.

Again, let me reiterate, that I'm far from a gun enthusiast by definition. I don't own a shotgun, a handgun , an AR-15, or any other kid of firearm. But I do support the right to bear arms as clearly defined in our constitution.

I'm only repeating that to make it clear that I'm not standing up and cheering for gun rights , or for American citizens to have the right to own semi automatic weapons.

I will never understand this aspect of the typical gun enthusiast, who feels like his rights are being stripped away because he/she can't own a 30 shot clip for a handgun. There has to be a line drawn in the sand when it comes to common sense.

However, I do think that every American should have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Some of the far left strongly disagrees, and advocates a complete ban on guns in America altogether. (obviously this will never happen given our history and culture, but the far left is determined to strip American citizens of this right to bear arms)

Now...

as far as the recent tragedies in South Carolina with the church shootings...or the countless other mass homicides in schools, movie theaters and other various venues over the last several years...

This is NOT a gun violence problem...

this is the manifestation of rampant childhood bullying, and deep seeded American racism which seems to be ingrained deeply into our collective mentalities. I also blame a whole arsenal of mood altering prescription drugs that seem to have proven to cause certain individuals to 'snap' alongside various other mitigating factors.

Lack of a supportive family structure seems to play a huge role as well.....most of these assailants tend to be from broken homes or neglected in some way during their impressionable years.

I suppose my theory is that that the problem is not with guns....

it's with our disassociated and deluded youth, our exponentially expanding divide of socioeconomic classes, and a lack of opportunity or purpose.

It goes without saying that the world is a mess...but on the domestic front, our own leaders seem rather oblivious to our people, and where we seem to be headed on numerous fronts. One of which is escalating random gun violence.

It's almost as if they don't care at this point, and just claim ignorance as the house of cards comes crashing down.

Personally, I'm having a very difficult time holding on to any measure of optimism under the circumstances.

These latest mass shootings seem to have much less to do with guns, as they do the warped deteriorating ideals of our nations moral fabric, in addition to eroding values as a whole nationwide.

It's time we stop pointing the finger at guns as the culprit and cause of these violent acts, and realize it's because our youth are not only starved for purpose and opportunity, but harboring more and more anger and resentment.

In fact, it's not even exclusive to just our youth.....I think the vast majority of violent crime stems from frustration...whether it be personal relationships, or lack of income, or just flat out resignation of hope.

I'm honestly not making an attempt to offer some brush stroke solution to what is clearly a huge problem that only seems to be escalating and building in frequency, but offering an alternative to the quick fix of restricting gun ownership and gun rights for American citizens.


/end rant

[mwh72]

You're awake at 4:47 am.

Why?

[tyde]

You're awake at 4:47 am.

Why?

was getting my butt kicked playing poker and just not sleepy really

this issue has been getting on my nerves, and just felt like getting it out of my system

[TheXFactor]

[tyde]

this is my issue with gun rights in general

I fail to see the logic in why John Q Public living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house in the suburbs 'needs' anything more than maybe a shotgun and a couple of handguns

I consider myself to be somewhat of a gun rights advocate , but I seriously doubt that our forefathers ever imagined semi automatic AR-15's and other weapons that go way beyond the realm of self defense

however, by definition according to the bill of rights....the 'right to bear arms' is vague at best...and subject to a lot of angles of interpretation

this is where the problem lies, and why this particular debate is such a hot button issue

if you really want to take it literally....the average American citizen should have the right to park an F-15 in his driveway armed with nukes

go figure

[gimmick]

Fun fact about guns in America is that you're twice as likely to shoot yourself than be killed by someone else with a gun. I guess it's a convenience thing.

There was a projection in 2012 that in 2015 gun related deaths would surpass traffic related deaths.

For the most part rest of the world is a bit iffy with excessively large calibers, semi-autos with family sized clips and/or easy conversion to full auto and generally anything that can't be used for hunting and/or any kinda non-retarded sport (making a loud bang is not an actual sport). With handguns there are a lot of different laws that are used. Some jurisdictions ban almost all of them unless you need it for work or you can show that you need it for self defense more than the average citizen and some just ban the worst offenders like the tec-9 family etc.

Oh and almost everywhere the rules are laxer for rural areas for logical reasons.

[LLL]

Fun fact about guns in America is that you're twice as likely to shoot yourself than be killed by someone else with a gun. I guess it's a convenience thing.

There was a projection in 2012 that in 2015 gun related deaths would surpass traffic related deaths.

For the most part rest of the world is a bit iffy with excessively large calibers, semi-autos with family sized clips and/or easy conversion to full auto and generally anything that can't be used for hunting and/or any kinda non-retarded sport (making a loud bang is not an actual sport). With handguns there are a lot of different laws that are used. Some jurisdictions ban almost all of them unless you need it for work or you can show that you need it for self defense more than the average citizen and some just ban the worst offenders like the tec-9 family etc.

Oh and almost everywhere the rules are laxer for rural areas for logical reasons.

In the US?

[gimmick]

Fun fact about guns in America is that you're twice as likely to shoot yourself than be killed by someone else with a gun. I guess it's a convenience thing.

There was a projection in 2012 that in 2015 gun related deaths would surpass traffic related deaths.

For the most part rest of the world is a bit iffy with excessively large calibers, semi-autos with family sized clips and/or easy conversion to full auto and generally anything that can't be used for hunting and/or any kinda non-retarded sport (making a loud bang is not an actual sport). With handguns there are a lot of different laws that are used. Some jurisdictions ban almost all of them unless you need it for work or you can show that you need it for self defense more than the average citizen and some just ban the worst offenders like the tec-9 family etc.

Oh and almost everywhere the rules are laxer for rural areas for logical reasons.

In the US?

Yup.

"Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."

From http://http://www.bloomberg.com/news...lities-by-2015

Cars getting slightly safer and people are mildly less wasted when driving. While conditions that get people to off themselves or someone else with a gun are getting slightly worse.

[Dan Druff]

Fun fact about guns in America is that you're twice as likely to shoot yourself than be killed by someone else with a gun. I guess it's a convenience thing.

There was a projection in 2012 that in 2015 gun related deaths would surpass traffic related deaths.

For the most part rest of the world is a bit iffy with excessively large calibers, semi-autos with family sized clips and/or easy conversion to full auto and generally anything that can't be used for hunting and/or any kinda non-retarded sport (making a loud bang is not an actual sport). With handguns there are a lot of different laws that are used. Some jurisdictions ban almost all of them unless you need it for work or you can show that you need it for self defense more than the average citizen and some just ban the worst offenders like the tec-9 family etc.

Oh and almost everywhere the rules are laxer for rural areas for logical reasons.

I don't believe that this actually occurred, but even if it did, the stat is misleading.

A very high % of gun-related deaths are either police-on-criminal, criminal-on-police, or criminal-on-criminal.

And when I say "criminal", I mean career criminal types who would absolutely never give up their guns, no matter what laws were passed to make it happen.

And many of the gun deaths which occur by non-criminal-types (such as jealous spouses or romantic partners) would have likely occurred by other means if guns weren't available. That is, the jealous guy who shoots his ex-girlfriend would likely have stabbed her to death if he had no access to a gun.

When someone gets shot as part of a gang war, or when someone is killed while taking part in a major drug deal, it is hard to feel sorry for them, as they chose this high-risk criminal lifestyle on their own. That sort of thing rarely affects the average American. I'm not saying it should be ignored, but I know that there's almost zero chance I would be killed in one of these circumstances (only in the very rare case of being an innocent bystander in the crossfire), so I can't figure that sort of thing into the dangers I face in everyday life.

Same with a spree killing. There is a tiny chance I will be killed one day by a spree killer, but again, this is so rare for the average American that you really can't think or worry about it.

BTW, the original post by Marty in this thread was surprisingly good. I know I've been going at it with him recently here, but I thought it was one of his best posts in a long time. Would like to see more of that sort of thing from him, and less angry trolling.

[gimmick]

How is gun related deaths misleading in anyway? Suicides, shootings and accidents in that order. And if you jump of a bridge to your death while holding a gun that doesn't count unless you shoot yourself fatally before hitting the ground. As long as a bullet that's discharged from a gun penetrates your body and is the primary cause of death then that qualifies as a gun related death. Even swallowing a bullet and choking to that doesn't count. It's not really an ambiguous concept.

There is almost a zero percent chance that you will shot at in your lifetime and that includes home invasions by a pack of wild negroes on the prowl in white suburbia. Now do you want to take a wild guess how much owning a gun lowers that chance?

[tyde]

BTW, the original post by Marty in this thread was surprisingly good. I know I've been going at it with him recently here, but I thought it was one of his best posts in a long time. Would like to see more of that sort of thing from him, and less angry trolling.

I appreciate that Todd

The most frustrating aspect of this issue/debate is that many of these problems could be addressed and significantly improved if key lawmakers weren't so oblivious to the world outside of the beltway, and the gun lobby wasn't such a powerhouse with seemingly endless funding that only perpetuates a problem rapidly approaching its breaking point.

I truly believe that gun violence is dramatically higher in the U.S. than any other nation in the world with more fatalities per capita because we have a broken system on multiple levels. Canada is a gun loving nation , and they don't even come close to us in terms of violent gun related crimes. why is that ?

For me, it seems to be because we have eroding ethics, steadily rising poverty, the literal evisceration of the middle class, and the largest gap in wealth between the rich and the poor in as far as I can see, recorded history. At least domestically.

That translates to desperation plain and simple....and when people are desperate, with no options, or have lost the ability to feed their families, they have a tendency to do desperate shit i.e. commit violent crimes.

We need to have a national discussion that addresses that component of the equation, and quit fooling ourselves that some kind of token 'gun control' measure has any hope of ever making a measurable dent in gun related homicide statistics. But sadly, our elected representatives are essentially blind to the reality, and light years away from ever devising an effective solution.

Our system is so severely fractured, that all we can do at this point (not only with gun control, but countless other hot button issues) is sit back and watch the circus of hypocrisy as the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

But the only casualties will be the American people, certainly not the monkeys that have been elected to office to represent the people of this country who are starving for genuine leadership and real change.

[Dan Druff]

How is gun related deaths misleading in anyway? Suicides, shootings and accidents in that order. And if you jump of a bridge to your death while holding a gun that doesn't count unless you shoot yourself fatally before hitting the ground. As long as a bullet that's discharged from a gun penetrates your body and is the primary cause of death then that qualifies as a gun related death. Even swallowing a bullet and choking to that doesn't count. It's not really an ambiguous concept.

There is almost a zero percent chance that you will shot at in your lifetime and that includes home invasions by a pack of wild negroes on the prowl in white suburbia. Now do you want to take a wild guess how much owning a gun lowers that chance?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

As a regular American who doesn't involve himself with the criminal element (except for rogue online gambling sites), the danger to me from "gun violence" is substantially lower than the danger one could compute mathematically by dividing number of gun deaths per year by number of US citizens. This is because a high percentage of these deaths occur in situations that I would never get myself involved in, and therefore do not affect me.

I'm also not worried about gun deaths from suicide. I know that I'm never going to kill myself, and even if I wanted to do so, I could find countless ways to do so that wouldn't involve a gun.

Bottom line is that I'm happy to have a gun in my home in case anything ever happens. And I would be very upset if the government tried to take that right away from me, and expected me just to trust that all of the criminals will do the right thing and turn in their guns, as well.

It's foolish to say that we have to "do something" about these spree killings, as if there's any reasonable way to prevent them.

The one change I would support doesn't involve gun control, but rather some more resources to be devoted to helping the mentally ill. There has long been the accusation that this is grossly underfunded in the US, and I believe that's probably true. This won't stop all spree killings, as many of these are perpetrated by individuals with no obvious sign of emotional/mental disturbance, but it would at least get to some of these people before they can do harm.

[BHS]

And many of the gun deaths which occur by non-criminal-types (such as jealous spouses or romantic partners) would have likely occurred by other means if guns weren't available. That is, the jealous guy who shoots his ex-girlfriend would likely have stabbed her to death if he had no access to a gun.

Same with a spree killing. There is a tiny chance I will be killed one day by a spree killer, but again, this is so rare for the average American that you really can't think or worry about it.

Disagree with these two things.. Guns are ridiculously efficient at quickly ending someones life, plus from an ease of use standpoint there is nothing that is remotely comparable imo.. It's much easier to pull a trigger than it is to stab someone to death.

Also, high end guns can really make a mess in a shooting spree situation. The fact that certain guns can do so much damage in such a short period of time make for some very disturbing prospects should you ever encounter one of these increasingly not so rare shooting incidents.

I've always been a fan of really really ..

[gimmick]

How is gun related deaths misleading in anyway? Suicides, shootings and accidents in that order. And if you jump of a bridge to your death while holding a gun that doesn't count unless you shoot yourself fatally before hitting the ground. As long as a bullet that's discharged from a gun penetrates your body and is the primary cause of death then that qualifies as a gun related death. Even swallowing a bullet and choking to that doesn't count. It's not really an ambiguous concept.

There is almost a zero percent chance that you will shot at in your lifetime and that includes home invasions by a pack of wild negroes on the prowl in white suburbia. Now do you want to take a wild guess how much owning a gun lowers that chance?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

As a regular American who doesn't involve himself with the criminal element (except for rogue online gambling sites), the danger to me from "gun violence" is substantially lower than the danger one could compute mathematically by dividing number of gun deaths per year by number of US citizens. This is because a high percentage of these deaths occur in situations that I would never get myself involved in, and therefore do not affect me.

I'm also not worried about gun deaths from suicide. I know that I'm never going to kill myself, and even if I wanted to do so, I could find countless ways to do so that wouldn't involve a gun.

Bottom line is that I'm happy to have a gun in my home in case anything ever happens. And I would be very upset if the government tried to take that right away from me, and expected me just to trust that all of the criminals will do the right thing and turn in their guns, as well.

It's foolish to say that we have to "do something" about these spree killings, as if there's any reasonable way to prevent them.

The one change I would support doesn't involve gun control, but rather some more resources to be devoted to helping the mentally ill. There has long been the accusation that this is grossly underfunded in the US, and I believe that's probably true. This won't stop all spree killings, as many of these are perpetrated by individuals with no obvious sign of emotional/mental disturbance, but it would at least get to some of these people before they can do harm.

You're making the point all by yourself why you don't need a gun. What does it matter what criminals do with their guns when you've just explained how unlikely it is that you will ever be in a situation where you will encounter an armed criminal who's particularly hostile towards you or your family? Just say that you like to have a gun at home for completely irrational reasons (embrace the fear).

[limitles]

Drive through options in two different countries. Any guesses?




.............. gallery opens drive-thru art exhibit


The criminal "running rampant if gun ownership is restricted" theory is full of holes.(PI)

I'd guess that the majority of gun related deaths are connected to some other crime, but we hear the worst of the worst on the news and there seems to be a lot of family violence in the mix, more so in some communities.

Point being, criminals will always have access to guns regardless of restrictive gun laws but really they just want what you have and although shit happens from time to time there is nothing more a thief or robber wants than to get the goods and be gone.

So the fear of being murdered say during a home invasion is mostly irrational IMO. Now if Johnny Bravo does find himself in this position and he decides to
pull out his own hardware, he's probably not the favourite.

Then there's Joey Glock who has the concealed firearms license. Someone fucks up his day, gets in his face and he purposely uses the weapon as a show of strength. Joey makes the six o'clock news for the wrong reasons sometimes.

Unless you have a sicko packing heat, a good alarm system, a throw rug concealing a spike pit, a good sized dog or bear spray will have the average thug running.

If you have no security items such as these then just offer up the wife.

[shortbuspoker]

In the US?

Yup.

"Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."

From http://http://www.bloomberg.com/news...lities-by-2015

Cars getting slightly safer and people are mildly less wasted when driving. While conditions that get people to off themselves or someone else with a gun are getting slightly worse.

Not saying it may not be true, but take that article with a grain of salt. Bloomberg.com and the Moms Demand Action group are bankrolled by Michael Bloomberg. He is also behind the Every Town for Gun Safety.

[4Dragons]

Fun fact about guns in America is that you're twice as likely to shoot yourself than be killed by someone else with a gun. I guess it's a convenience thing.

There was a projection in 2012 that in 2015 gun related deaths would surpass traffic related deaths.

For the most part rest of the world is a bit iffy with excessively large calibers, semi-autos with family sized clips and/or easy conversion to full auto and generally anything that can't be used for hunting and/or any kinda non-retarded sport (making a loud bang is not an actual sport). With handguns there are a lot of different laws that are used. Some jurisdictions ban almost all of them unless you need it for work or you can show that you need it for self defense more than the average citizen and some just ban the worst offenders like the tec-9 family etc.

Oh and almost everywhere the rules are laxer for rural areas for logical reasons.

* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]


* In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.[124]

* These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations,[125] constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.[126]



------------------------
* In D.C. v Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban, Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The opinion states:

First, consider the facts as the legislature saw them when it adopted the District statute. As stated by the local council committee that recommended its adoption, the major substantive goal of the District's handgun restriction is "to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia." ... ... [A]ccording to the committee, "[f]or every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 gun-related accidents within the home."[128]

* This committee report cites no source or evidence for this statistic.[129]
------------------------


* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[130]

* According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001[131] (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.[133]


* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


Laxer in rural areas?? Because a cowboy is gonna rob me? What obvious reasons? You literally made a post filled with altruistic lies. Too bad other people will call you the fuck out, liar.

[Corrigan]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[.

seems legit.

At least it's a good lesson on why not to trust self-reported data.

[4Dragons]

How is gun related deaths misleading in anyway? Suicides, shootings and accidents in that order. And if you jump of a bridge to your death while holding a gun that doesn't count unless you shoot yourself fatally before hitting the ground. As long as a bullet that's discharged from a gun penetrates your body and is the primary cause of death then that qualifies as a gun related death. Even swallowing a bullet and choking to that doesn't count. It's not really an ambiguous concept.

There is almost a zero percent chance that you will shot at in your lifetime and that includes home invasions by a pack of wild negroes on the prowl in white suburbia. Now do you want to take a wild guess how much owning a gun lowers that chance?

* A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives.
• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime.
• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once.[24]


Please keep up the hyperbole and lack of any useful statistics to prove your world of fantasy. Seriously, where do you live, Mars?

[splitthis]

Crazies will always have access to guns. Noncrazies need to be ready for them.