Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?
-
@JaredBusch said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.
Except that is not what he said. So why should he have to prove something he did no say?
Less guns means less gun crime. Basic statistics there.
For a country that is an example? Japan. Yesterday's assassination highlights how low the gun crime rate is there. Guns are exceedingly heavily controlled. Gun crime is basically non-existent. Most gun crimes that do happen are happening with illegal guns.
Obviously, illegal gun are going to be mostly operated by criminals. Otherwise, they would not be illegal. Criminals are going to be much more likely to use their gun than a law abiding citizen.
Circular Argument right there.
"Illegal guns" <-- Um, yeah. They ain't going away. Tell me the Yakuza has absolutely no firearms in their possession.
-
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
Criminals gonna perp. Guns gonna be available to them in perpetuity. That has not changed since perps smuggled spears into "spear free zones" and started slashing.
reminds me of Back to the Future 3 - Tannan with a gun in his hat
Yeah - you're not wrong.
Short of killing all ability to acquire shooting weapons - specific no-shooty weapons zones will always be hit by the criminals.
And even once you make shooty's illegal - it will probably take 30+ years to get enough off the streets before you actually see a decline in violence caused by them.
It's just an impractical battle from the anti-shooty people.
Real world examples say that you can take guns away quickly and effectively. It's been done in large countries before to great effect. You can want or not want gun control of different sorts, that's a different issue. But the ability to take them off of the streets and make them all but impossible to get and easy to identify when rogue (that's the biggest deal) is actually quite easy and the US is anything but an exception to the norm.
Gun related crimes do not go away when firearms are removed from the hands of citizens. Gangs be gangs and perps be perps. The cost of an off market firearm may go up as a result of the restrictions, but they are still available.
That's a solid sound bite, but statistically isn't valid. For two reasons... criminals take the path of least resistance and difficult (and risky) to obtain firearms are proven to be very hard for criminals to get. And when guns are a giveaway that you are a criminal it is way, way easier to stop someone than when carrying weapons is considered part of normal life and you can't identify a threat until it is too late.
In the real world, we know this works, it's already proven the world over. The more guns society has, the more likely they are to be fired. The fewer, the less. That doesn't mean we should go to zero guns or that guns themselves are the issue. It's just a statistical fact and a means to start reducing the violence if reducing the violence is the goal. The problem isn't knowing how to reduce violence, it's making it something that the nation prioritizes.
Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.
See.... this is the EXACT argument people make in IT about all kinds of things that's so wrong. Such horrible business (or anything) logic.
If the proposed solution only IMPROVES things, but doesn't 100% solve them, that is used as an excuse to not fix what can be fixed.
"Oh seatbelts don't stop ALL accidents, then I won't wear them."
If the "best" solution isn't perfect, you choose a known lesser solution. This kind of approach is used only when you already know that it is better and you are attempting a distraction. That you depend a 100% solution and aren't interested in improvement tells us that your goal is not to improve things at all.
-
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@JaredBusch said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.
Except that is not what he said. So why should he have to prove something he did no say?
Less guns means less gun crime. Basic statistics there.
For a country that is an example? Japan. Yesterday's assassination highlights how low the gun crime rate is there. Guns are exceedingly heavily controlled. Gun crime is basically non-existent. Most gun crimes that do happen are happening with illegal guns.
Obviously, illegal gun are going to be mostly operated by criminals. Otherwise, they would not be illegal. Criminals are going to be much more likely to use their gun than a law abiding citizen.
Circular Argument right there.
"Illegal guns" <-- Um, yeah. They ain't going away. Tell me the Yakuza has absolutely no firearms in their possession.
And tell us why that matters? What does the Yakuza having guns have to do with the situation? This is misdirection. We are asking about mass shootings, and you are avoiding the issue by pointing to a different, and insanely minor, issue.
-
@JaredBusch said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.
Except that is not what he said. So why should he have to prove something he did no say?
Less guns means less gun crime. Basic statistics there.
For a country that is an example? Japan. Yesterday's assassination highlights how low the gun crime rate is there. Guns are exceedingly heavily controlled. Gun crime is basically non-existent. Most gun crimes that do happen are happening with illegal guns.
Obviously, illegal gun are going to be mostly operated by criminals. Otherwise, they would not be illegal. Criminals are going to be much more likely to use their gun than a law abiding citizen.
Another example... UK, Australia, China and, oh wait, basically every country. The global stats speak for themselves.
-
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.
So let me clarify something....
- Not all passwords secure things 100% of the time. So you don't believe in passwords at all, just give up and leave things wide open?
- Not all backups work 100% of the time. So you advice your customers not to bother taking backups at all, in fact, to avoid them?
- Not every criminal gets arrested, so you feel all policing should be avoided?
- Not everyone can be saved every time, so all medical treatments should be discontinued.
- Seatbelts aren't 100% effective, so they should be removed from cars?
- Not every customer will pay 100% of the time, so you will always work for free as billing makes no sense.
You must agree with all of these things given the logic you are using. If you don't agree with all of these things, then I think you've exactly made my point. You are willing to making really insultingly stupid anti-logical arguments to not only avoid finding a solution but to just mock people who actually want to reduce mass shootings not because you actually believe something so obviously impossible to believe but because you don't want to admit what I said... that you just simply like the idea of guns more than you like the idea of kids being alive. I'm not saying you actively want to shoot kids yourself, nothing of the sort (but everyone will jump there.) I'm just saying something I think we all know has to be true beyond any reasonable doubt - that other peoples' kids' lives just aren't as important to you as the desire to have more freely available firearms. It's about priorities.
I would have to be a huge insulting condescending ass to pretend to accept that you were actually trying to make a logical argument. No one can actually think that only if something is 100% effective that you don't do what is best, rather than intentionally doing something worse. I'm not going to be a huge jerk and say that I actually think you believe what you are saying. You just think nothing of us and are being an insulting as you can think of and not bothering to make any argument to support your point because your point isn't that we can fix things, it's that you don't think that they are broken.
-
And that's really the fundamental issue. At the end of the day, maybe for all the reasons I pointed out, in America while it sounds impossible... a very, very large number (percentage) of the population doesn't support mechanisms to reduce mass violence because they don't think that there is anything to fix in the first place. They don't actively want mass violence, they just don't see it as the big negative that the rest of us do. It's seen as simply an acceptable artifact of getting the things that they want more.
Until we address the fact that half the population is A-ok with the state of things because it gives them what they want more, making an argument for how to fix things will never work because they don't see anything wrong to fix in the first place. You can call it a mental illness epidemic that so many people actually are okay with what is happening, maybe it is. But that they are okay with it, is just how things are. But no one wants to admit that they are okay with it, so instead they say "you can't completely eliminate it, so let's not bother making it better."
Nothing I could ever have written could have made my point as strongly as someone who is actually willing to write how much they were okay with it posting crazy things to try to distract us from noticing that they aren't upset by the state of things at all.
-
So given these two statements...
"Tight gun control is a small price to pay for saving innocent lives."
or
"Losing some innocent lives is a small price to pay for avoiding gun control."And that the majority believe the second statement, not the first.
Then we can answer Dash's original question pretty easily. As the percentage of the population that believes that the second is true keeps increasing so will gun violence. Guns themselves are never the issue, that's why Switzerland is okay. The issue is people who know that more guns means more innocent deaths and still think that owning guns is more important than people being alive (or even their OWN safety) are the issue because that mentality where other things take priority over innocent life obviously also leads to using those guns in some percentage on innocent people because something.... anger, ideology, fear... whatever, can be prioritized over innocent life because the bar has already been set really, really low.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
Criminals gonna perp. Guns gonna be available to them in perpetuity. That has not changed since perps smuggled spears into "spear free zones" and started slashing.
reminds me of Back to the Future 3 - Tannan with a gun in his hat
Yeah - you're not wrong.
Short of killing all ability to acquire shooting weapons - specific no-shooty weapons zones will always be hit by the criminals.
And even once you make shooty's illegal - it will probably take 30+ years to get enough off the streets before you actually see a decline in violence caused by them.
It's just an impractical battle from the anti-shooty people.
Real world examples say that you can take guns away quickly and effectively. It's been done in large countries before to great effect. You can want or not want gun control of different sorts, that's a different issue. But the ability to take them off of the streets and make them all but impossible to get and easy to identify when rogue (that's the biggest deal) is actually quite easy and the US is anything but an exception to the norm.
Gun related crimes do not go away when firearms are removed from the hands of citizens. Gangs be gangs and perps be perps. The cost of an off market firearm may go up as a result of the restrictions, but they are still available.
That's a solid sound bite, but statistically isn't valid. For two reasons... criminals take the path of least resistance and difficult (and risky) to obtain firearms are proven to be very hard for criminals to get. And when guns are a giveaway that you are a criminal it is way, way easier to stop someone than when carrying weapons is considered part of normal life and you can't identify a threat until it is too late.
In the real world, we know this works, it's already proven the world over. The more guns society has, the more likely they are to be fired. The fewer, the less. That doesn't mean we should go to zero guns or that guns themselves are the issue. It's just a statistical fact and a means to start reducing the violence if reducing the violence is the goal. The problem isn't knowing how to reduce violence, it's making it something that the nation prioritizes.
Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.
See.... this is the EXACT argument people make in IT about all kinds of things that's so wrong. Such horrible business (or anything) logic.
If the proposed solution only IMPROVES things, but doesn't 100% solve them, that is used as an excuse to not fix what can be fixed.
"Oh seatbelts don't stop ALL accidents, then I won't wear them."
If the "best" solution isn't perfect, you choose a known lesser solution. This kind of approach is used only when you already know that it is better and you are attempting a distraction. That you depend a 100% solution and aren't interested in improvement tells us that your goal is not to improve things at all.
TL;DR
Nope. Not saying that at all.We live in an era where there have been so many attempts at tyranny across the world since the late 1880s. Look it up.
Why would that be?
Cuba was "successful" but not robust enough to handle a large population. Heh, Beetles and duct taped 1950s cars? No way.
The Soviets couldn't beat or Vodka Christ out of the people so Soviet Communism eventually failed.
Chiang-Kai Shek brought Soviet Communism to China but failed. Mao, however, took that base and modified it to work with the Chinese ethos.
And voila! We have the "perfect" system for managing gobs of people. The tech was slowly developed to manage them (us) as well. But, there's still missing pieces in this puzzle thus the 10 year Agenda 2030.
But, we don't want gobs of people now do we? See Georgia Guidestones #1 (Thomas Malthus).
How do we go about reducing the world's population and make sure everyone's on board as much as possible?
Remember, too many people are way harder to control so bringing down the world population count is important.
See bug #1 and I'm suspecting that bug #2 (remember all the hemorrhagic fever stuff before the Beijing Olympics?) was destroyed by the Russians in Ukraine (they've been dripping evidence drops every week. Lots of interesting stuff with names named). Even the bug's transportation methods have been brought forward (truck crash with "bug" laden moneys anyone?).
The monkey wrench in the works is the 250M+ armed American people plus a substantial portion of them being a part of the most powerful military in the world. Plus, Patriots have been using the system set up by the American Fore Fathers to take the country back. It's a beautiful thing to see.
There are three stars on their flag:
- London
- Vatican
- Washington DC
Why are they? Who are they? And the big question is: Who controls them?
The historical patterns are obvious. The step-by-step we've been in over the last three years is obvious. See my previous comment: Alice Bailey & Saul Alinsky primarily.
The other monkey wrench in the works: The Bolsheviks and the Maoists had an important key ingredient: Poverty.
The West is too wealthy to see a Communist/Fascist (ideology does not matter it all ends in the same place: Top Down) structure as acceptable especially after seeing, even if glimpses, the atrocities committed by the Soviets and the CCP. It may not be a conscious thing but any indication of tyranny from our so-called "benevolent" governments stir emotions and responses the incoming tyrant(s) don't want to stir.
Frog, see pot.
Our systems are infiltrated. They are corrupted.
Watching so-called law enforcement trample innocents who have the right to protest with horses (Ottawa) should have been a wake-up call. Not sure it has been though. There have been lots of instances of abuse of our rights here in Canuckistan and down there.
Not knowing history means we're doomed to repeat it and there's always a group willing to take advantage of that.
So, here we are.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
And that's really the fundamental issue. At the end of the day, maybe for all the reasons I pointed out, in America while it sounds impossible... a very, very large number (percentage) of the population doesn't support mechanisms to reduce mass violence because they don't think that there is anything to fix in the first place. They don't actively want mass violence, they just don't see it as the big negative that the rest of us do. It's seen as simply an acceptable artifact of getting the things that they want more.
Until we address the fact that half the population is A-ok with the state of things because it gives them what they want more, making an argument for how to fix things will never work because they don't see anything wrong to fix in the first place. You can call it a mental illness epidemic that so many people actually are okay with what is happening, maybe it is. But that they are okay with it, is just how things are. But no one wants to admit that they are okay with it, so instead they say "you can't completely eliminate it, so let's not bother making it better."
Nothing I could ever have written could have made my point as strongly as someone who is actually willing to write how much they were okay with it posting crazy things to try to distract us from noticing that they aren't upset by the state of things at all.
I see your post as it's own slant against those who support gun rights. You've focused on the child killing aspect, but completely ignored the manage the government aspect to citizens owning guns.
I know the 2nd amendment is about the militia, but it's also about the people not being afraid of their own government, having the ability to rise up when it becomes to corrupt.That's what I see when people don't want to take away guns - they weigh the costs of lives lost against their concerns of the government taking over - and their opinion of keeping the government in check wins.
-
@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
And that's really the fundamental issue. At the end of the day, maybe for all the reasons I pointed out, in America while it sounds impossible... a very, very large number (percentage) of the population doesn't support mechanisms to reduce mass violence because they don't think that there is anything to fix in the first place. They don't actively want mass violence, they just don't see it as the big negative that the rest of us do. It's seen as simply an acceptable artifact of getting the things that they want more.
Until we address the fact that half the population is A-ok with the state of things because it gives them what they want more, making an argument for how to fix things will never work because they don't see anything wrong to fix in the first place. You can call it a mental illness epidemic that so many people actually are okay with what is happening, maybe it is. But that they are okay with it, is just how things are. But no one wants to admit that they are okay with it, so instead they say "you can't completely eliminate it, so let's not bother making it better."
Nothing I could ever have written could have made my point as strongly as someone who is actually willing to write how much they were okay with it posting crazy things to try to distract us from noticing that they aren't upset by the state of things at all.
I see your post as it's own slant against those who support gun rights. You've focused on the child killing aspect, but completely ignored the manage the government aspect to citizens owning guns.
I know the 2nd amendment is about the militia, but it's also about the people not being afraid of their own government, having the ability to rise up when it becomes to corrupt.That's what I see when people don't want to take away guns - they weigh the costs of lives lost against their concerns of the government taking over - and their opinion of keeping the government in check wins.
This is very well said.
There's a pretty solid body of "evidence" from the writings of the Founding Fathers to the Declaration of Independence's clear statement that We the People have the right to throw off tyranny that make it clear the 2nd Amendment had a very specific purpose of keeping Gov in check.
EDIT: And recent SCOTUS and state SC rulings back this up.
-
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
And that's really the fundamental issue. At the end of the day, maybe for all the reasons I pointed out, in America while it sounds impossible... a very, very large number (percentage) of the population doesn't support mechanisms to reduce mass violence because they don't think that there is anything to fix in the first place. They don't actively want mass violence, they just don't see it as the big negative that the rest of us do. It's seen as simply an acceptable artifact of getting the things that they want more.
Until we address the fact that half the population is A-ok with the state of things because it gives them what they want more, making an argument for how to fix things will never work because they don't see anything wrong to fix in the first place. You can call it a mental illness epidemic that so many people actually are okay with what is happening, maybe it is. But that they are okay with it, is just how things are. But no one wants to admit that they are okay with it, so instead they say "you can't completely eliminate it, so let's not bother making it better."
Nothing I could ever have written could have made my point as strongly as someone who is actually willing to write how much they were okay with it posting crazy things to try to distract us from noticing that they aren't upset by the state of things at all.
I see your post as it's own slant against those who support gun rights. You've focused on the child killing aspect, but completely ignored the manage the government aspect to citizens owning guns.
I know the 2nd amendment is about the militia, but it's also about the people not being afraid of their own government, having the ability to rise up when it becomes to corrupt.That's what I see when people don't want to take away guns - they weigh the costs of lives lost against their concerns of the government taking over - and their opinion of keeping the government in check wins.
This is very well said.
There's a pretty solid body of "evidence" from the writings of the Founding Fathers to the Declaration of Independence's clear statement that We the People have the right to throw off tyranny that make it clear the 2nd Amendment had a very specific purpose of keeping Gov in check.
EDIT: And recent SCOTUS and state SC rulings back this up.
SCOTUS is a puppet of their masters - I'm not saying I disagree in the specific instance, but they clearly are voting along political lines - I don't believe they are taking the constitution into mind much anymore.
-
@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:
And that's really the fundamental issue. At the end of the day, maybe for all the reasons I pointed out, in America while it sounds impossible... a very, very large number (percentage) of the population doesn't support mechanisms to reduce mass violence because they don't think that there is anything to fix in the first place. They don't actively want mass violence, they just don't see it as the big negative that the rest of us do. It's seen as simply an acceptable artifact of getting the things that they want more.
Until we address the fact that half the population is A-ok with the state of things because it gives them what they want more, making an argument for how to fix things will never work because they don't see anything wrong to fix in the first place. You can call it a mental illness epidemic that so many people actually are okay with what is happening, maybe it is. But that they are okay with it, is just how things are. But no one wants to admit that they are okay with it, so instead they say "you can't completely eliminate it, so let's not bother making it better."
Nothing I could ever have written could have made my point as strongly as someone who is actually willing to write how much they were okay with it posting crazy things to try to distract us from noticing that they aren't upset by the state of things at all.
I see your post as it's own slant against those who support gun rights. You've focused on the child killing aspect, but completely ignored the manage the government aspect to citizens owning guns.
I know the 2nd amendment is about the militia, but it's also about the people not being afraid of their own government, having the ability to rise up when it becomes to corrupt.That's what I see when people don't want to take away guns - they weigh the costs of lives lost against their concerns of the government taking over - and their opinion of keeping the government in check wins.
This is very well said.
There's a pretty solid body of "evidence" from the writings of the Founding Fathers to the Declaration of Independence's clear statement that We the People have the right to throw off tyranny that make it clear the 2nd Amendment had a very specific purpose of keeping Gov in check.
EDIT: And recent SCOTUS and state SC rulings back this up.
SCOTUS is a puppet of their masters - I'm not saying I disagree in the specific instance, but they clearly are voting along political lines - I don't believe they are taking the constitution into mind much anymore.
I concur with that observation.
The "conservative" judges seem to be ruling towards the Constitution while the "left leaning(?)" judges are legislating from the bench.
Ours up here legislate from the bench a lot. Our previous Prime Minister, today's PM's Papa, who put our current Constitution of 1984 into place wrote all sorts of loopholes into it so that our rights are basically nil/nul. Oh, and that the West can be permanently bent over to the tune of over $600B transferred to QC and elsewhere over the last half a century. We're Communism Lite with a leaning towards the Gulags if Dear Leader could have his way (publicly stated: I admire China's "basic" dictatorship).
-
