This is NOT a gun problem, and if you relax that knee, you'll understand.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure I'll go figure do it again it's easy crimestatistics.com

Sorry to rain on your parade again

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure I'll go do it again it's easy crimestatistics.com

Sorry to rain on your parade again

a reply to: BlueJacket

What parade? I just asked if you were going to post any data. Your link doesn't work btw.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You will have to wit till I get to my hotel I'm afraid, getting add shuffled from my phone. It's being referenced all day on the radio

France has had close to 100 more fatalities in 2015 than the USA in. The last 6 years and 10 months. It was compiled in defence to Obama said sweeping generalizations regarding the topic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You will have to wit till I get to my hotel I'm afraid, getting add shuffled from my phone. It's being referenced all day on the radio

France has had close to 100 more fatalities in 2015 than the USA in. The last 6 years and 10 months. It was compiled in defence to Obama said sweeping generalizations regarding the topic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here's some to start
crimeresearch.org...

It really is blatant disregard for the truth to drive an agenda

a reply to: BlueJacket

Well there you go. Obama was lying. Good to know.

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: Klassified

It seems like that, but what I'm trying to say is that attempting to change a culture is much more difficult than trying to simply take away people's guns.

In other words, restricting gun ownership is the FIRST step. The next step is changing a society's violent tendencies.

This is a never ending debate, that has played itself out so many times on ATS I can't begin to imagine how many threads there are, let alone posts. Thousands I'm sure. I actually appreciate hearing both sides of this debate, but there's a part of me that almost hopes the anti-gun folks get their way. Almost, because I feel sorry for my fellow country men/women when the fallout hits, and people realize what a mistake it was to let them take our guns. If history has taught us anything about disarming the citizenry, it's that it never turns out well for those disarmed.

I sincerely appreciate the civil discourse. A rarity when it pertains to this topic.

Having a rational discussion about gun violence is almost impossible because the progressive side isn't very good with numbers, statistics, and logic.

You can literally link to FBI data, city level data, existing laws, point out logic flaws, etc and it will simply not compute. I can't figure out if it is stupidity or some other agenda. I know a lot of progressives are intelligent, so it leads me to believe they have another agenda.

Good op. Let's not forget though that Gun violence conversations have to include gun control, but what does that mean? Would a better background check have stopped his guy from buying a gun or at least put him on an FBI watchlist? Serious Question.

More important to the conversation than Gun Control is Mental HealthCare and Radicalization. I didn't say Islamic Radicalization because the planned parenthood shooter was a Christian Radical. How do we stop radicalization and more importantly, what causes it? Back to mental health is there a profile that will tell us who is most likely to become radical and do we even want the government to track that because where will THEY draw the line. Are all of us on ATS radical to some people?

a reply to: amazing

Well they want the no-fly list to be used to deny guns now, but I don't think would have stopped this shooting. How would this guy have gotten to Saudi Arabia to marry his lovely bride and gotten back so easily had he been on the no-fly list?

originally posted by: BlueJacket


Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

Interesting isn't it?

One thing about these is a large number are suicides. The President says it is a gun issue but I do not think guns have driven people to the point they can't take it anymore and go off killing themselves and others. Another part to this is if a person kills 2 than it is a mass murder, but if 52 people are shot with 8 dying over one typical Chicago weekend then it hardly makes the news, much less a president response. It is also weird that even with all this, murders have continually dropped in numbers since 1992, even though our population continues to grow. Personally I'll take the mass murder risk over being in Chicago any day of the week.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Thats the site founded by an ex-fox news columnist? lol

The guy whos written books such as “More Guns, Less Crime,” and “The Bias Against Guns,”.

Yeah im sure thats going to be free from bias. Its full of the same ridiculous comparisons and pro gun arguments we see in this thread.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Well they want the no-fly list to be used to deny guns now, but I don't think would have stopped this shooting. How would this guy have gotten to Saudi Arabia to marry his lovely bride and gotten back so easily had he been on the no-fly list?

It seems the guns were bought legally, but he didn't buy them, so I'm not sure how that worked.

We are all going to die. When that day comes I want a fighting chance, and more so, I want that fighting chance to make evildoers uncomfortable. We use to have a saying, "just keeping honest people honest." The point is, honest people will be more willing to avoid temptation if the consequences are more real.

Terrorists aren't attacking well prepared military units, they are attacking ill prepared, unsuspecting people. Let's keep them honest. I have a feeling that the tide will turn when soft targets start disappearing.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It means his guns weren't his legally, but if it makes it sounds better, they'll report that they were legal. In other words, someone bought them legally, and he obtained them later through fair means or foul, but those were not HIS guns that HE bought legally.

And whoever he obtained them from did not report them as stolen.

He might have paid that person in a private exchange or he might simply have been given the guns, but whoever did buy them likely has some questioning coming his or her way.

a reply to: BlueJacket
Isn't the criteria for mass shooting less than the USA. If USA had there criteria it would be the largest in the universe.

a reply to: BlueJacket
Isn't the criteria for mass shooting less than the USA. If USA had there criteria it would be the largest in the universe.

Depends what stats you use. Every website I go to clearly shows america as the highest in all aspects...and don't use the population arguement....look at china for fresh perspective.

If we are going to rationally discuss gun violence, there first has to be agreement on data set.

Mass shootings vs criminal violence vs suicides

Then we need to breakout other data such as:

Handgun vs Rifle vs Shotgun
Gun legally obtained vs Illegally obtained
Random violence vs gang violence vs domestic violence vs workplace vs terrorism
Locations of crimes - inner city vs suburbs
Demographics - age, race, sex,criminal history, mental history, etc.

In my perusing of the data, gun violence really boils down to the following:

The vast majority of gun violence is committed by young black males in the inner city shooting other young black males with illegally obtained handguns. Typically both shooter and victim have criminal histories a la one thug shooting another thug. We don't have a gun violence problem, but a inner city young black male problem. Until this fact is put front and center of the debate, we will never get to solutions.

Mass shootings are but a small part of the overall gun violence, but garners the most attention. Everyone knows we have to address the mental issues, psychotic drugs, etc to get to the root. The fact is that guns have never been more restricted but mass shootings are a relatively new phenomenon. This fact alone tells you it isn't the guns but something else.

Logically, if the availability of guns was the problem, you'd have more shootings in rural areas and no shootings in inner cities. But the opposite is true. Gun violence is rampant in inner cities where guns are practically banned while violence is unheard of in rural areas where every good ole boy has a AR-15 in the back of his pickup truck.

Until we are willing to discuss the root issues, no solutions will happen.

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: network dude

You completely misunderstood the point of that post.

Let me say it in a different way: GUNS ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO KILL PEOPLE THAN KNIVES. The people behind the gun DO pull the trigger, but that's due to mental abuse of discrimination during their lifetimes resulting from a society of different backgrounds and histories. Which do you think will make a more significant change the fastest: Changing the criminals minds through decades of societal reconfiguration, or taking the guns away from criminals?

I would do both these methods, but all I'm saying is you have to start somewhere.

What you seem to not understand is that criminals will still obtain guns illegally. So you want to make sure the people who are not criminals can not buy a guy legally? That's horrible logic. How many people get killed annually by drunk drivers? Should we ban booze and cars too?