Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason

originally posted by: burgerbuddy


Vegas wasn't a rampage shooting.

Neither was Columbine or Roof or the theatre shooting or Ft Hood.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

Ok. Sure. Whatever you say.

a reply to: Gaspode

It's not a blasphemy to suggest gun control, but you need to present a better case that gun control would have the claimed effect of stopping incidents like Vegas.

You've avoided looking at the counter-arguments / data, so I guess rather than blasphemy as such, it's just one-sided and therefore unlikely to get people to jump to your side and shout "yes, you're right, why didn't I see it!".

a reply to: UKTruth

Nor have you looked at anything I've posted. Guess that's just how these discussions go and why nothing will come from this. Again.

" this will finally be the time this issue just disappears forever entirely by itself without anyone doing anything "

originally posted by: Gaspode
a reply to: UKTruth

The study I quoted in my previous factored everything in. The result was: "The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators. " Alternative link.

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to argue?
You don't need a study or a link to know that rampage shootings are a problematic occurrence in the USA?

Murder and mass murder is an issue.
Gun murders are a small percentage of that issue.
Mass shootings an even smaller percentage still.

Taking away the rights of the entire country to control very small risk might sound like a humanitarian thing to do in the aftermath of horrific scenes, but it's anything but.

If you want to have a conversation about laws to prevent mentally ill people from getting access to weapons then great, as long as there are controls to ensure it is not run as a way to put people on the 'list' unfairly.

But, if the discussion is just the evils of guns and banning them backed up by one-sided stats, then no... that's a pointless discussion.

originally posted by: Gaspode
a reply to: UKTruth

Nor have you looked at anything I've posted. Guess that's just how these discussions go and why nothing will come from this. Again.

" this will finally be the time this issue just disappears forever entirely by itself without anyone doing anything "

Your sources are The Onion, Vox and Jimmy Kimmel.
THAT's why the discussion is going in a way that you don't like.

originally posted by: UKTruth
-
Taking away the rights of the entire country to control very small risk might sound like a humanitarian thing to do in the aftermath of horrific scenes, but it's anything but.

If you want to have a conversation about laws to prevent mentally ill people from getting access to weapons then great, as long as there are controls to ensure it is not run as a way to put people on the 'list' unfairly.

But, if the discussion is just the evils of guns and banning them backed up by one-sided stats, then no... that's a pointless discussion.

See this post*. I have now said in a total of 6 posts that the point is to discuss what other solutions to the problem there is. This is now the seventh time I've said it**. Do you understand my frustration? Maybe the 8th time will be the charm***?

originally posted by: UKTruth

Your sources are The Onion, Vox and Jimmy Kimmel.
THAT's why the discussion is going in a way that you don't like.

Yes. And they make good points.
You forgot to mention that I also used Adam Lankford - a Criminal Justice professor at The University of Alabama, David Hemenway, Ph.D., Professor of Health Policy, is Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and also Time magazine among others. All making good points but conveniently ignored.
You on the other hand have been arguing - something - and sourced, let's see, zero references.

And all I don't like about the discussion is the fact that people don't read. See exhibit A, B and C.

* Exhibit A
** Exhibit B
*** Exhibit C

a reply to: UKTruth

64% of gun deathsare suicides. 15% are police. So civilian murders by gun are far lower than the conversation usually implies.

Of the suicides, 67% are vets. Almost half of all gun deaths are vets killing themselves. I think ive found the problem.

originally posted by: Gaspode
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You wanted to discuss gun control. I didn't. You jerked a knee. I wasn't having any of it.

Do you understand the phrase "knee-jerk reaction" and how to use it properly, in context, when holding a discussion?

I'll start you off with a hint: A knee-jerk reaction is not a reasonable response to an issue that has supporting facts. I hope that you can take that hint and run with it and expand on it.

Shall we recap my attempts to make this point? I'm going to be so bold as to quote myself.

...

I couldn't be any clearer than that.

Well, the respondents in this thread prove otherwise. Or is it that we're all wrong and only you are right? That would seem logical...

It is apparent that the issue of guns is like a religion and the word "gun control" is a blasphemy (heresy?) people cannot move past. Blinded by emotional anger. Not emotional about the actual tragedy, but about the fact that 'people are going to take my guns!!'.

No, that is you assessment. In reality, it's a long-battled and discussed issue over the actual words in our constitution that protect (not give) us the right to keep and bear arms without infringement. Yet, those of us who actually appreciate the rule of law continually see both state and federal government infringing on that right year in and year out. THAT is where my argument has its foundation.

If you want to intelligently discuss that, I'm game.

If you want to ignorantly assume the motives behind my stance, you're just digging your deep hole even deeper. That's your choice.

I invited a conversation with the question what other possible solutions there can be other than gun control to prevent future massacres. Very few actually addressed the point I tried to make.

Allow me to quote myself this time:

Destruction of human life will always be a thing as long as humans are on this planet--if you are unwilling to accept this, ... I don't think that you have a grasp on reality or history.

I removed the few words about gun control so that you could look past that part of my original comment to you and see that I did address it. If you read between the lines (I assume most people can and should take the time to employ critical thinking on this site), you'll see that my point is that there is no "solution" to crazy-ass sociopaths hell-bent on the mass destruction of human life. The only thing that we can try to do is pay attention to the warning signs, if they exist, and try to stop them before they can harm people or before they can do complete damage. We're not always successful in that regard, but perfection is impossible.

The thread ended up discussing muzzle flashes on the 4th floor and slingshots. Doesn't that tell you something? No answers, suggestions or even shrugs. Mostly 'what the hell do you know you tree hugging hippy' and 'you'll pry my guns out of my cold dead hands' posts.

Which pretty much brings us to the conclusion that mass shootings are going to be with us for the foreseeable future and it is now just another part of our daily lives.

Mass killing will always be with us, yes--it doesn't have to be from shootings. You're not so blind as to believe that it will ever stop, are you? The problem is with the chemical make-up of the brains of some people and nothing more, and if you ever figure out how to fix that, you've just bettered the world in ways no one can conceive.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

Can you not understand that criminals do not obey laws, and therefore will continue to obtain guns illegally?
Prohibitions do not work. It has been proven globally many times with many subjects.

Ban guns, and you remove the ability of anyone to defend themselves on equal terms from aggressors with guns.

There is ample evidence contravening your statement above. See Australia for the most obvious example.

Secondly, the 'i need guns to defend myself' is pure bullocks; it is a symptom of the psyche of American's that we assume we're going to be accosted by criminals on a regular basis and we need to defend ourselves, when in fact more people accidentally kill their loved ones with those same guns than criminals do. I imagine you need to amend your statement to something like "Ban guns, and you remove the ability of anyone to defend themselves from aggressors, as well as accidentally killing orders of magnitudes more innocents."

originally posted by: Gaspode
See this post*. I have now said in a total of 6 posts that the point is to discuss what other solutions to the problem there is. This is now the seventh time I've said it**. Do you understand my frustration? Maybe the 8th time will be the charm***?

Seethis post, where gun laws and gun control are mentioned/discussed five times (including in the quoted source material), pro-2nd Amendment people are mocked, and the 2nd amendment is disregarded as an excuse instead of the law of the land, and maybe you'll see why this thread has gone the way that it has.

People read your post(s), and it is exactly WHY you are getting the responses that you are. UKtruth makes valid points, but your satirical sources do not. In fact, the entirety of your source's unveiled argument for gun control and mocking of pro-2nd Amendment people have arguments based on appeals to emotion and nothing else, yet you find it appropriate to use it as your opening for a thread and then get all sad-faced when you're surprised that people aren't discussing only and exactly the topic that you want?

Are you catching on, yet? If not, I'll break it down so that you don't have to read between the lines: When you initiate a post based on satire that demeans and mocks many people with whom you're seemingly hoping to have an intelligent discussion, you've already lost. This is communication basics.

You, sir or madam, are not existing in a realm that we call reality, and if you think that you're frustrated, imagine being on our end, when we're trying to discuss things logically with you, but are getting dismissed because it's not the exact, narrow topic that you're wanting.

To quote an very intelligent old woman, "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works."

a reply to: Wayfarer

America is not Australia.

Why do you and others keep assuming that what works in one place MUST work here?

That's as arrogant as saying that western culture must be forced on every on in the world because it works for some.

That everyone should speak english because a lot of people speak it.

That everyone should have the same form of government because a certain one seems to work for some, so there for must work for every.

Do you understand how arrogant you sound?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
There is ample evidence contravening your statement above. See Australia for the most obvious example.

I'm willing to bet that Randomtangentsrme was referencing the long-term. Australia's gun ban and mandatory gun turn-in happened in 1996--not enough time to gauge its efficacy, and certainly not an action by their government supported by everyone.

Disregard the reality that guns were introduced to Australia in 1788--so, guns weren't a major problem for really more than 200 years, and it only takes a few incidences of psycopaths killing innocent people to erase that reality.

Australia is not evidence of anything yet--it's still in its infancy. Also, Australia has NEVER had a constitutional protection of the right to bear arms, so honestly, what they did with guns via simple legislation doesn't matter as far as America is concerned.

I have, however, read more than one story from Australia where people lamented the fact that they didn't have the right to own firearms, though, so pretending that Australia is suddenly a gun-free utopia free of violent crime and the need to defend one's self from criminals with guns and deadly weapons is wrong.

Secondly, the 'i need guns to defend myself' is pure bullocks; it is a symptom of the psyche of American's that we assume we're going to be accosted by criminals on a regular basis and we need to defend ourselves.

Not a real genius on the topic and mindset of the average gun owner, are you?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

UKTruth doesn't make any good points.

He refused to back up sources he claims prove the opposite of the OP's sources.

Furthermore you have a go at the OP for upsetting you by belittling, being mean and mocking people and proceed to do the exact same at the end of your post.

There is no logical discussion because logic seems to evade a lot of people when it comes to their precious guns.

Logical person: Looks at all these statistics proving current gun control laws are not working in America.
Idiot: But but ... 2nd Amendment, you can't change that.
Logical person: It's an amendment, it can be amended.
[b]Idiot: *ignores*

Idiot: But gun control doesn't work.
Logical person: Here's a list of countries with tighter gun control laws and their corresponding gun violence/murders stats.
Idiot: *ignores*

Idiot: But I need my gun to protect my family.
Logical person: Here's some facts and statistics proving owning a gun in your home is neither a deterrent or efficient way of protecting your family. Quite the opposite.
Idiot: *ignores*

Idiot: Criminals don't obey laws so what's the point in doing it.
Logical person: Not all criminals obey laws but it will reduce the number also you have to start somewhere. The current situation cannot continue we must try something.
Idiot: *ignores*

a reply to: SudoNim

Nowhere did I mock the Gaspode in the way that I pointed out that his source does...just because I say that his approach to this thread and his expectations are not realistic in the face of his OP does not mean that I'm belittling or mocking him.

And I'm not upset with the Gaspode for mocking, I'm upset because he disregards rather intelligent discussion in order to complain about no one talking about exactly what he wants to talk about. It's immature, IMO, and frustrating when I'm actually trying to engage in appropriate discussion. His actions are his own, though--I'm perfectly able to call them out when I see them constantly disrupting actual discourse.

Ah, yes, let's review logic, since it seems to evade people when it comes to guns (on both sides):

Logical person: Looks at all these statistics proving current gun control laws are not working in America.
Idiot: But but ... 2nd Amendment, you can't change that.
Logical person: It's an amendment, it can be amended.
Idiot: *ignores*

Where did this conversation occur, and why are you implying that it applies to "a lot of people?" If you're just fabricating a conversation based on your own biases and ideology, that in and of itself is a logical fallacy.

From most of what I've seen, the argument is that gun laws fly in the face of the second amendment, and if people want to amend/infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, they need to do it through the amendment process, not through state legislatures and executive orders and assault weapons bans. Personally, I make this argument more often than I can count, and I'm quite certain that such an attempt would never pass ratification.

Idiot: But gun control doesn't work.
Logical person: Here's a list of countries with tighter gun control laws and their corresponding gun violence/murders stats.
Idiot: *ignores*

And this can be countered with a list of countries with tighter gun control laws and their corresponding gun violence/murders stats that show that gun control laws do not work. But again, in a country with a protected right to firearms and such a large base of already-existant firearms in the population, both legally and illegally owned, it's impossible to compare the U.S. to other countries because it's all hypothetical, and any thinking person could logically note that most law-abiding citizens would relinquish their firearms, but criminals who already own and use them illegally would have zero motivation to do so.

The 4th Amendment would stop the government from coming in and raiding homes to confiscate weapons without proof that there are any. Good luck taking all of the guns from people in states/commonwealths like mine where we don't have to register our firearms. It's like the shirt says, 'The day that it becomes illegal to own firearms is the day that I become an outlaw.'

Idiot: But I need my gun to protect my family.
Logical person: Here's some facts and statistics proving owning a gun in your home is neither a deterrent or efficient way of protecting your family. Quite the opposite.
Idiot: *ignores*

And there are stats that show that having a firearm can be the "great equalizer" during home invasions, rape attempts, and do act as a deterrent often enough to prove that neither argument is an absolute, and certainly doesn't support amending the constitution on the grounds of your argument versus mine.

Idiot: Criminals don't obey laws so what's the point in doing it.
Logical person: Not all criminals obey laws but it will reduce the number also you have to start somewhere. The current situation cannot continue we must try something.
Idiot: *ignores*

Actually, the "we-must-try-something" argument is lacking logic at its foundation and on many levels. For one, we are doing something--we have laws against certain weapons (including the ones used in Vegas, barring him having an appropriate license for fully-automatic weapons), where you can have them, where you can fire them, and laws against murdering people. To pretend that one or two more laws will stop these people is about as illogical as can be. "We must try something" might as well read, "We must pick a new law out of a hat and hope that it works."

Also, your claim that a gun ban would reduce the number of criminals (I think that was your point...your "Logical person" wasn't very clear) is also ridiculous--it would more than likely make a law-abiding gun owner one day a criminal the next if they retain their firearm(s), increasing the overall number of criminals with guns.

And to preemptively stop this response from happening: No, I'm not going to post statistics that prove my points, but I personally know that they are out there, are valid, and are appropriate for this conversation. Hopefully you've encountered them, too--if not, I would argue that you're guilty of cherry-picking information to support your claim, which in and of itself is a logical fallacy as well.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Its data, not arrogance. If you are going to approach something unscientifically by claiming some nebulous criteria invalidates that data then you better back it up with an argument as to why, otherwise your argument lacks the mental rigor I believe we would all expect from a well reasoned argument.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Australia is not evidence of anything yet--it's still in its infancy. Also, Australia has NEVER had a constitutional protection of the right to bear arms, so honestly, what they did with guns via simple legislation doesn't matter as far as America is concerned.


Not a real genius on the topic and mindset of the average gun owner, are you?

Data is data. Guns were severely restricted -> mass shootings went down (as of yet stopped in fact). While you may argue that the dataset time-period is inadequate, I would hope you would have some reasoning or evidence as to why you would make that claim, rather than just assuming we are going to take your word for it as lord high statistician of ATS. As I explained to TerminalVelocity, unless you are willing to actually put in the though/effort/research to demonstrate why the data is invalid (rather than spout platitudes in lieu of an actual reasoned argument) you are countering that data with opinion. Thankfully most of the world is built and functions on sound science, reason, and evidence, rather than opinion.

Secondly, whether I am a 'genius on the topic and mindset of the average gun owner' is your opinion and irrelevant to this argument. I find that ad-hominem attacks are usually a hallmark of someone who is no longer capable of using reason and logic and instead has resorted to irrelevant pettiness because they lack the evidence to back up their argument.

a reply to: SudoNim

I want to point out that you are consistently measuring gun crime in the US against gun crime in nations where guns cannot be legally owned. If you would expect anything other than gun related issues to be higher in a country that legally allows ownership vs a country that doesn't, you have no business reporting stats.

The simple fact is: in the US, 64% of all gun related deaths are suicide. Of that, 67% are veterans. The veterans that we send off to fight unjust wars. Do the math....34k homocides total (using 2010 stats as that is what is available most easily). Of those, a total of 21k are suicides. Of those, almost 15k are veterans deciding that they are better off dead. So our homocide rate has 43% being veterans committing suicide.

If you want to look at what is going on, and have a truthful analysis, you need to dig into what those numbers are actually representing. Of the 34k deaths each year, 15% are killings by police. If you add the cops and suicide together, about 80% of our homocides each year where a gun is used are accounted for. So we have a total of 6800 civilian killings where someone isn't killing themselves each year.

6,800 people. That is .00226% of the population. 6,800 people each year are killed by another citizen using a gun in the US. That is what we are going on about here. Meanwhile, if i throw that number against the total number of intentional homocides (as sourced through Wiki, it looks like we have about 8800 people murdered each year by something other than a gun.

Im the first to admit...its almost impossible to get a clear picture looking at the stats. For one, our government likes to hide its ugly toes behind fluffed up stats. Examples of this are "homocide" including suicide statistically, and "caucasian" including both white and hispanic people. Im not sure if other countries include suicide deaths in their crime stats. I suspect not, as suicide isn't illegal in many other "civilized" countries. Perhaps the quickest fix to our high homocide rate is to legalize suicide in the US? At least then, the death won't be considered "homocide" any longer.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You know I read your posts and you are clearly an intelligent person and you make great points. Thought-provoking. You nearly engaged me. But then you switch gears and talk down to me like I'm a 5 year old. Belittle me as SudoNim points out. Like you are necessarily right and I am wrong. And I realize, "Nope. That's going to be an exhausting waste of time and energy."

There is no "everyone against me". There are several awesome posts in this thread. Several people got exactly what my point was and went with it. But the anti-gun-control crowd is so loud in here that it completely drowned all the other voices. The fact that you say "narrow topic that you're wanting" tells me that you still don't get it. My intention was to discuss ALL other topics BUT gun-control. In other words a narrow topic that I wanted to look past.

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours. Perhaps one day you would consider talking to me like I'm a normal human being, and not a 5 y.o. mentally challenged child whose opinion isn't worth as much as yours.
Until then, see you around.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Except that "it's data" is more than a tad misleading, isn't it?

You're not actually discussing data ... you're discussing data analysis ... which brings into play all sorts of qualifiers and contexts and considerations and so forth, correct?

It seems disingenuous to claim sanctity for your chosen interpretation.

It seems to me it would be far more productive to address the root cause why mass shootings started in America. They were not present in our society until a few decades ago. What has changed in America during this period that has lead to mass shootings? Obviously, it is not the fact that citizens bear arms. Gun ownership has always existed. So we can rule that out. Perhaps we can blame it on the rise of guns that resemble assault rifles. We like blame, easy fixes. But M16s, AK 47s, etc. existed before mass shootings; so that's probably not it. Besides, if this were true, should there be a correlation with knives. Has there been a rise in stabbings as tactical knives became widespread? Perhaps it's coincidence, but mass shootings have become popular during the current period of political corruption we face today which fuels rampant social injustice and income inequality. Maybe we have reached a violent tipping point; it's just not clear yet. The root cause most likely is a perfect storm of complex interactions of cultural norms led by our government. Why? Because it is representative of the rot in our society. How it responds to the needs of the People collectively permeates our lives, even when it utterly ignores our voice.