America's Gun Violence

PJ_Soul

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

The guy who killed 49 people at the Orlando nightclub was 29. And that guy who killed his co-workers in San Bernardino was older too. I think age restriction is a good idea, but not really because of the age of shooters (although school shootings in particular are always committed by younger people). It's because it might help prevent the whole gun freak culture from sinking so deep into people when they're young and impressionable.

josevolution said:

PJ_Soul said:

The guy who killed 49 people at the Orlando nightclub was 29. And that guy who killed his co-workers in San Bernardino was older too. I think age restriction is a good idea, but not really because of the age of shooters (although school shootings in particular are always committed by younger people). It's because it might help prevent the whole culture from sinking so deep into people when they're young and impressionable.

The guy in vegas was older than that too ..

I know there are exceptions where people are older.  Who is going into the schools and shooting them up?

Young men and young boys?  Yes or no?

Everyone seems to be ignoring that issue, as usual. This is probably the 20th time the fact that this is a problem with males has been mentioned in this thread, half the time by me, and perhaps the other half by you, and almost nobody ever has a single thing to say about it. It's very frustrating that nobody has any intention of ever changing what really needs to change. Everyone just keeps talking about gun regulations (which I do support as an "it can't hurt; it can only help" kind of thing, but they're not going to get to the root of the problem at all).

No, it hasn't been ignored. Several have commented on it. If this were merely about the gender and age of the perpetrator then this would be happening all over the world, or at least in predominantly white populated countries, but it's not. Access to guns is the X factor. Troubled youth is nothing new (drop the leash!). Several people would also argue about the other gun violence phenomena, young blacks males. A lot correlates to their socio-economic living conditions and parenting situation, but overall without access to guns the violence wouldn't be as extreme.

No, the gun issue in America specifically isn't solely about gender or age, but that IS the predominant common factor, and when you combine gender with the secondary problem of the American gun culture, you've got your problem laid out. The male violence problem is, though, a worldwide one. It's just that other countries don't also have the American gun culture problem combining with it. But hell, ALL countries still struggle with the male violence problem to a greater or lesser extent based on their own cultural bugaboos.
And I disagree that it hasn't been ignored. If it weren't being ignored we would have had long conversations about what to do about the problem. Nobody ever wants to talk about that.

PJPOWER

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

And I watch the news regularly...more than most probably... And what ive seen on the news the past 10 years tells me we need to GET RID of these ridiculous weapons, NOT keep them

Well there are millions out there in circulation and politicians hinder any headway to come even close to “getting rid” of them, so what is your suggestion?  Hardly anyone that owns one is going to willingly “get rid” of them.

It has to start somewhere... so ban sales now so a few million more don't enter circulation... you don't just throw up your hands and say "oh well, too late"

I have a 100 year view of this... I don't foresee any immediate improvement... but it has to start now to leave a better future for future generations

But I honestly have zero faith in this country moving forward... don't expect any silly flag waving from me, I'll join the guys taking a knee... 

History will judge us poorly

The way politics are going, it may be 100 years before anything remotely close to a ban on these happens.  Time to think outside of the box...What can be implemented now?

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

The axis doesn't show, but this is 86 to 2015 from the ATF.  Someone want to tell me it's just correlation not causation?  Or is it possible the wave of violence we have seen over the past decade + is related to the volume?

Are you suggesting that more guns made in the US causes more shootings?
Why can't it be the other way? Increased guns manufactured is caused by an increase in gun culture? And an increase in gun culture causes more shootings?

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

The axis doesn't show, but this is 86 to 2015 from the ATF.  Someone want to tell me it's just correlation not causation?  Or is it possible the wave of violence we have seen over the past decade + is related to the volume?

Are you suggesting that more guns made in the US causes more shootings?
Why can't it be the other way? Increased guns manufactured is caused by an increase in gun culture? And an increase in gun culture causes more shootings?

That can be true, it's just one step ahead in the process.  I have no data to analyze 'gun culture'.  That's fairly subjective.  Manufacturing is driven by demand.  That's quantifiable.  
And yes, I do not think it's correlation, I think it's causation.  

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

The axis doesn't show, but this is 86 to 2015 from the ATF.  Someone want to tell me it's just correlation not causation?  Or is it possible the wave of violence we have seen over the past decade + is related to the volume?

The increase also happened during the obama years when people were afraid of guns being banned. 

unsung

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

The axis doesn't show, but this is 86 to 2015 from the ATF.  Someone want to tell me it's just correlation not causation?  Or is it possible the wave of violence we have seen over the past decade + is related to the volume?

The increase also happened during the obama years when people were afraid of guns being banned. 

NO doubt.  They scared people into record sales.  Obama was a financial boom.  

unsung

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28268/viral-video-principal-removes-student-sign-saying-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

mrussel1

unsung said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28268/viral-video-principal-removes-student-sign-saying-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

If true, it's appalling and the student has grounds to file a suit so long as he or anyone else wasn't in danger.  Now knowing how the right twists things around (see example A, Parkland father who altered email exchange with CNN), I'll hold judgment for fuller information from a real news source.  

PJPOWER

unsung said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28268/viral-video-principal-removes-student-sign-saying-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

“You’re free to protest as long as you are protesting in line with my views”

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

The axis doesn't show, but this is 86 to 2015 from the ATF.  Someone want to tell me it's just correlation not causation?  Or is it possible the wave of violence we have seen over the past decade + is related to the volume?

Are you suggesting that more guns made in the US causes more shootings?
Why can't it be the other way? Increased guns manufactured is caused by an increase in gun culture? And an increase in gun culture causes more shootings?

That can be true, it's just one step ahead in the process.  I have no data to analyze 'gun culture'.  That's fairly subjective.  Manufacturing is driven by demand.  That's quantifiable.  
And yes, I do not think it's correlation, I think it's causation.  

I would think, as any company would, gun manufactures create based on demand. The demand isn't created by simply making more guns, but more guns are made because the demand is there.
Therefore making fewer guns wouldn't suddenly diminish this demand, since the demand exists for another reason other than simply more guns being manufactured. 
I actually believe the spike is caused by something else; Obama.
He was farther left than other presidents before him, so people thought gun restrictions were going in increase and it set the trend of "buy your guns now while you can."
It's not his fault, but that's what happened. Particularly in liberal states like California. I haven't lived there for several years, but I think California implemented a new ban or restrictions on guns, so it isn't completely irrational to have believed that. Of course when you ban or restrict something the sales are going to spike. If Colorado bans marijuana in January 2019, December will be record "high" sales.
Its hard to tell without it being labeled, but I'm guess that valley in the middle were the Bush years, and the spike before that was during Clinton. Democrats are great for gun sales.

oftenreading

i_lov_it said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Degeneratefk said:

unsung said:

Hey dummy, nobody is against your 2nd amendment right. We are against "responsible gun owners" having weapons that can shoot 75 rounds per minute. Once you understand the difference, you won't be so ignorant. 


Edit: dummy is referring to the idiot that calls himself "educating liberals." Unsung is just a puppet for reposting.

Unsung is just unwittingly being used as a pawn.

i_lov_it said:

If Guns are to become illegal in the USA...that also means the Police Force as they're not above the law...

No.

With the amount of guns already in circulation... the police need guns to do their job safely.

So in other words one law for Police and another law for the General Public?

Well, yes, of course. I don’t see the general public being allowed to arrest people, search private dwellings, or check to see if you are driving while impaired. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

i_lov_it said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Degeneratefk said:

unsung said:

Hey dummy, nobody is against your 2nd amendment right. We are against "responsible gun owners" having weapons that can shoot 75 rounds per minute. Once you understand the difference, you won't be so ignorant. 


Edit: dummy is referring to the idiot that calls himself "educating liberals." Unsung is just a puppet for reposting.

Unsung is just unwittingly being used as a pawn.

i_lov_it said:

If Guns are to become illegal in the USA...that also means the Police Force as they're not above the law...

No.

With the amount of guns already in circulation... the police need guns to do their job safely.

So in other words one law for Police and another law for the General Public?

Uhh... yes. Of course.

I'm speaking for them as active duty officers. In their private lives... same rules and laws as the commoners.

You can't seriously be suggesting cops in the US hit the streets with rubber bands or something similar are you?

i_lov_it

oftenreading said:

i_lov_it said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Degeneratefk said:

unsung said:

Hey dummy, nobody is against your 2nd amendment right. We are against "responsible gun owners" having weapons that can shoot 75 rounds per minute. Once you understand the difference, you won't be so ignorant. 


Edit: dummy is referring to the idiot that calls himself "educating liberals." Unsung is just a puppet for reposting.

Unsung is just unwittingly being used as a pawn.

i_lov_it said:

If Guns are to become illegal in the USA...that also means the Police Force as they're not above the law...

No.

With the amount of guns already in circulation... the police need guns to do their job safely.

So in other words one law for Police and another law for the General Public?

Well, yes, of course. I don’t see the general public being allowed to arrest people, search private dwellings, or check to see if you are driving while impaired. 

So what you're saying is that Police are above the law?

oftenreading

i_lov_it said:

oftenreading said:

i_lov_it said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Degeneratefk said:

unsung said:

Hey dummy, nobody is against your 2nd amendment right. We are against "responsible gun owners" having weapons that can shoot 75 rounds per minute. Once you understand the difference, you won't be so ignorant. 


Edit: dummy is referring to the idiot that calls himself "educating liberals." Unsung is just a puppet for reposting.

Unsung is just unwittingly being used as a pawn.

i_lov_it said:

If Guns are to become illegal in the USA...that also means the Police Force as they're not above the law...

No.

With the amount of guns already in circulation... the police need guns to do their job safely.

So in other words one law for Police and another law for the General Public?

Well, yes, of course. I don’t see the general public being allowed to arrest people, search private dwellings, or check to see if you are driving while impaired. 

So what you're saying is that Police are above the law?

No, of course not. I’m saying that the existing laws allow for police to operate within their scope of defined duties. Assuming they do that, then it’s consistent with the law. 

This is is a really weird argument. 

i_lov_it

oftenreading said:

i_lov_it said:

oftenreading said:

i_lov_it said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Degeneratefk said:

unsung said:

Hey dummy, nobody is against your 2nd amendment right. We are against "responsible gun owners" having weapons that can shoot 75 rounds per minute. Once you understand the difference, you won't be so ignorant. 


Edit: dummy is referring to the idiot that calls himself "educating liberals." Unsung is just a puppet for reposting.

Unsung is just unwittingly being used as a pawn.

i_lov_it said:

If Guns are to become illegal in the USA...that also means the Police Force as they're not above the law...

No.

With the amount of guns already in circulation... the police need guns to do their job safely.

So in other words one law for Police and another law for the General Public?

Well, yes, of course. I don’t see the general public being allowed to arrest people, search private dwellings, or check to see if you are driving while impaired. 

So what you're saying is that Police are above the law?

No, of course not. I’m saying that the existing laws allow for police to operate within their scope of defined duties. Assuming they do that, then it’s consistent with the law. 

This is is a really weird argument. 

Wait a minute...how can you have one law for one demographic and one for another?

i_lov_it

I'm just saying if you're going to ban Guns then the Government should do it properly...

HughFreakingDillon

you guys are being trolled. seriously. no one can be honestly making this kind of argument. 

PJPOWER

unsung said:

Lol, a bit of irony there

oftenreading

HughFreakingDillon said:

you guys are being trolled. seriously. no one can be honestly making this kind of argument. 

At this point I agree.