America's Gun Violence

Gern Blansten

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on-mass-shooters-by-explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-killer/

Perfect story that explains exactly why the "good guy with a gun" strategy is horribly flawed.

Imagine how many deaths would occur when police arrived if every other person had a gun. The confusion over who the "bad guy" is would be unreal.

PJ_Soul

blueandwhite said:

PJ_Soul said:

blueandwhite said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

There was also a shooting at a South Dakota high school, but no one died so the story will be lucky to make page 7 in tomorrow's newspaper.

That seems fair. A murderous rampage where 10 are dead and many more injured definitely does seem to trump non-life-threatening gun shot wounds in a high school.

That's part of the problem. With these mass shootings you need to make a statement. You need to kill as many people as you can before they take you down. The media gives these individuals so much attention for their efforts. I would love it if the shooter's name was literally blacklisted by the media. Remember the victims, acknowledge the act but erase the shooter's name and identity from the spotlight. Don't give him his fifteen minutes of fame. Of course we know that this will never happen.

I think it's fairly ludicrous to expect the media to censor facts. I really hate this viewpoint (not you... I have seen this said many times before, and every time I think about how what it really says is that the media should be picking and choosing what news we get in order to create a bias towards vicitims. NO THANK YOU!!! I support an unbiased, censorship-free media, thank you very much!).

I don't think that the majority of today's media gives two pins about facts. It's about selling a product and the life and times of this unnamed gunman will inevitably take center stage for the next week or so. It's what sells, but it is hardly what one would describe as being meaningful information. It's just another story about another disgruntled loser with the means and opportunity to inflict excessive carnage on an unsuspecting group. It's the same old story we've heard before and will continue to hear again and again.

As for the media picking and choosing what news we get; they already do that. I think it's even scarier that people still think that unbiased media is actually a thing. It was never such a thing and it never will be.

I know they already do that (I am well aware of media biases - it was one of my main research areas in school). So we don't want to encourage it even more, do we? I know I'm not going to start calling for the media to make the kind of moral judgement for everyone. It is not the media's job to decide Theu're going to ignore a huge part of a story because of what it might mean to the key player in thst story. I am already disturbed by how much the media twists things and selects topics. I get upset when I see people calling for even more just because they are feeling emotionally sensitive.

HughFreakingDillon

from the "reason for mass shootings" thread (it's also, if not more, relevant here):

I recently made a comment in a thread on AMT that Americans need to stop worrying so much about terrorism and "shipping them back to where they came from" and closing the boarders to immigrants, and instead worrying about the people in their own backyard. Well, now I have come across proof of this fact, and it is overwhelming:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/index.html


(CNN)—During his presidency, President Barack Obama has had to deliver statements on gun violence 15 times.

After a gunman opened fire at Oregon's Umpqua Community College, killing nine people and injuring seven, a visibly upset Obama said the shootings were becoming all too routine.

The gunman also died, although it's unclear whether he was shot by police or committed suicide.

"The reporting is routine," he said. "My response here at this podium ends up being routine, the conversation in the aftermath of it. We've become numb to this."

He then asked news organizations to tally up the number of Americans killed through terrorist attacks in the last decade and compare it with the number of Americans who have died in gun violence.

Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2004 to 2013, 316,545 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2004 to 2013 was 277.

In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S.* and found that between 2004 and 2013, there were 36 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism. This brings the total to 313.

dudeman

Of those suicides included in the figure for total gun deaths, how many of those were soldiers who returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan and killed themselves?

gimmesometruth27

dudeman said:

Of those suicides included in the figure for total gun deaths, how many of those were soldiers who returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan and killed themselves?

probably more than people are willing to admit.

gimmesometruth27

HughFreakingDillon said:

from the "reason for mass shootings" thread (it's also, if not more, relevant here):

I recently made a comment in a thread on AMT that Americans need to stop worrying so much about terrorism and "shipping them back to where they came from" and closing the boarders to immigrants, and instead worrying about the people in their own backyard. Well, now I have come across proof of this fact, and it is overwhelming:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/index.html


(CNN)—During his presidency, President Barack Obama has had to deliver statements on gun violence 15 times.

After a gunman opened fire at Oregon's Umpqua Community College, killing nine people and injuring seven, a visibly upset Obama said the shootings were becoming all too routine.

The gunman also died, although it's unclear whether he was shot by police or committed suicide.

"The reporting is routine," he said. "My response here at this podium ends up being routine, the conversation in the aftermath of it. We've become numb to this."

He then asked news organizations to tally up the number of Americans killed through terrorist attacks in the last decade and compare it with the number of Americans who have died in gun violence.

Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2004 to 2013, 316,545 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2004 to 2013 was 277.

In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S.* and found that between 2004 and 2013, there were 36 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism. This brings the total to 313.

i do not disagree with a single thing obama said. he finally showed emotion and anger about something. and i am proud of him for that at least.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

gimmesometruth27

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

gimmesometruth27 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Honestly...

I don't know exactly what he can do. But this defence is the same as what has been uttered in this thread recently: 'meh... what can ya do?'

Find a way. Find a way. That is the task. If you hold the most influential position in the world... then do some influencing.

Right now... Wayne Lapierre has demonstrated more leadership in my opinion.

mickeyrat

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Honestly...

I don't know exactly what he can do. But this defence is the same as what has been uttered in this thread recently: 'meh... what can ya do?'

Find a way. Find a way. That is the task. If you hold the most influential position in the world... then do some influencing.

Right now... Wayne Lapierre has demonstrated more leadership in my opinion.

what we can do is line EVERY single member of both chambers of congress in front of a firing squad and kill every single last motherfucker there.

Bentleyspop

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Honestly...

I don't know exactly what he can do. But this defence is the same as what has been uttered in this thread recently: 'meh... what can ya do?'

Find a way. Find a way. That is the task. If you hold the most influential position in the world... then do some influencing.

Right now... Wayne Lapierre has demonstrated more leadership in my opinion.

Wayne Lapierre should be ashamed and I known it's an exaggeration but there is blood on his hands and there is a special place for people like him.

PJfanwillneverleave1

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Honestly...

I don't know exactly what he can do. But this defence is the same as what has been uttered in this thread recently: 'meh... what can ya do?'

Find a way. Find a way. That is the task. If you hold the most influential position in the world... then do some influencing.

Right now... Wayne Lapierre has demonstrated more leadership in my opinion.

what we can do is line EVERY single member of both chambers of congress in front of a firing squad and kill every single last motherfucker there.

Redact that statement or this post is flagged.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Bentleyspop said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Honestly...

I don't know exactly what he can do. But this defence is the same as what has been uttered in this thread recently: 'meh... what can ya do?'

Find a way. Find a way. That is the task. If you hold the most influential position in the world... then do some influencing.

Right now... Wayne Lapierre has demonstrated more leadership in my opinion.

Wayne Lapierre should be ashamed and I known it's an exaggeration but there is blood on his hands and there is a special place for people like him.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not speaking from his corner. I'm saying he's represented his constituents very well.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Honestly...

I don't know exactly what he can do. But this defence is the same as what has been uttered in this thread recently: 'meh... what can ya do?'

Find a way. Find a way. That is the task. If you hold the most influential position in the world... then do some influencing.

Right now... Wayne Lapierre has demonstrated more leadership in my opinion.

what we can do is line EVERY single member of both chambers of congress in front of a firing squad and kill every single last motherfucker there.

Redact that statement or this post is flagged.

Huh?

I'm pretty sure this was off the cuff pub talk versus a call to action.

PJfanwillneverleave1

On amt you just don't know.

Bentleyspop

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Honestly...

I don't know exactly what he can do. But this defence is the same as what has been uttered in this thread recently: 'meh... what can ya do?'

Find a way. Find a way. That is the task. If you hold the most influential position in the world... then do some influencing.

Right now... Wayne Lapierre has demonstrated more leadership in my opinion.

Wayne Lapierre should be ashamed and I known it's an exaggeration but there is blood on his hands and there is a special place for people like him.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not speaking from his corner. I'm saying he's represented his constituents very well.

Yes he has
And paid well for all that blood

mickeyrat

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Obama has been saying these incidents are becoming too routine too often.

Duh. We get that.

He made a fresh comparison for perspective's sake, but he has not provided the leadership necessary for
any meaningful change effort.

people always say he is not providing leadership.

what do you, yes you, specifically want him to do??

he isn't a king. he can't make laws. he is hated by the republican congress. so what can he really do? his hands are tied. all he can do is make speeches and potentially shame those in congress. that is about it...

Honestly...

I don't know exactly what he can do. But this defence is the same as what has been uttered in this thread recently: 'meh... what can ya do?'

Find a way. Find a way. That is the task. If you hold the most influential position in the world... then do some influencing.

Right now... Wayne Lapierre has demonstrated more leadership in my opinion.

what we can do is line EVERY single member of both chambers of congress in front of a firing squad and kill every single last motherfucker there.

Redact that statement or this post is flagged.

How different would that statement be if it began as " what we SHOULD DO" or "what we MUST DO" or "what we HAVE TO do" or a more direct "what I am GOING TO do" vs. how it is actually written?

Huh smart guy?

dimitrispearljam

Guns....'A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.".....
I dont have to be Einstein to know ...to understand and and be sure that im against guns...

mickeyrat

GREAT READ by a former Justice..... seriously, well worth the time . Intelligent, dispassionate and learned. Goes into history of rulings and what the amnedment was understood for so long to mean

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?tid=sm_fb


excerpt for those not willing to walk through his set up and subsequent argument..

"As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” "

Justice John Paul Stevens

g under p

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on-mass-shooters-by-explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-killer/

Perfect story that explains exactly why the "good guy without a gun" strategy is horribly flawed.

Imagine how many deaths would occur when police arrived if every other person had a gun. The confusion over who the "bad guy" is would be unreal.

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on-mass-shooters-by-explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-killer/

Perfect story that explains exactly why the "good guy with a gun" strategy is horribly flawed.

Imagine how many deaths would occur when police arrived if every other person had a gun. The confusion over who the "bad guy" is would be unreal.

That story seems to have been overlooked. THIS will the next tragedy in one of the next mass shooting. A good guy with a gun mistakenly hurt or killed trying to save others. It's very difficult for first responders to tell who is who in the chaos of these mass shootings.