America's Gun Violence

1…722723725727728…903

Comments

  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,265
    mcgruff10 said:

    https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/03/danny-de-gracia-hawaii-is-way-out-there-on-gun-control/

    With 19 words, Hawaii state Sen. Stanley Chang has rattled the nation’s gun lobby. “This body believes that it is necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

    Chang has introduced two identical measures to address gun rights: SCR42, a concurrent resolution that would have to pass both Senate and House; and SR29, which only needs to pass the Senate.

    Both are nonbinding resolutions that challenge what they term the “individual right theory,” or the interpretation that the U.S. Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession.


    Are you arguing against the right of redress of grievances?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,123
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mcgruff10 said:

    https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/03/danny-de-gracia-hawaii-is-way-out-there-on-gun-control/

    With 19 words, Hawaii state Sen. Stanley Chang has rattled the nation’s gun lobby. “This body believes that it is necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

    Chang has introduced two identical measures to address gun rights: SCR42, a concurrent resolution that would have to pass both Senate and House; and SR29, which only needs to pass the Senate.

    Both are nonbinding resolutions that challenge what they term the “individual right theory,” or the interpretation that the U.S. Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession.


    Are you arguing against the right of redress of grievances?
    Not at all.  Just because I don't agree with what they are saying doesn't mean I am against the first amendment.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,395
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.


    How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/children-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/accidental-deaths

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/teens-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2019

    'Murica, Woot!

    You actually read any of these?  A domestic murder/suicide is counted as a mass murder?

    They are facts but a little misconstrued.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited March 2019
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.

    A small dent?

    No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
    Wait, 15-30% could also be considered a “large chunk”, right?  And I am not sure making guns harder to access in the home (aka storing guns and ammo separate) would do anything but marginally prevent a very small portion of suicides...so you may be overstating the significance.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    edited March 2019
    mcgruff10 said:
    HesCalledDyer said:
    The American mentality is a big part of it.  As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!"  instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform.  People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable.  TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change.  Everything fucking changes.  The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today.  I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century.  Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead.  You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic.  Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.

    What really is the American fascination with guns anyway?  We NEED to get away from that.  (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.)  And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer.  It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them.  No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them.  I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns?  What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
    The founders thought owning firearms was so important that it was the sixth right they listed  (behind the first five in the first amendment).    Training?  Sounds good.  Registration?  Zero problems with it.  Background checks?  Giddy up.  Banning something,  yeah no thanks.  Because after you ban something then the question becomes, what is next?  Oh yeah, senators from Hawaii:
    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/hawaii-democrats-want-us-congress-consider-repeal-second-amendment

    Hawaii Democrats Want U.S. Congress to Consider Repeal of Second Amendment

    A resolution introduced in the Hawaii Senate this week urges the U.S. Congress to "consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right."

    The resolution also urges Congress to adopt a proposed constitutional amendment "to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms."

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

    The 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller also stated, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

    The article continues on the web page I referenced.
    When the founders wrote the constitution all they had were muskets that took a 1/2 hour to load, by the time you got it loaded the argument was over.
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,265
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.


    How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/children-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/accidental-deaths

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/teens-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2019

    'Murica, Woot!

    You actually read any of these?  A domestic murder/suicide is counted as a mass murder?

    They are facts but a little misconstrued.

    They footnote their definitions. And isn't the term "mass shooting?"
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,123
    PJPOWER said:
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.

    A small dent?

    No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
    Wait, 15-30% could also be considered a “large chunk”, right?  
    Shhhhh don’t talk about that.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,395
    HesCalledDyer said:
    The American mentality is a big part of it.  As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!"  instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform.  People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable.  TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change.  Everything fucking changes.  The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today.  I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century.  Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead.  You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic.  Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.

    What really is the American fascination with guns anyway?  We NEED to get away from that.  (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.)  And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer.  It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them.  No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them.  I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns?  What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
    Because you think that gun owners are this dumb is a good thing.  Keep thinking they are all country bumpkins and uneducated hicks.

    That'll go far in conversations of "gun control", oh wait, no it won't because you think people are too stupid to do that...

    Man, i need to get off this thread...
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,123
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.


    How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/children-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/accidental-deaths

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/teens-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2019

    'Murica, Woot!

    You actually read any of these?  A domestic murder/suicide is counted as a mass murder?

    They are facts but a little misconstrued.

    They footnote their definitions. And isn't the term "mass shooting?"
    A nice made up term by the left that makes things more scary. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,265
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.


    How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/children-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/accidental-deaths

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/teens-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2019

    'Murica, Woot!

    You actually read any of these?  A domestic murder/suicide is counted as a mass murder?

    They are facts but a little misconstrued.

    They footnote their definitions. And isn't the term "mass shooting?"

    GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

    GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident.

    In that, the criteria are simple…if four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.

    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    tempo_n_groove said:
    HesCalledDyer said:
    The American mentality is a big part of it.  As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!"  instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform.  People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable.  TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change.  Everything fucking changes.  The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today.  I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century.  Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead.  You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic.  Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.

    What really is the American fascination with guns anyway?  We NEED to get away from that.  (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.)  And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer.  It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them.  No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them.  I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns?  What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
    Because you think that gun owners are this dumb is a good thing.  Keep thinking they are all country bumpkins and uneducated hicks.

    That'll go far in conversations of "gun control", oh wait, no it won't because you think people are too stupid to do that...

    Man, i need to get off this thread...
    Yeah, but it was a hell of a straw man, you’ve gotta give him that, lol
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    HesCalledDyer said:
    The American mentality is a big part of it.  As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!"  instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform.  People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable.  TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change.  Everything fucking changes.  The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today.  I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century.  Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead.  You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic.  Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.

    What really is the American fascination with guns anyway?  We NEED to get away from that.  (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.)  And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer.  It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them.  No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them.  I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns?  What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
    Absolutely - I will forever believe that the #1 reason behind America's gun problems, by far, is that gun culture you're talking about. Regulations are good and all, but none of them are ever ultimately going to do much good (mainly because they'll never be enacted, lol) as long as that gun obsession persists.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    mcgruff10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.


    How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/children-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/accidental-deaths

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/teens-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2019

    'Murica, Woot!

    You actually read any of these?  A domestic murder/suicide is counted as a mass murder?

    They are facts but a little misconstrued.

    They footnote their definitions. And isn't the term "mass shooting?"
    A nice made up term by the left that makes things more scary. 

    Strange. I consider that when someone takes the life of other people and then kills themself it is significant. Strange that you would scoff at that. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.


    How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/children-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/accidental-deaths

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/teens-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2019

    'Murica, Woot!

    Woot.
    Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ?
    My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that. 
     Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed.
    Woot
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.

    A small dent?

    No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
    Wait, 15-30% could also be considered a “large chunk”, right?  
    Shhhhh don’t talk about that.  

    Why not? Because upon discussing it shows that the argument doesn't have much merit?

    Sure, 15-30% would be a large chunk, but it's by no means the majority, which was implied by the argument that anything but gang violence would only be a "small dent". 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.

    A small dent?

    No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
    Domestic violence deaths are reported at about 600 a year, compared to over 30,000 gun deaths. That is not my definition of a huge dent. My point was why make laws designed to solve (literally) 2% of the problem and not find laws that impact a much larger portion? Out of the 2 responses my comment spawned that was never answered. 
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.

    A small dent?

    No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
    Wait, 15-30% could also be considered a “large chunk”, right?  
    Shhhhh don’t talk about that.  

    Why not? Because upon discussing it shows that the argument doesn't have much merit?

    Sure, 15-30% would be a large chunk, but it's by no means the majority, which was implied by the argument that anything but gang violence would only be a "small dent". 
    Well, in that respect, having to store ammo separate from guns would probably not target the “majority” of homicides either...probably even a lesser chunk than gang violence.
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,265
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.


    How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/children-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/accidental-deaths

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/teens-killed

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2019

    'Murica, Woot!

    Woot.
    Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ?
    My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that. 
     Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed.
    Woot


    Care to clarify your comment about how we don't focus on gang violence or consider the "family structure?" Who does that refer to? Source of your 1,000 number for domestic violence and accidents total?

    And I wasn't commenting solely, or really at all, on your comments about separate storage of guns and ammo and folks having time to cool down. 40,000+ a year, no big deal, nothing can be done. I get where the pro-gun crowd is coming from. Nothing can be done. its a blip. Its minor. Nothing we can do will reduce the numbers, so why try. I get it.

    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,680
    edited March 2019
    mace1229 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.

    A small dent?

    No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
    Domestic violence deaths are reported at about 600 a year, compared to over 30,000 gun deaths. That is not my definition of a huge dent. My point was why make laws designed to solve (literally) 2% of the problem and not find laws that impact a much larger portion? Out of the 2 responses my comment spawned that was never answered. 
    Make laws that solve all kinds of problems. If you can get the law or regulation that only covered 2% of the problem through and hope to help 2% of potential victims, that you absolutely do that. At the same time you also work on getting through all the various laws and regulations that cover the other 98% of the problem. It is strange that you seem to think it has to be one or the other. Also, sometimes, laws and regulations that only apply to the few end up really influencing the creation of more laws and regulations that end up influencing the many.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,395
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data.
    Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.

    A small dent?

    No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
    Domestic violence deaths are reported at about 600 a year, compared to over 30,000 gun deaths. That is not my definition of a huge dent. My point was why make laws designed to solve (literally) 2% of the problem and not find laws that impact a much larger portion? Out of the 2 responses my comment spawned that was never answered. 
    Make laws that solve all kinds of problems. If you can get the law or regulation that only covered 2% of the problem through and hope to help 2% of potential victims, that you absolutely do that. At the same time you also work on getting through all the various laws and regulations that cover the other 98% of the problem. It is strange that you seem to think it has to be one or the other. Also, sometimes, laws and regulations that only apply to the few end up really influencing the creation of more laws and regulations that end up influencing the many.
    Too many laws are what everyone is afraid of.  When will it stop?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories