America's Gun Violence

HughFreakingDillon · November 2017

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.

I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?

the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.

So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns. Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me? I'm a white male American gun owner. So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
The concern Halifax stated above baffles me. I'm just trying to understand this.
His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?

you'd have to ask Halifax. I was merely answering your question.

I would imagine though, that you are taking his comment way too personally. But I could be wrong.

Halifax2TheMax · November 2017

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.

I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?

the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.

So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns. Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me? I'm a white male American gun owner. So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
The concern Halifax stated above baffles me. I'm just trying to understand this.
His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?

Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.

Bentleyspop · November 2017

tbergs said:

Well, I've yet to see the weapon of choice named in the latest shooting, but based on the "high capacity magazines" found at the scene and the description of a semi auto rifle, I bet it's some sort of AR-15.

C'mon people, either ban the damn thing or get rid of the high capacity mags! A fucking child could tell you what would help alleviate this issue. No citizen should be allowed to own such a type of weapon.

Unfortunately it's too late to "ban" them as there 20 million plus in circulation. Banning the manufacture of them would be good.

benjs · November 2017

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.

I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?

the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.

So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns. Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me? I'm a white male American gun owner. So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
The concern Halifax stated above baffles me. I'm just trying to understand this.
His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?

Ultimately, it's not about who you are specifically. What it boils down to is that if a country has finite law enforcement resources and cannot afford to profile each and every individual, you have to find the most effective and efficient way to enforce the law. If statistics show elevated risk with a certain sector of a population, it would be foolish to not allocate law enforcement resources proportionally.

On that note, if it turns out that 27-year-old, male Jewish Canadians are higher risk from a security perspective than the average population, I would be frustrated, but would begrudgingly accept the higher scrutiny that I would receive when going into an airport or public event. Perhaps I might then work with my community to promote better behaviours so that law enforcement could reciprocate accordingly.

I feel that it's important to accept a statistically-driven reality, when those producing harm outnumber those preventing it.

mace1229 · November 2017

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.

I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?

the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.

So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns. Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me? I'm a white male American gun owner. So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
The concern Halifax stated above baffles me. I'm just trying to understand this.
His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?

Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.

That is not concerning to me, considering whites make up as much of 73% of the population according to wikipedia, but commit only 51% of mass shootings, that is below par.
The only thing that bothers me about that statement is I can't apply that same logic to terrorists attacks without being accused of being racist. But apply it to whites, and even though the data suggests whites actually commit fewer mass shootings when compared to population size, its completely okay. And I am not referencing just you, I see quite often in the media and articles.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/

I'm not saying we should fear Muslims or someone from the Middle East, just pointing out the double standard in the race/religion card.

oftenreading · November 2017

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.

I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?

the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.

So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns. Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me? I'm a white male American gun owner. So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
The concern Halifax stated above baffles me. I'm just trying to understand this.
His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?

Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.

That is not concerning to me, considering whites make up as much of 73% of the population according to wikipedia, but commit only 51% of mass shootings, that is below par.
The only thing that bothers me about that statement is I can't apply that same logic to terrorists attacks without being accused of being racist. But apply it to whites, and even though the data suggests whites actually commit fewer mass shootings when compared to population size, its completely okay. And I am not referencing just you, I see quite often in the media and articles.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/

I'm not saying we should fear Muslims or someone from the Middle East, just pointing out the double standard in the race/religion card.

White males do not make up 73% of the US population so your analogy is false. White males make up about 31% of the population, so yeah, definitely over represented as mass shooters. Women commit very few mass shootings

oftenreading · November 2017

Given that it's the male part that's been emphasized many times recently, it's odd that that was ignored.

mace1229 · November 2017

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.

I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?

the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.

So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns. Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me? I'm a white male American gun owner. So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
The concern Halifax stated above baffles me. I'm just trying to understand this.
His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?

Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.

That is not concerning to me, considering whites make up as much of 73% of the population according to wikipedia, but commit only 51% of mass shootings, that is below par.
The only thing that bothers me about that statement is I can't apply that same logic to terrorists attacks without being accused of being racist. But apply it to whites, and even though the data suggests whites actually commit fewer mass shootings when compared to population size, its completely okay. And I am not referencing just you, I see quite often in the media and articles.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/

I'm not saying we should fear Muslims or someone from the Middle East, just pointing out the double standard in the race/religion card.

White males do not make up 73% of the US population so your analogy is false. White males make up about 31% of the population, so yeah, definitely over represented as mass shooters. Women commit very few mass shootings

Agree males are far more guilty, about 98% of mass shooters are male. So you can essentially ignore the female population in this discussion. It still doesn't change the fact that whites are not over-represented in this statistic. Males are for sure, but not whites.
My mistake was misreading that graph, it was 51 incidents, not 51%, so that translates into 57%.
So according to the data, 57% of mass shootings are white males, but roughly 73% of males are white. Look at other ethnic groups, 13% of the population is black, but black males make up about 17% of mass shooters. How is this a white problem?
I got population data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
Even if you have something slightly different, it won't change the end results.

Gern Blansten · November 2017

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

RYME said:

CM189191 said:

RYME said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

It used to be part of school curriculum. Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.

So who best to regulate that other than the state? Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.

If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.

Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse. Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out. Nothing will change until people value life. How do we get that done?

Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation. Other countries just value life more than the US does.

Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party. Above
That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government. Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

Also, your point is wrong.

I can multitask.
The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
He should never have been put on the $20 bill. Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.

The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons. Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

Give that argument up. Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.

How is that working in Afghanistan? How did it work in Vietnam? Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.

you are obviously completely ignorant about tactical nukes (like embarrassingly ignorant...you called me stupid without even checking to see what a tactical nuke is?)

Gern Blansten · November 2017

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2501

In the wake of another massacre, American voters today support 95 - 4 percent, including 94 - 5 percent among voters in households where there is a gun, universal background checks for gun purchases, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

This is the highest level of support for universal background checks since the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll first asked this question in February 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

American voters support 65 - 31 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons, also a new high. Voters in gun households support a ban 51 - 43 percent.

Voters support 60 - 36 percent stricter gun laws and a number of specific gun measures:

91 - 7 percent for a ban on the sale of guns to people convicted of a violent crime;
62 - 34 percent for stricter regulation of ammunition sales;
74 - 24 percent for a ban on gun modifications that can make a gun work more like a fully automatic weapon.

Go Beavers · November 2017

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

RYME said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?

That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?

Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.

I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?

the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.

So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns. Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me? I'm a white male American gun owner. So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
The concern Halifax stated above baffles me. I'm just trying to understand this.
His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?

Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.

That is not concerning to me, considering whites make up as much of 73% of the population according to wikipedia, but commit only 51% of mass shootings, that is below par.
The only thing that bothers me about that statement is I can't apply that same logic to terrorists attacks without being accused of being racist. But apply it to whites, and even though the data suggests whites actually commit fewer mass shootings when compared to population size, its completely okay. And I am not referencing just you, I see quite often in the media and articles.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/

I'm not saying we should fear Muslims or someone from the Middle East, just pointing out the double standard in the race/religion card.

People get accused of being racist/prejudiced about the issue of terrorism based on how they present the info and why they think something is. Saying a religion creates terrorist is a prejudicial statement. A Muslim ban is bigoted, and so is supporting it. The double standard is that immigrants or refugees need extreme vetting, but that gun owners already in the country do not. Claiming refugees are a greater threat has roots in racism.

RYME · November 2017

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in nice households? How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work? How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both? I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom. But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong. Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important). A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
However, no gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

mace1229 · November 2017

Agree with that.
I still don't see how it is acceptable to say you fear/worry about someone because they are white.

HughFreakingDillon · November 2017

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in nice households? How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work? How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both? I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom. But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong. Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important). A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
No gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

once again, mental illness is NOT what causes this to happen. it's easy and convenient for people to say "he went crazy", but that is simply not the case.

and being brought up in a household where mom cooks pies and dad comes home to a glass of scotch and the evening news everyday won't either. studies show that kids in quality child care from an early age actually are better at learning empathy and social skills than those kept at home.

RYME · November 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in nice households? How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work? How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both? I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom. But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong. Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important). A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
No gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

once again, mental illness is NOT what causes this to happen. it's easy and convenient for people to say "he went crazy", but that is simply not the case.

and being brought up in a household where mom cooks pies and dad comes home to a glass of scotch and the evening news everyday won't either. studies show that kids in quality child care from an early age actually are better at learning empathy and social skills than those kept at home.

If I say the grass is green you're going to say it's red. That's just how it is.

Go Beavers · November 2017

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in nice households? How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work? How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both? I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom. But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong. Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important). A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
However, no gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

Daycare and single parent households don’t create mental illness. Your description of a right wing American fantasy land from the past is a myth.

HughFreakingDillon · November 2017

RYME said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in nice households? How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work? How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both? I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom. But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong. Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important). A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
No gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

once again, mental illness is NOT what causes this to happen. it's easy and convenient for people to say "he went crazy", but that is simply not the case.

and being brought up in a household where mom cooks pies and dad comes home to a glass of scotch and the evening news everyday won't either. studies show that kids in quality child care from an early age actually are better at learning empathy and social skills than those kept at home.

If I say the grass is green you're going to say it's red. That's just how it is.

no, it's not how it is. those are facts. try them sometime.

HughFreakingDillon · November 2017

http://behavioralscientist.org/myth-mental-illness-causes-mass-shootings/

Halifax2TheMax · November 2017

mace1229 said:

Agree with that.
I still don't see how it is acceptable to say you fear/worry about someone because they are white.

White and armed. Not just race. Race combined with owning firearms. Hasn’t it been espoused that every “legal” gun owner is a “responsible” gun owner? I argue that responsible gun owners are until they’re not. Everyday, it seems, there’s an example. I believe that the recent past of mass shootings or other high profile shootings such as the abortion doctor murdered in church, abortion clinic shootings, attacks on schools, etc., etc. have been committed by white males, disproportionately so. Throw in the Olympic and OKC bombings and it seems angry/religious, armed, white males are the ones needing further scrutiny or “extreme vetting.” My situational awareness tells me to avoid gun owners, regardless of their race.

Mental illness doesnt care if you live in a two parent household, have a single mother who works two jobs or a stay at home mother or a father who teaches right from wrong.

RYME · November 2017

Go Beavers said:

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in nice households? How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work? How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both? I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom. But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong. Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important). A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
However, no gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

Daycare and single parent households don’t create mental illness. Your description of a right wing American fantasy land from the past is a myth.

You didn't answer my question. How many of these Mass Shooters came from good families? How many mass shooters come from Right-wing American fantasy Land?

America's Gun Violence

Comments

Categories