America's Gun Violence

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

heres your help https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-firearm-seizure-20180618-story.html

How does that “help,” and what’s “old” about it?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/us/massive-seizure-of-guns-la-trnd/index.html

Seems to be two different people and two separate cases, separated by a couple of years? Maybe what’s old and archaic is that someone in the US can still amass such an arsenal and it’s so easily dismissed as routine or no biggie?

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I mean, I'll probably get thrashed from the "false equivalency" crowd, but why, as liberals, do we:

-say it's not all muslims when a muslim carries out a terrorist attack, and when people lash out at the muslim community for not speaking up against muslim extremists, we say it's not their job to do so, because it's not really islam the terrorist is preaching, etc, yet...
-when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, we liberals expect gun owners to step up and fix the gun problem?

Because the issues are completely different. 

With gun control, we expect and hope that gun owners, the so-called good guys, will advocate for effective gun legislation that will help to reduce gun violence.

With terrorist attacks, what sort of legislative change are we expecting or hoping that Muslims would lobby for? What do you see making a difference? I don’t recall actually seeing the Muslim community argue against laws regarding terrorism or taking a pro-terrorism stance the way that gun owners take a pro-gun stance. 

Both are societal issues, but I see the two groups reacting quite differently in their responses. 

I see many parallels.  

What, specifically? 

I already stated. our expectations of one group simply don't allign with those of another because they are of different political/theological persuasion. 

Yeah, we can legalize nuclear bombs and 99% of the population can be trusted not to set off their nuclear bomb.  That doesn't mean we should legalize nukes.    YEah, we can trust 99% of gun owners to not murder somebody but do they need the guns in the first place?  Is the benefit that gun owners get from their weapons enough to compensate for all the negatives that gun victims and their families deal with?  I don't have gun and maybe I just don't understand what I've been missing.

Yeah, we can trust 99% of Muslims not to be terrorists, but what is the simple action to take like taking a gun from a box in someone's closet?   How do you change an ideology as easily as taking an object that is total unnecessary to someone's daily life?

i'm not sure where all this came from. this has nothing to do with my original statement. i abhor guns. in a perfect world, they'd be illegal. 

all i said was, we have different expectations of groups where a very small portion of said group commits heinous acts. for gun owners, when a mass shooting happens, we expect them to bend over backwards to fix the problem. when an extremist kills a bunch of people, the right calls for muslims to condemn them and stand up and do something about it. the left says it isn't their responsibility. 

often says i'm comparing apples to oranges (paraphrasing), but i'm just talking about our expectations of the moral obligations of groups of people seem to be different depending on our views of each group. 

Halifax2TheMax said:

Well, one aspect of gun violence has been studied.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/11/us/school-shootings-united-states.html

HughFreakingDillon said:

I mean, I'll probably get thrashed from the "false equivalency" crowd, but why, as liberals, do we:

-say it's not all muslims when a muslim carries out a terrorist attack, and when people lash out at the muslim community for not speaking up against muslim extremists, we say it's not their job to do so, because it's not really islam the terrorist is preaching, etc, yet...
-when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, we liberals expect gun owners to step up and fix the gun problem?

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Well, one aspect of gun violence has been studied.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/11/us/school-shootings-united-states.html

And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
“These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.

How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?

oftenreading said:

bootlegger10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I mean, I'll probably get thrashed from the "false equivalency" crowd, but why, as liberals, do we:

-say it's not all muslims when a muslim carries out a terrorist attack, and when people lash out at the muslim community for not speaking up against muslim extremists, we say it's not their job to do so, because it's not really islam the terrorist is preaching, etc, yet...
-when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, we liberals expect gun owners to step up and fix the gun problem?

Because the issues are completely different. 

With gun control, we expect and hope that gun owners, the so-called good guys, will advocate for effective gun legislation that will help to reduce gun violence.

With terrorist attacks, what sort of legislative change are we expecting or hoping that Muslims would lobby for? What do you see making a difference? I don’t recall actually seeing the Muslim community argue against laws regarding terrorism or taking a pro-terrorism stance the way that gun owners take a pro-gun stance. 

Both are societal issues, but I see the two groups reacting quite differently in their responses. 

I see many parallels.  

What, specifically? 

I already stated. our expectations of one group simply don't allign with those of another because they are of different political/theological persuasion. 

Yeah, we can legalize nuclear bombs and 99% of the population can be trusted not to set off their nuclear bomb.  That doesn't mean we should legalize nukes.    YEah, we can trust 99% of gun owners to not murder somebody but do they need the guns in the first place?  Is the benefit that gun owners get from their weapons enough to compensate for all the negatives that gun victims and their families deal with?  I don't have gun and maybe I just don't understand what I've been missing.

Yeah, we can trust 99% of Muslims not to be terrorists, but what is the simple action to take like taking a gun from a box in someone's closet?   How do you change an ideology as easily as taking an object that is total unnecessary to someone's daily life?

i'm not sure where all this came from. this has nothing to do with my original statement. i abhor guns. in a perfect world, they'd be illegal. 

all i said was, we have different expectations of groups where a very small portion of said group commits heinous acts. for gun owners, when a mass shooting happens, we expect them to bend over backwards to fix the problem. when an extremist kills a bunch of people, the right calls for muslims to condemn them and stand up and do something about it. the left says it isn't their responsibility. 

often says i'm comparing apples to oranges (paraphrasing), but i'm just talking about our expectations of the moral obligations of groups of people seem to be different depending on our views of each group. 

I thought I understood what you are saying.  Expectations of groups to police themselves.  What I am seeing is that one job is a lot tougher.  It is a lot tougher to change a terrorist’s ideology than to enact gun control and safety measures.   That is what I was getting at.   It should be simple to give an object you will likely never use or need to make someone else’s world safer.  An act of a Congress can go a long way.   There is no act of Congress that can change a terrorist’s mind.

i guess If I am understanding your question correctly is that my expectations of gun owners is higher because there are clear actions  that can be taken to help the situation and they choose not to act.  I don’t see as many clear actions that Muslims can take tomorrow to limit terrorism.  So, I am hard on gun owners because they refuse to act.

Yes, exactly. 

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Well, one aspect of gun violence has been studied.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/11/us/school-shootings-united-states.html

And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
“These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.

How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?

Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

The TEC-9 they used was purchased privately and illegally through some asshole nitwit. It was not something they could go and buy at a local gun shop. The ban actually worked, but a law abiding gun owner became an illegal arms dealer and accomplice in a mass shooting just like that.

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Well, one aspect of gun violence has been studied.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/11/us/school-shootings-united-states.html

And someone came up with this.  Last part of the article.
“These shootings have been carried out by all sorts of people from students to total strangers,” Mr. Reidman said. “They’ve happened in any part of the country and they’ve happened for just about every reason, and that makes prevention very difficult. There can’t be any one single or simple solution that’s going to address this problem.”

I could have sworn there was another study done on this years ago and they stopped funding it?!?  I'll try to find it.

I'm all for another study on why these things happen.  Something not mentioned in the article was that there was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 and crap still happened.

How much of the crap between 94-04 happend with newly aquired assault weapons?

Columbine for one.  Remember that crap?

What Assault Weapon do you refer to?

Use the google.  I can't answer everything for you.

That's why I'm asking, from google it doesn't seem like they could go to a store and buy an assault weapon.