America's Gun Violence

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

The girlfriend bought it legally though and gave them to the two boys which was illegal.  The Kel-tec was also purchased legally.

Everyone forgets that it was an import ban.  You could still buy assault weapons at a far more expensive price but you could buy them.

Also saying "it worked" is like saying it was working before that then since not many happened prior to it but we could debate that idea all day.

So, then ultimately it wasn't the ban that was ineffective as you have tried to claim, but the limited scope of the law because the gun lobby was able to ensure loopholes, like gun show purchases. The ban was effective, just not 100% because it was set up to fail from the beginning. Unfortunately real measures will never be allowed unless all gun owners and the gun lobby push for the changes. 

The ban was 100% effective in controlling the importation of assault style weapons, it did not effectively curb gun related or assault type deaths.

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. 

mcgruff10 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Get ready for a mass shooting near you. Funny that NRA doesn’t support funding the ATF.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/us/atf-agents-hunting-down-illegal-machine-gun-device-invs/index.html
 

I've never understood the want or need to take a firearm and make it full auto?  You take a legal gun and then make it illegal and a big time felony when you get caught with it.

If it's going on an illegal gun then I guess it's just stupid all around.

Me either, very very stupid. I hope they all get caught. There is zero need for full auto.