Really? So you admit defeat as you refuse to continue to engage? Good to know... but wait...
as its A) bullshit,
You realize that repeating the same claim over and over again doesn't make it true... right?
and B) all countered by research that you still havent yet, have you?
If you had bothered to read what I said and considered it, the falseness of your underling claims would be quite evident... but given your refusal to read what I said, is there a purpose to me saying much more?
I will finally say this... you and the other hoplophobes have lost not unlike those seeking to prevent same-sex marriage to be recognized legally in the US as the courts keep on upholding these individual rights, more so in fact in the case of the second amendment with Heller & McDonald which were rather broad, something that SSM supporters can only hope for from SCOTUS this summer... but again, why let facts get in the way of a good old fashion hate fest?
62 mass shootings over the past 30+ years, and not one location was chosen because it banned guns.
Wait... so every mass shooter over that time was interviewed after the fact and affirmatively said "Yeah, I didn't pick the school/mall/theater/etc because it was a gun free zone"? No? Then I call bullshit on your unsubstantiated claim.
These shooters aren't choosing locations based on whether guns are or aren't allowed.
We are still waiting for evidence of that from you.
Most are choosing locations because it's where they got pissed off, such as 20 workplace shootings.
'Most'... not... 'all'? Again, you fail with useful citations.
Remember the Aurora shooting? Funny thing, the shooter didn't decide to go shooting up his nearest theater, nor the second nearest nor even the third... he chose one which apparently 100% unrelated to you... prohibited guns. But that's just a coincidence... right?
Even at the schools where shootings occurred, only in 1 of the 12 school incidents did the shoot not have personal ties to the school.
So you again grasp for straws to try to argue against reality, I feel sorry for you.
Also let's consider that most of these shootings weren't just rampages, but Murder-Suicides. These shooters were not people picking locations based on their chance of survival or retaliation.
You claim that... but again, reality doesn't well work for you.
It's quite rare that the shooter realizes they have one bullet left or killed everyone they wanted and decide to off themselves just for the heck of it... more often than not they only off themselves with faced with resistance, be it the swat team, a cop or an armed citizen.
The upshot of a gun freezone which you are conveniently ignoring for them is that they will likely have a longer period of time to carry out their rampage prior to the suicide part and fail to acknowledge that that may just come into the plans of the perpetrator.
Some reading so that you might become better informed:
Those of us who have looked into this issue do not give much credence to a political piece from a partisan site, instead academic studies on the subject are far more revealing, you really should read up on the work of John Lott... or offer a similarly well researched pieces.
While Chicago is well known for having a couple dozen shooting per weekend, they too are not evenly distributed through the city. Instead there are certain places where your chances of getting shot are much much higher than others.
That would be nice, though they are more likely to cite (not read) one of the articles which criticizes his work... and still not understand the qualitative differences between the two.
Let's imagine that back on New Years day all guns magically disappeared from the United States and no new ones could be constructed or imported, of the 21,000 people who would have statistically killed themselves with a gun... how many of those would find other successful ways vs would never attempt (or be successful at) killing themselves?
Now, how many lives do you think would be lost because they were not able to defend themselves against a home invader, carjacker or mugger on the street still armed with knives, clubs & broken bottles?
It's not as simple of math as you think, no matter how unfortunate.
I know people like to point to the lack of mass shootings following the gun law changes since the Port Arthur massacre, but rarely do they look at how many there were prior to it.
You should try it sometime, you might discover less of a trend of mass violence only ending afterwards and more of an anomaly.
Maybe you should have considered the possibility that guns are purchased legally in Plano, TX and sold illegally in Detroit or Chicago.
I'm fully aware, not just of that possibility but that reality, black markets often crop up to meet demand... but then how does that change things?
Is it more or less favorable to have more legally purchased guns?
Is it more or less favorable to have more illegally purchased guns?
We could get into a 'criminals prefer unarmed victims' and 'criminals don't follow laws anyway' style argument, however I'll just point go back to my point that if it were as simple as 'more guns == more deaths' as the OP seemed to be implying, then the fact that hard to get a legal gun cities having such high murder rates seems to contradict that and that there are likely other more contributive factors.
Most gun homicides involve people that are largely in a state of non-treatment of various mental illnesses.
Citation please.
Are you claiming that suicide == homicide?
I ask because something on the order of ~70% of gun deaths in this country are suicides... a good number of which I would expect have some untreated mental issues... I've not seen a stat that claims that of those committing a homicide via a firearm, that at least 51% of them have untreated mental issues which played some part in it.
Or are you claiming that the victim may also have untreated mental issues?
On the contrary, I was responding to what was said... and unlike you providing additional information and the suggestion that maybe things weren't as clear cut as was being said.
Try comparing murder rates between Europe where guns are hard to get and the U.S. where guns are easy to get. Comparing U.S. cities is just silly.
First... why is it silly? Why is it silly to recognize that gun violence is not uniformly distributed across the country and instead often seen in largest #'s in certain locations? If we follow your logic to other areas, it would seem that you'd claim that economies of all of Europe be balanced out on paper to judge their collective status without noting the relative differences between say... Germany and Greece?
It's plenty easy to say X==Y or even X=>Y, and often such assertions will be accepted. Often though it's good to examine the underlying environment to see if X=>Y, or if X+(A+B+C)=>Y while X-(A+B+C) !=> Y.
We let well-trained (in most cases) police and body guards carry weapons, unless you live in Texas where just about any yokel can arm up.
'We'? Who is 'we'? Where is 'we'? Here in the US, it's relatively straight forward to get a gun in most of the states, though some states (New Jersey being the biggest) and municipalities (Chicago, DC, etc) have additional restrictions on simply purchasing/owning something.
It's funny you mention carrying... while 3 states allow largely unrestricted concealed carrying of a pistol (ie no permit required), another 39 are 'shall issue' states, which means so long as you meet the requirements and are not otherwise prohibited, you get your permit. I know hating on Texas (a state I have never been to/in) is a favorite pastime on/., it's kind of funny you mentioning them as that while a shall issue state, they are one of only six that prohibits open carrying if a pistol.
Now that should make you feel real safe, eh?
Nope, I'm still waiting to hear about 'we'.
Now, let's make sure only the non-crazy people get those permits to carry a gun. How do you tell which are the crazy ones? You just have to ask them.
Now we see you straying into straw man territory, where in my original post did I discuss carrying a gun? *hint* I didn't, I only brought it up now in reply to you.
To my point above, in most states a permit is not required to carry a gun... provided it is visible. And what magic does a permit bestow on a person when carrying concealed? More often than not, you as a private individual cannot tell the difference between a person carrying and not... let alone if the person carrying has a permit to carry or not. This was part of why stop and frisk was so useful, the police were better at spotting such people and removing illegally carried guns from the streets of New York City.
More so, what on earth does 'asking them' have to do with telling 'which are the crazy ones'? I've known a few disturbed people who are pretty good actors and would not show up on your radar if you asked... but that is why we have other mechanisms to check ones background... if they opt to carry concealed legally.
Yes and no... making your own gun or telling someone how to do so in the US is legal... we do have laws with regards to exporting certain things... say this rifle stock, which you could casually buy online or in person with out hassle is considered regulated under International Traffic in Arms Regulations, so you attempting to export 1-100 of them would require prior approval from the feds.
The interesting case here (which is not unlike PGP back in the day), is that we are no longer talking about potentially exporting completed items, but very detailed information as to how to construct such an item.
While encryption export controls were easy to get around in the 90's, it's even easier today... and the federal government hasn't come to recognize that yet.
Really? Where exactly is hate speech illegal in the US today? The First Amendment would seem to preclude such a thing from being enforced much, as like it or not plenty of protected hate-speech exists today... just ask anyone who has heard members of the Westboro Baptist Church speak or protest.
And no... I'm not talking about "incitement" or "fighting words", they have their own carve outs and for very explicit reasons.
Or they should go the Phillip Zimmerman route with PGP and print a few hundred copies of a book with the plans inside which anyone could type to reproduce the source code/model files... then dare the government to ban either the physical book or the free copies that are being given away online.
It still amazes me that Americans think guns are OK.
Yeah, damn that evil second amendment that no one can seem to do away with
Bottom line is, More guns = more dead Americans
Oh what a simplistic view of the world you have, if it was just about guns... why then does a hard to get gun place like Detroit or Chicago have such high shooting and murder rates... while a easy to get a gun place like Plano, TX has such a low murder rate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
WHEN the US starts thinking their people and their children lives have value, then perhaps they will finally take the steps to protect them by removing guns
Yes, we don't think lives have value... which is precisely why we do not use guns to protect people, nor have certain people (lets call them police, military and body guards) carrying guns to protect others.
"Such a group"? That is, a group that wants people to be shot to promote their prejudices?
I'm aware of only one group in this case who was seeking to shoot people to promote their prejudices... so that must not be what I meant.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, here, let me break it down for you a little more:
You too appear to be keen on feeing your own "hate-filled little mind" with your oh so profound "Fuck all of them."
Want more?
You are quick to label Both sides here are perfect and utter shitheads and clearly trying to demonstrate that you are in fact above the fray and superior to them... yet your very tone an attitude puts you in the same gutter as those you appear to despite.
In the old days one might say "pot, meet kettle"... however your invocation of two different groups needs something else.
It's not like you have to go through a checkpoint on your way into Detroit where they'll take your guns away. The only meaningful comparisons are between the nation as a whole compared to other nations - and the numbers are pretty damn clear when you do that.
*face palm*
1. Except that in a good chunk of Europe, there are no border checkpoints.
2. So just because we have this wonderful freedom of movement sans checkpoints... low crime areas (regardless of firearm ownership) also benefit from the freedom of movement of blame from higher crime areas where more often than not, legally acquiring a firearm is difficult? I think not.
The amount of gun violence in this country is nothing short of catastrophic. You're less likely to get shot in a goddamn war zone.
Care to cite your baseless & clearly emotionally driven claim?
Remember that even in a warzone, the flying lead is not equally distributed so not all in the area have an equal change of getting shot. Take a virtual warzone like Chicago (a weekend with only a dozen shootings is a rarity) where there are clearly understood lines as to where your likelihood of getting shot is significantly greater on one side of the line than the other.
I'm sorry to see/hear that you really don't care about cumulative statistics and don't try to understand what areas may be affecting the total. I'll give you one... did you know that with the exception of the 2011 Tucson shooting, every single mass shooting in this country in which 3 or more people were killed occurred in a place where the shooter was not permitted to carry a weapon? That's a rather puzzling fact, isn't it? It's unlikely that a gun free zone suddenly causes people within to go shooting, but just maybe those areas where people are not generally able to defend themselves happen to attack those looking for unarmed victims. Ever consider that?
Nice attempt at diversion, alas I'm all too used to your kind.
Know what most 'gun deaths' stats like yours have in common? They include suicide, which is a bit of a misnomer when trying to prevent 'gun violence' and including those who harmed no one but themselves... or do we also include those who use pills or sharp objects in the statics for 'sleeping pills violence' & 'knife violence'?
Know what happens when you subtract suicides where a gun was used from broader 'gun death' statics... you know, when looking at crime? You end up with quite a few less gun deaths. Don't believe me? Go back to GP's Wikipedia links, here in the US we have a gun related suicide rate that is nearly 70% of all gun related deaths.
I'd ask you to stay on topic... but you are an AC so hardly worth the effort.
Atheists don't believe in ANY shared mythos in general. They tend to be independent thinkers. Nice try equating drones with independent thinkers though.
You don't think that qualifies as a shared mythos? The idea that they tend to be 'independent thinkers'?
As an example, in my experience most people who call themselves an 'independent' politically are actually quite easy to peg as to where they actually sit on the political spectrum, they only believe themselves 'independent'.
I keep seeing that singular case being held up as some sort of counter-proof... always lacking though is a sense of proportionality and scale.
Lemme guess, if a single Amish individual happened to stab a few people, you'd hold it up as proof that even the Amish can be violent and deadly and that blame should not be just focused on Muslims?
Both sides here are perfect and utter shitheads. Both sides wanted this fight, which benefits nobody except feeding their own hate-filled little minds.
And with such an eloquent reply, you are clearly a member of such a group.
Really? Or do you want to ignore the fact of the low murder rate in easy to legally get a gun Plano, Texas (.4 per 100,000) and the highest murder rate in the hard to legally get a gun city of Detroit (54.6 per 100,000)? The numbers are striking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
I'm afraid such crimes are not uniformly distributed across the country as your stats attempt to portray, and if you exclude a few notable locations which disproportionally have rather high numbers, the national average begins to drop quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually... you didn't, I even referenced the sort of 'proof' I was expecting from folks like you as part of another convo.
Really? So you admit defeat as you refuse to continue to engage? Good to know... but wait...
You realize that repeating the same claim over and over again doesn't make it true... right?
If you had bothered to read what I said and considered it, the falseness of your underling claims would be quite evident... but given your refusal to read what I said, is there a purpose to me saying much more?
I will finally say this... you and the other hoplophobes have lost not unlike those seeking to prevent same-sex marriage to be recognized legally in the US as the courts keep on upholding these individual rights, more so in fact in the case of the second amendment with Heller & McDonald which were rather broad, something that SSM supporters can only hope for from SCOTUS this summer... but again, why let facts get in the way of a good old fashion hate fest?
I look forward to seeing that evidence.
Wait... so every mass shooter over that time was interviewed after the fact and affirmatively said "Yeah, I didn't pick the school/mall/theater/etc because it was a gun free zone"? No? Then I call bullshit on your unsubstantiated claim.
We are still waiting for evidence of that from you.
'Most'... not... 'all'? Again, you fail with useful citations.
Remember the Aurora shooting? Funny thing, the shooter didn't decide to go shooting up his nearest theater, nor the second nearest nor even the third... he chose one which apparently 100% unrelated to you... prohibited guns. But that's just a coincidence... right?
So you again grasp for straws to try to argue against reality, I feel sorry for you.
You claim that... but again, reality doesn't well work for you.
It's quite rare that the shooter realizes they have one bullet left or killed everyone they wanted and decide to off themselves just for the heck of it... more often than not they only off themselves with faced with resistance, be it the swat team, a cop or an armed citizen.
The upshot of a gun freezone which you are conveniently ignoring for them is that they will likely have a longer period of time to carry out their rampage prior to the suicide part and fail to acknowledge that that may just come into the plans of the perpetrator.
Those of us who have looked into this issue do not give much credence to a political piece from a partisan site, instead academic studies on the subject are far more revealing, you really should read up on the work of John Lott... or offer a similarly well researched pieces.
What you say is very related.
While Chicago is well known for having a couple dozen shooting per weekend, they too are not evenly distributed through the city. Instead there are certain places where your chances of getting shot are much much higher than others.
That would be nice, though they are more likely to cite (not read) one of the articles which criticizes his work... and still not understand the qualitative differences between the two.
Oh I know. It's a slow day at work so I decided to play the part of a cat... while these people are playing the part of a ball of yarn.
Though it does help that it's a subject I'm well familiar with so it's not just a matter of me having fun with them.
You fail to mention that ~70% are due to suicide.
Let's imagine that back on New Years day all guns magically disappeared from the United States and no new ones could be constructed or imported, of the 21,000 people who would have statistically killed themselves with a gun... how many of those would find other successful ways vs would never attempt (or be successful at) killing themselves?
Now, how many lives do you think would be lost because they were not able to defend themselves against a home invader, carjacker or mugger on the street still armed with knives, clubs & broken bottles?
It's not as simple of math as you think, no matter how unfortunate.
I know people like to point to the lack of mass shootings following the gun law changes since the Port Arthur massacre, but rarely do they look at how many there were prior to it.
You should try it sometime, you might discover less of a trend of mass violence only ending afterwards and more of an anomaly.
I'm fully aware, not just of that possibility but that reality, black markets often crop up to meet demand... but then how does that change things?
Is it more or less favorable to have more legally purchased guns?
Is it more or less favorable to have more illegally purchased guns?
We could get into a 'criminals prefer unarmed victims' and 'criminals don't follow laws anyway' style argument, however I'll just point go back to my point that if it were as simple as 'more guns == more deaths' as the OP seemed to be implying, then the fact that hard to get a legal gun cities having such high murder rates seems to contradict that and that there are likely other more contributive factors.
Citation please.
Are you claiming that suicide == homicide?
I ask because something on the order of ~70% of gun deaths in this country are suicides... a good number of which I would expect have some untreated mental issues... I've not seen a stat that claims that of those committing a homicide via a firearm, that at least 51% of them have untreated mental issues which played some part in it.
Or are you claiming that the victim may also have untreated mental issues?
On the contrary, I was responding to what was said... and unlike you providing additional information and the suggestion that maybe things weren't as clear cut as was being said.
First... why is it silly? Why is it silly to recognize that gun violence is not uniformly distributed across the country and instead often seen in largest #'s in certain locations? If we follow your logic to other areas, it would seem that you'd claim that economies of all of Europe be balanced out on paper to judge their collective status without noting the relative differences between say... Germany and Greece?
It's plenty easy to say X==Y or even X=>Y, and often such assertions will be accepted. Often though it's good to examine the underlying environment to see if X=>Y, or if X+(A+B+C)=>Y while X-(A+B+C) !=> Y.
'We'? Who is 'we'? Where is 'we'? Here in the US, it's relatively straight forward to get a gun in most of the states, though some states (New Jersey being the biggest) and municipalities (Chicago, DC, etc) have additional restrictions on simply purchasing/owning something.
It's funny you mention carrying... while 3 states allow largely unrestricted concealed carrying of a pistol (ie no permit required), another 39 are 'shall issue' states, which means so long as you meet the requirements and are not otherwise prohibited, you get your permit. I know hating on Texas (a state I have never been to/in) is a favorite pastime on /., it's kind of funny you mentioning them as that while a shall issue state, they are one of only six that prohibits open carrying if a pistol.
Nope, I'm still waiting to hear about 'we'.
Now we see you straying into straw man territory, where in my original post did I discuss carrying a gun? *hint* I didn't, I only brought it up now in reply to you.
To my point above, in most states a permit is not required to carry a gun... provided it is visible. And what magic does a permit bestow on a person when carrying concealed? More often than not, you as a private individual cannot tell the difference between a person carrying and not... let alone if the person carrying has a permit to carry or not. This was part of why stop and frisk was so useful, the police were better at spotting such people and removing illegally carried guns from the streets of New York City.
More so, what on earth does 'asking them' have to do with telling 'which are the crazy ones'? I've known a few disturbed people who are pretty good actors and would not show up on your radar if you asked... but that is why we have other mechanisms to check ones background... if they opt to carry concealed legally.
Yes and no... making your own gun or telling someone how to do so in the US is legal... we do have laws with regards to exporting certain things... say this rifle stock, which you could casually buy online or in person with out hassle is considered regulated under International Traffic in Arms Regulations, so you attempting to export 1-100 of them would require prior approval from the feds.
The interesting case here (which is not unlike PGP back in the day), is that we are no longer talking about potentially exporting completed items, but very detailed information as to how to construct such an item.
While encryption export controls were easy to get around in the 90's, it's even easier today... and the federal government hasn't come to recognize that yet.
Really? Where exactly is hate speech illegal in the US today? The First Amendment would seem to preclude such a thing from being enforced much, as like it or not plenty of protected hate-speech exists today... just ask anyone who has heard members of the Westboro Baptist Church speak or protest.
And no... I'm not talking about "incitement" or "fighting words", they have their own carve outs and for very explicit reasons.
Or they should go the Phillip Zimmerman route with PGP and print a few hundred copies of a book with the plans inside which anyone could type to reproduce the source code/model files... then dare the government to ban either the physical book or the free copies that are being given away online.
Yeah, damn that evil second amendment that no one can seem to do away with
Oh what a simplistic view of the world you have, if it was just about guns... why then does a hard to get gun place like Detroit or Chicago have such high shooting and murder rates... while a easy to get a gun place like Plano, TX has such a low murder rate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Yes, we don't think lives have value... which is precisely why we do not use guns to protect people, nor have certain people (lets call them police, military and body guards) carrying guns to protect others.
I'm aware of only one group in this case who was seeking to shoot people to promote their prejudices... so that must not be what I meant.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, here, let me break it down for you a little more:
You too appear to be keen on feeing your own "hate-filled little mind" with your oh so profound "Fuck all of them."
Want more?
You are quick to label Both sides here are perfect and utter shitheads and clearly trying to demonstrate that you are in fact above the fray and superior to them... yet your very tone an attitude puts you in the same gutter as those you appear to despite.
In the old days one might say "pot, meet kettle"... however your invocation of two different groups needs something else.
Was that clear enough?
Only to law abiding citizens who happen reveal they do have a firearm with them when traveling out of state:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014...
http://www.gunnews.com/new-jer...
*face palm*
1. Except that in a good chunk of Europe, there are no border checkpoints.
2. So just because we have this wonderful freedom of movement sans checkpoints... low crime areas (regardless of firearm ownership) also benefit from the freedom of movement of blame from higher crime areas where more often than not, legally acquiring a firearm is difficult? I think not.
Care to cite your baseless & clearly emotionally driven claim?
Remember that even in a warzone, the flying lead is not equally distributed so not all in the area have an equal change of getting shot. Take a virtual warzone like Chicago (a weekend with only a dozen shootings is a rarity) where there are clearly understood lines as to where your likelihood of getting shot is significantly greater on one side of the line than the other.
I'm sorry to see/hear that you really don't care about cumulative statistics and don't try to understand what areas may be affecting the total. I'll give you one... did you know that with the exception of the 2011 Tucson shooting, every single mass shooting in this country in which 3 or more people were killed occurred in a place where the shooter was not permitted to carry a weapon? That's a rather puzzling fact, isn't it? It's unlikely that a gun free zone suddenly causes people within to go shooting, but just maybe those areas where people are not generally able to defend themselves happen to attack those looking for unarmed victims. Ever consider that?
Nice attempt at diversion, alas I'm all too used to your kind.
Know what most 'gun deaths' stats like yours have in common? They include suicide, which is a bit of a misnomer when trying to prevent 'gun violence' and including those who harmed no one but themselves... or do we also include those who use pills or sharp objects in the statics for 'sleeping pills violence' & 'knife violence'?
Know what happens when you subtract suicides where a gun was used from broader 'gun death' statics... you know, when looking at crime? You end up with quite a few less gun deaths. Don't believe me? Go back to GP's Wikipedia links, here in the US we have a gun related suicide rate that is nearly 70% of all gun related deaths.
I'd ask you to stay on topic... but you are an AC so hardly worth the effort.
You don't think that qualifies as a shared mythos? The idea that they tend to be 'independent thinkers'?
As an example, in my experience most people who call themselves an 'independent' politically are actually quite easy to peg as to where they actually sit on the political spectrum, they only believe themselves 'independent'.
I keep seeing that singular case being held up as some sort of counter-proof... always lacking though is a sense of proportionality and scale.
Lemme guess, if a single Amish individual happened to stab a few people, you'd hold it up as proof that even the Amish can be violent and deadly and that blame should not be just focused on Muslims?
Your point though is largely baseless as you are talking theory, not actual reality.
No they don't, though that has long been a bigger beef for Protestants than Catholics.
Nice of you though to attempt to dictate how others should interpret their faith.
And any other hunter who sees evidence of such a thing will be quick to call the game warden, happily.
And with such an eloquent reply, you are clearly a member of such a group.
Really? Or do you want to ignore the fact of the low murder rate in easy to legally get a gun Plano, Texas (.4 per 100,000) and the highest murder rate in the hard to legally get a gun city of Detroit (54.6 per 100,000)? The numbers are striking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
I'm afraid such crimes are not uniformly distributed across the country as your stats attempt to portray, and if you exclude a few notable locations which disproportionally have rather high numbers, the national average begins to drop quickly.
Be more explicit... your righted infringe on my rights so your rights must be denied.