Yet another school shooting.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Because it's not a poll tax?

It's a poll tax.

Florida is following what the voters approved

Not everything that voters approve is constitutional.

Personally think that every US citizen should be allowed to vote regardless of criminal status.

Agreed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The problem with that analogy is that there is no constitutional prohibition to just banning tobacco.

A better analogy would be to taxes on newspapers, cost of permits for holding public demonstrations, etc.

The answer (and please understand this is outside of my area of expertise) is that you could do small but not punitive taxes.

There are taxes on constitutionally protected acts and the court have been OK with it.

High Court Approves "Pole Tax" on Strip Clubs | The Texas Tribune

I don't agree with using taxes as a way to legislate something constitutionally protected away. But lets be honest, the courts are not going to be consistent on it. Those in the adult industry do not receive the same constitutional protections afforded to gun shops and manufacturers.

[flere-imsaho]

Clickbait headline, but the statistics indicate that something is very seriously wrong with policing in the U.S.: Why Are Police So Bad at Their Jobs? - The American Prospect

• "Clearance Rate" (the rate at which cases are solved) are way down
• Police budgets are way up (often making up a majority of municipal budgets
• Frequency with which police kill civilians also way up

[JPhillips]

There's really no need to debate what is or isn't constitutional. At least five of the GOP justices will overrule anything they don't like and that would include taxes on guns and ammo. In the next few weeks they're going to release a decision making it easier to carry guns in states with gun restrictions. The reality is there's really no way currently to do anything about guns because the GOP controls everything.

[BYU 14]

And when GOP officials do support something

Republican Congressman Quits Race After Backlash Over His Gun Stance

[Brian Swartz]

Good for Jacobs on both fronts.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Clickbait headline, but the statistics indicate that something is very seriously wrong with policing in the U.S

Quite so. I would say it goes way beyond policing itself to general societal attitudes about authority, the law, and so on. But there's no question we have a big and growing problem.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Clickbait headline, but the statistics indicate that something is very seriously wrong with policing in the U.S.: Why Are Police So Bad at Their Jobs? - The American Prospect

• "Clearance Rate" (the rate at which cases are solved) are way down
• Police budgets are way up (often making up a majority of municipal budgets
• Frequency with which police kill civilians also way up

There's a weird, long history to policing in this country. After prohibition, there was huge overhauls to police departments. They were mostly blamed for its failure and the subsequent rise in crime.

So the police became more professional in the aftermath. Military style chain of command, specialized departments, and focus on investigation tactics. By the 50's and 60's, they had advanced immensely and a lot of the investigative tactics/tools we see today came from that era.

As the 80's rolled in, a lot of that started to change. Community policing became the in-thing, and eventually the broken windows stuff. The focus turned to patrols and less investigative policing.

And that's kind of where we're at today as older generations from the more professional era have retired. Police departments, especially in small towns, are largely just adult day care services. A place for guys with no discernible skills to play dress-up, write some tickets, harass the local homeless, and collect a paycheck. There is no effort to investigative crimes or defend the public from actual threats (as we saw in Uvalde). There is even motivation to increase crime as it leads to more money for their departments.

It does need a massive overhaul, but reforms are nearly impossible today. Police account for some of the worst ROI of our tax dollars.

[RainMaker]

One idea that has been thrown around for years is to split the community policing and investigative divisions up.

Currently, there is little incentive for police to solve crimes that have taken place. Media rarely focuses on that stuff outside of the high profile crimes. It's expensive. And rounding up real criminals is not particularly good for business.

So splitting that up would create an incentive to investigate and solve crimes. Maybe you see higher clearance rates, rape kits tested, etc. There would be overlap, just as there is with a prosecutor and police. But you would eliminate that incentive to ignore investigative work.

[RainMaker]

The lady who was cuffed and then ran in to save her kid spoke out. She was threatened with a probation violation for speaking to the media.

The mom that ran in and saved her kids after being handcuffed in Uvalde finally spoke out. pic.twitter.com/wHNouRkCY7

— barbarism critic (luxury gay space communist arc) (@SxarletRed) June 3, 2022

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Quite so. I would say it goes way beyond policing itself to general societal attitudes about authority, the law, and so on. But there's no question we have a big and growing problem.

Kind of a chicken and the egg problem there, though, IMO. I know my interactions with police officers have changed considerably since I was a kid growing up in the 80s, and they have not changed for the better (nothing dramatic, I've never had even so much as a moving violation).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I respectfully disagree.

But getting back to Lathum's post and my response (immediately above) we may be talking about related but 2 different things. I am talking about overall gun deaths and not just specific mass shootings.

If talking about overall gun deaths, its pretty clear to me its both criminal elements and availability of guns (and for suicides, mental health).

You disagree that the presence of a gun makes the negative action (armed robbery, mass shooting, suicide) more potent? The type of weapon, or even the availability of a weapon, is immaterial to you in these cases?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The lady who was cuffed and then ran in to save her kid spoke out. She was threatened with a probation violation for speaking to the media.

The mom that ran in and saved her kids after being handcuffed in Uvalde finally spoke out. pic.twitter.com/wHNouRkCY7

— barbarism critic (luxury gay space communist arc) (@SxarletRed) June 3, 2022

I'm still so confused on the ground hierarchy. We've heard Uvalde (ISD?) police had control of the scene and chose not to go in, but they had Texas Marshals securing the perimeter and were also the ones saying to let the local woman go after she was cuffed? Idk, it shouldn't be THE focal point, but I really hope there is a full and honest breakdown of what broke down and it can be used as a case study for future events when multiple law enforcement agencies end up at a situation like this.

(PS is there a reason an active construction site was the best place to have this interview? Weird choice.)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

(PS is there a reason an active construction site was the best place to have this interview? Weird choice.)

I did see this. It's apparently a farm and where she works. The police had been threatening her about speaking out so maybe she felt more comfortable doing it in a public space.

She said she took the interview in the fields where she is a farm worker so that people could see how hard she works. She also evacuated her child’s class by giving them the okay to leave, saving lives. We keep each other safe. https://t.co/kUZBBovdb1

— muna (@Muna_Mire) June 4, 2022

[GrantDawg]

Active shooter at hospital in Goldboro, NC tonight. Third active shooting incident at a hospital this week. I guess too many schools out for aummer.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[CrimsonFox]

...and another...and another...and another...

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm still so confused on the ground hierarchy. We've heard Uvalde (ISD?) police had control of the scene and chose not to go in, but they had Texas Marshals securing the perimeter and were also the ones saying to let the local woman go after she was cuffed? Idk, it shouldn't be THE focal point, but I really hope there is a full and honest breakdown of what broke down and it can be used as a case study for future events when multiple law enforcement agencies end up at a situation like this.

(PS is there a reason an active construction site was the best place to have this interview? Weird choice.)

bahahahahaha
they're just covering their ass at this point

[Ksyrup]

But why can't we just... pic.twitter.com/3HgW7LI4NJ

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) June 6, 2022

[RainMaker]

This is gut-wrenching —

Wounded Uvalde teacher spoke to ABC News:

"One of the students from the next-door classroom was saying, 'Officer, we're in here. We're in here,'" Reyes said. "But they had already left." https://t.co/fTPycssEgr

— Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) June 7, 2022

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You disagree that the presence of a gun makes the negative action (armed robbery, mass shooting, suicide) more potent? The type of weapon, or even the availability of a weapon, is immaterial to you in these cases?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The part I disagree with is highlighted below. It is both guns and criminal elements (and mental health) when talking about gun deaths overall.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho View Post
The point of my rhetorical questions was that the guns are the problem, not the criminal elements. You literally do any of the things my questions suggest (and indeed other countries have done so) and the potentcy of the actions completed by the criminal elements (including mass shooters) is reduced. It's literally that simple.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's because the AWB was a federal law affecting all states and the Snopes article (which is really a re-printed article from The Conversation) addresses state laws.

The weakness with state laws is that they only affect that state. Illinois & Chicago, for instance, can restrict guns all they want, but it's trivially easy to go over the border to Wisconsin or Indiana to get guns if you really need them.

All of which to say, again, is that it's the guns, and specifically the widespread availability of guns, which is the problem. The root problem.

TBH I'm not following your logic. My post #2230 references 2 articles (which I generally consider reputable sources). How does your federal vs state law response invalidate the articles' findings?

Specifically, we examined the effects of four different types of gun control legislation: background checks; assault weapons bans; high-capacity magazine bans; and “extreme risk protection order” or “red flag laws” that let a court determine whether to confiscate the guns of someone deemed a threat to themselves or others.

We found that background check requirements, assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans each reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States – but only by a small amount. For instance, enacting a statewide assault weapons ban decreases the number of mass shootings in the state by one shooting every six years. And none of the four types of gun control legislation correlate with fewer total mass shooting deaths.

And laws that remove an individual’s right to own firearms if that individual poses a risk to the community do not affect the number of mass shooting events.

Several studies find that mass shooting deaths fell slightly in the decade of the federal assault weapon ban, and then rose dramatically in the decade that followed.

New research suggests that limits on large-capacity magazines play a key role.

No strong evidence shows that the ban’s presence or its end caused the change in mass shooting deaths, but many studies find a correlation.

[Edward64]

FWIW, in my travels in Malaysia and Thailand, I've spoken to 2 separate friends that worry about living and sending kids to the US because of all the gun violence (& racism). One made the decision to send her kid to UK instead of US and gun violence was one key reason.

I told them US is messed up and it's true how easy it is to buy guns. But told her I'd still send my kid to US vs UK any day.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I told them US is messed up and it's true how easy it is to buy guns. But told her I'd still send my kid to US vs UK any day.

Curious what your reasoning is for that? I ask because I have dual citizenship (England) and the UK is a very real consideration for retirement in 2-3 years if thing continue to get worse here.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The part I disagree with is highlighted below. It is both guns and criminal elements (and mental health) when talking about gun deaths overall.

A gun makes a criminal act more deadly, or a mental health issue more deadly. That is the entirety of my point.

As others are fond of pointing out, in other countries where availability of guns is very limited, you don't have mass shooters, you have, say, mass stabbers. But the kill counts are lower because a knife is not as potent as a gun.

When we ask: "why do we have a problem with so many gun deaths in the United States?" the issue is not mental health, because other countries have mental health issues. It is not "criminal elements" because other countries have that too. It's the guns.

Now, on a separate argumentative slant, you could argue (and many have) that if we just fixed the mental health issues and the crime issues, then we'd solve that part of the equation and don't need to ban guns. But crime & mental health are multi-faceted issues with many variables in play and have not been solved convincingly anywhere that I'm aware of. Guns are physical items. Like any other physical item, their availability can (political considerations aside) be restricted or even almost eradicated.

Originally Posted by Edward64

TBH I'm not following your logic. My post #2230 references 2 articles (which I generally consider reputable sources). How does your federal vs state law response invalidate the articles' findings?

Again, the article that Snopes re-posted is flawed in its premise in that it is looking at the impact of individual states' laws, which we know have limited utility in the United States because you can just typically go to the next state and buy all the guns you want.

Or, put another way, individual states are not closed systems. If the problem is the overall availability of guns, you have to look at that in the context of the country as a whole, since there are not border checkpoints between states to control the flow of firearms.

The other article you posted was on the effect of the AWB which a) others have addressed with better analysis/data and b) the article itself states that mass shootings rose dramatically following its expiry.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Curious what your reasoning is for that? I ask because I have dual citizenship (England) and the UK is a very real consideration for retirement in 2-3 years if thing continue to get worse here.

Same. Our timeline is a few years further out, but we're actively considering. The fact that we lived there for ~5 years back in the day and still have plenty of friends there is of course part of the equation.

It's not just the shootings. I'm not sure I want to live in a country where Alito controls SCOTUS, DeSantis controls the Executive, and McCarthy & Cruz control Congress.

I'm not saying the UK is a panacea or that it doesn't have its problems, but we asked ourselves this question 20 years ago before we had kids and decided the US was the better place to settle and raise a family. In the intervening years (and especially the last 10) the U.S. has zoomed past the UK in a race to become a dystopian hellhole.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Curious what your reasoning is for that? I ask because I have dual citizenship (England) and the UK is a very real consideration for retirement in 2-3 years if thing continue to get worse here.

There are definitely different considerations for retirement vs college & future opportunities. This was in context of her kid going to college and immigrating after.

I told my friend, there are definitely more shootings in US than in the western world. But the odds are very low that your kid will be involved assuming he doesn't become a criminal.

Brexit has likely limited/hurt economic growth and there's no longer that carrot of EU membership, ease of working & travel where ever in the EU.

The gun issue does not outweigh the endless potential & opportunities for her kid in US. I told her I believe that most legal immigrants, with hard work, education, staying out of trouble, and some luck can rise above their parents level and onto the next rung. (Still the land of opportunity baby)

Regarding racism & bigotry, it exists everywhere and told her that her Thai son will not bear near the brunt of it in the US (especially since he is going into engineering field and presumably will have a stable job). The bigotry here is (fair or not) the perception that someone is different & not assimilating, getting handouts and not carrying their own weight.

And finally, food. She's been to the UK and US, and agrees UK food is not as good as what is available in the US. It was funny, she said her favorite US restaurant was Cracker Barrel, go figure. We talked about the catfish plate, pot roast, the biscuits etc.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Same. Our timeline is a few years further out, but we're actively considering. The fact that we lived there for ~5 years back in the day and still have plenty of friends there is of course part of the equation.

It's not just the shootings. I'm not sure I want to live in a country where Alito controls SCOTUS, DeSantis controls the Executive, and McCarthy & Cruz control Congress.

I'm not saying the UK is a panacea or that it doesn't have its problems, but we asked ourselves this question 20 years ago before we had kids and decided the US was the better place to settle and raise a family. In the intervening years (and especially the last 10) the U.S. has zoomed past the UK in a race to become a dystopian hellhole.

TBH we talked about guns & racism. The other politics really didn't come into the discussion.

In Thailand, they experience coups (had 13 successful and nine unsuccessful coups in just over a century. The most recent being in 2014), current King who was a playboy and lived in Europe before dad died and openly has a "consort" (so not a lot of respect), bigotry against dark skin Thais (not sure if it rises to racism though) exists everywhere, questionable & corrupt justice system, supposedly X families that own or can influence most of the economy etc. you get the idea.

This isn't to explain why US is better than UK. It's to explain why some things we find a big deal in the US is really not top of mind for Thais ... because they experience them also (and more, except for the gun violence).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A gun makes a criminal act more deadly, or a mental health issue more deadly. That is the entirety of my point.

As others are fond of pointing out, in other countries where availability of guns is very limited, you don't have mass shooters, you have, say, mass stabbers. But the kill counts are lower because a knife is not as potent as a gun.

When we ask: "why do we have a problem with so many gun deaths in the United States?" the issue is not mental health, because other countries have mental health issues. It is not "criminal elements" because other countries have that too. It's the guns.

This is where we obviously differ. To me guns are a tool and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Get rid of (or significantly reduce) the people element (e.g. criminals and mentally unstable) and the problem is reduced significantly.

Yes, there will be law abiding citizens that becomes non-law abiding (same with mental health) so it won't ever be perfect.

What is the % of gun deaths that are done by suicide? In 2020, 54%

What is the % of gun deaths that are caused by criminals? In 2020, murders were 43%. However, not able to find % were done felons vs law abiding citizens so the 43% is overstated ... but my guess is murders caused by criminals far exceed murders caused by law abiding citizens.

Gun deaths in the U.S.: 10 key questions answered | Pew Research Center

Now, on a separate argumentative slant, you could argue (and many have) that if we just fixed the mental health issues and the crime issues, then we'd solve that part of the equation and don't need to ban guns. But crime & mental health are multi-faceted issues with many variables in play and have not been solved convincingly anywhere that I'm aware of. Guns are physical items. Like any other physical item, their availability can (political considerations aside) be restricted or even almost eradicated.

Gun ownership is multi-faceted also with many variables. I'm all for restricting (devils in the details of course but more can be done) but eradicating?

Why penalize the vast majority of law abiding gun owners? If you tell me the vast number of gun deaths are caused by law abiding guns owners (not criminal elements or mentally unstable) or their guns are stolen and the cause for large majority of murders, then I see your point. But that is not the case.

Go ahead and get rid of guns from criminals and mentally unstable first, let see how that works, and then let's have the discussion re: law abiding gun owners. Why unarm law abiding citizens first?

Again, the article that Snopes re-posted is flawed in its premise in that it is looking at the impact of individual states' laws, which we know have limited utility in the United States because you can just typically go to the next state and buy all the guns you want.

Or, put another way, individual states are not closed systems. If the problem is the overall availability of guns, you have to look at that in the context of the country as a whole, since there are not border checkpoints between states to control the flow of firearms.

The other article you posted was on the effect of the AWB which a) others have addressed with better analysis/data and b) the article itself states that mass shootings rose dramatically following its expiry.

Honestly don't really see how this invalidates both studies. The ease of gun availability from one state to another does not IMO invalidate the ultimate findings. If you have a link with the rebuttal, please post it. Re: the second article, it says there was correlation but not necessarily causation.

We'll agree to disagree.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A gun makes a criminal act more deadly, or a mental health issue more deadly. That is the entirety of my point.

As others are fond of pointing out, in other countries where availability of guns is very limited, you don't have mass shooters, you have, say, mass stabbers. But the kill counts are lower because a knife is not as potent as a gun.


.

This literally just happened in Germany. Guy drove his car in to a crowd. 1 dead, 8 injured. Give the same guy an AR-15 and it is Mandalay Bay all over again.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Why penalize the vast majority of law abiding gun owners? .

Because we exist in a society where there are literally hundreds of laws designed to protect people by limiting others freedoms.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This is where we obviously differ. To me guns are a tool and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Get rid of (or significantly reduce) the people element (e.g. criminals and mentally unstable) and the problem is reduced significantly.

So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

Not to mention do you honestly think those on the right have any interest at all in actually reducing the number of guns in circulation?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Because we exist in a society where there are literally hundreds of laws designed to protect people by limiting others freedoms.

If your argument is have more gun control, I'm all for it. Flere's post hinted at "eradicating" and Brian said "all".

So you are okay with essentially removing all guns from law abiding citizens?

(Simple & direct question, not a trick one. Answer however you want with whatever caveats)

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If your argument is have more gun control, I'm all for it. Flere's post hinted at "eradicating" and Brian said "all".

So you are okay with essentially removing all guns from law abiding citizens?

(Simple & direct question, not a trick one. Answer however you want with whatever caveats)

lets be honest, there will never be more gun control so given the choice between status quo and removing all guns I'll take the later.

[Lathum]

Regarding the UK. My wifes sister and her family live there and love it. Would never move back. If wife and I peace out together my kids get shipped to the UK to live with them and I am totally good with that. It really isn't hard to read the writing on the wall where the US is headed, now as an upper middle class white guy I will be fine, but I still don't like it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

Not to mention do you honestly think those on the right have any interest at all in actually reducing the number of guns in circulation?

There is no doubt people use guns to kill other people. The availability of guns is definitely a contributor. My point is it is not the sole cause. It is the availability of guns, it is also criminal elements, it is the mentally unstable and way down the list if law abiding citizens.

You are clumping all the "right" together. I assume you are talking about politicians on the right. If so, you are correct, there is not enough GOP will to make it happen.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

lets be honest, there will never be more gun control so given the choice between status quo and removing all guns I'll take the later.

Er? The scenarios in order of likelihood are (1) current status quo (2) more gun control and way way down the list is (3) removing all guns.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So you are okay with essentially removing all guns from law abiding citizens?

I'm OK with single shot firearms that require a manual reload for hunting purposes. Where you likely need multiple shots (e.g. hunting moose in my home state of Maine), adjust the licensing so that there's a primary license holder but multiple people can contribute to the kill simultaneously, again with single shot, manual reload weapons.

I'm also OK with a wide variety of firearms being available for fun/sport purposes as long as they are restricted to designated locations (e.g. shooting ranges) and are locked up by licensed professionals at that location when not in use.

Originally Posted by Edward64

There is no doubt people use guns to kill other people. The availability of guns is definitely a contributor. My point is it is not the sole cause. It is the availability of guns, it is also criminal elements, it is the mentally unstable and way down the list if law abiding citizens.

Again, no one's saying it's the sole cause of gun crime. What we're saying is that it is overwhelmingly the reason that gun-related crime racks up so many deaths. You simply can't kill as many people, as fast, with a knife as you can with a gun. Because the gun is purpose-designed to kill things quickly.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Again, no one's saying it's the sole cause of gun crime. What we're saying is that it is overwhelmingly the reason that gun-related crime racks up so many deaths. You simply can't kill as many people, as fast, with a knife as you can with a gun. Because the gun is purpose-designed to kill things quickly.

I may have misunderstood your post below then. It seemed to me you were saying that guns are "the" problem and did not concede there were other contributing factors.

There is no doubt guns enable you to kill more people with a semi-automatic than with a knife.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho View Post
The point of my rhetorical questions was that the guns are the problem, not the criminal elements. You literally do any of the things my questions suggest (and indeed other countries have done so) and the potentcy of the actions completed by the criminal elements (including mass shooters) is reduced. It's literally that simple.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm OK with single shot firearms that require a manual reload for hunting purposes. Where you likely need multiple shots (e.g. hunting moose in my home state of Maine), adjust the licensing so that there's a primary license holder but multiple people can contribute to the kill simultaneously, again with single shot, manual reload weapons.

I'm also OK with a wide variety of firearms being available for fun/sport purposes as long as they are restricted to designated locations (e.g. shooting ranges) and are locked up by licensed professionals at that location when not in use.

(You are missing self defense aspect in your list above. Single shot may work but I would like more than 1 bullet)

Just for some context on where I'm at, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is eliminate all guns and 1 is no gun laws ... I think status quo is probably a 4. Close those loopholes on background checks and gun sales, limit magazine size, compulsory training, have better mental health checks during background checks (and all the things I think most non-politicians can agree to) and we go to a 7.

What you are proposing for single shot takes it up to a 9 and I would be opposed to it.

Why not start with non-law abiding citizens first or mentally unstable? Why restrict my ability to own a weapon (to the extent of just single-shot). The only justification I can see is (1) if you think there is a bunch of law abiding citizens that become non-law abiding murderers just like that or (2) criminal elements steal a lot of weapons from law abiding citizens for their crimes.

[NobodyHere]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/arme...t-justice.html

[Kodos]

To put it simply, if the choice is maintain the status quo or ban all guns, it's an easy choice for me. Ban them all if those are the only two options.

That, of course, will never happen. But if I were the benevolent dictator and those were the only two options available...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/arme...t-justice.html

I'm surprised this hasn't happened more often.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I may have misunderstood your post below then. It seemed to me you were saying that guns are "the" problem and did not concede there were other contributing factors.

When it comes to why gun crime happens, there are many contributing factors.

When it comes to the frequency of gun crime, there are other contributing factors, but availability of guns is the primary factor. The word "gun" is in the phrase "gun crime", after all.

When it comes to the potency of gun crime (i.e. casualties), guns are the problem.

Originally Posted by Edward64

(You are missing self defense aspect in your list above. Single shot may work but I would like more than 1 bullet)

The statistics around successful self-defense with a gun are so low as to be immaterial to the debate (see page 12).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There is no doubt people use guns to kill other people. The availability of guns is definitely a contributor. My point is it is not the sole cause. It is the availability of guns, it is also criminal elements, it is the mentally unstable and way down the list if law abiding citizens.

You are clumping all the "right" together. I assume you are talking about politicians on the right. If so, you are correct, there is not enough GOP will to make it happen.

You never answered the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings...Australia and the UK virtually banned guns following mass shootings and since there have been near zero mass shootings, but I'm sure thats just a coincidence.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You never answered the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings...Australia and the UK virtually banned guns following mass shootings and since there have been near zero mass shootings, but I'm sure thats just a coincidence.

They don't play video games, obviously

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You never answered the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings...Australia and the UK virtually banned guns following mass shootings and since there have been near zero mass shootings, but I'm sure thats just a coincidence.

You're not getting an answer to that one.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You're not getting an answer to that one.

you never do....

[JPhillips]

We know how to stop shootings, ban guns and make buybacks mandatory. That won't happen, though, because the GOP position is now that no gun control laws can be passed because someday they may want to start killing people and overthrow the government.

It's madness.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You never answered the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings...Australia and the UK virtually banned guns following mass shootings and since there have been near zero mass shootings, but I'm sure thats just a coincidence.

Funny, I was waiting for you to answer my question first. Your answer below was based on a weird assumption that we can never get anymore gun control and therefore you were okay with banning all guns. That assumption seemed invalid to me so didn't take you seriously.

lets be honest, there will never be more gun control so given the choice between status quo and removing all guns I'll take the later.

I thought my answer was similar to yours in kind.

There is no doubt people use guns to kill other people. The availability of guns is definitely a contributor. My point is it is not the sole cause. It is the availability of guns, it is also criminal elements, it is the mentally unstable and way down the list if law abiding citizens.

But I'll take that as a trick question to put me on the defensive ...

So my counter trick question is how does a gun fire by itself?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

you never do....

That's what I was thinking about why start with law abiding citizens first.