[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Modern semiautomatic firearms such as those used in this event are in fact designed to maximize their effectiveness in chaotic situations involving human targets.

Anything with a magazine can be used to do the very same thing, and in environments like this there is likely to be little difference in the number of casualties when the shooter has as much time as he likes to shoot people. If it is a semi-auto, pump, lever, or bolt action, the result is going to be pretty muchthe same. Magazines can be made to any capacity with minimal effort, and reloading is a matter of seconds with some practice.

Attempting to legislate the problems away by restricting weapons is not going to reduce this type of behavior, and have a minimal effect on the results. Arson and explosives will be used just like dozens of times in the past, and you will still have incredibly infrequent but horrific acts of violence.

This type of thing happens VERY infrequently, even though it might not seem like it lately. I really do not believe it is a good idea to model legislation on outliers like this. The majority of deaths and assaults due to violent crime in this country don't have anything to do with firearms.There are deep social problems that we have to face, but for some reason people think they can pass laws and make it go away.

Either you deal with the mental health problems at the root of these mass murders or you don't mess with it. Same goes for the socioeconomic drivers that cause high levels of violent crime. Fix the real problems or don't bother. Banning weapons of any type isn't going to fix this.

[evil balla 21]

As a father of 3 kids, 2 of them in elementary school, it would be any parents worst nightmare knowing that ur kids aren't even safe in school...imagine being a parent getting a phone call telling u that ur child got shot sitting in school...when my kids got home today, I hugged them so tight, this kind of senseless violence can happen anywhere....so sad, but very true!!

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

The majority of deaths and assaults due to violent crime in this country don't have anything to do with firearms.

What? Almost 70% of all murders in the US are committed with firearms.

[tsbalr120]

Originally Posted by raidenssj10

Interesting article on mass shootings http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31...ge-statistics/

It essentially compares shootings of those stopped by armed civilians to those that were stopped by police who came to the scene afterwards.

The end of the article:

"With 14 incidents stopped by police with a total of 200 dead that’s an average of about 14.3. With 15 incidents stopped by civilians and 35 dead that’s an average of 2.3.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not even in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 10 of the 15 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with an assault rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6, but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?"

It has a lot of examples backing up those facts, too

.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

What? Almost 70% of all murders in the US are committed with firearms.

There were two things combined in my staement wern't there? Deaths and assaults.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-22

If you want to try and single out murders and ignore other, far more frequent violent crime I suppose you could form an argument to fit your ends. I feel that there is an underlying cause for all of these events as a whole, and that addressing that would be a far more effective solution than trying (in vain) to eliminate a means by which a portion of a certain type is accomplished...

[chodeyg]

Huckabee has already offered his opinion that these shootings are happening because we have eliminated god from schools.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Huckabee has already offered his opinion that these shootings are happening because we have eliminated god from schools.

What good does bringing up the opinions of obviously manipulative washed up politicians do for the discussion?

[chodeyg]

What if I agree with him?

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Huckabee has already offered his opinion that these shootings are happening because we have eliminated god from schools.

But what if that god's name is Allah?

[EPAPressure]

I'd say the dissolvement of the nuclear family has more to do with violent murders in this country than allowing semi automatic firearms to be sold to civilians. If you want to fix the problem, fix the problem, don't attack it with an over sized band-aid.

[2ffu]

I think it may be time to bring back insane asylums some people can't be trusted to stay medicated on their own.

The deadliest school attack in US history was in 1927, a disgruntled janitor blew up a ****ing school. No guns were used.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

You take away the guns, it's only a matter of time before explosives are used.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

There were two things combined in my staement wern't there? Deaths and assaults.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-22

If you want to try and single out murders and ignore other, far more frequent violent crime I suppose you could form an argument to fit your ends. I feel that there is an underlying cause for all of these events as a whole, and that addressing that would be a far more effective solution than trying (in vain) to eliminate a means by which a portion of a certain type is accomplished...

If there's anything misleading, it's lumping those two together. That dilutes the very strong correlation between guns and murder -- the statistics show clearly that firearms are the deadliest weapon used in assaults. It's more than a little disingenuous to lump shootings together with fist fights.

Originally Posted by tsbalr120

.

That post amounts to several anecdotes and is far from probative. However you will note from the conclusion at the end that civilians being armed or not had little effect. The biggest effect is that civilians had the opportunity to intervene, so from that standpoint, what the shooter carries and how overwhelming his firepower matters.

The huge analytical flaw, however is that it completely ignores any consideration of civilians that tried to stop the rampages and failed. So ... what it boils down to is, that rampage shootings that are successfully stopped before they have run their course result in less deaths. No ****ing ****!

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

You take away the guns, it's only a matter of time before explosives are used.

Been seeing this argument around a lot today and it's extremely weak.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

You just have no grasp on reality. I also like how you skip over replies when proven wrong.

[EPAPressure]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

If there's anything misleading, it's lumping those two together. That dilutes the very strong correlation between guns and murder -- the statistics show clearly that firearms are the deadliest weapon used in assaults. It's more than a little disingenuous to lump shootings together with fist fights.



That post amounts to several anecdotes and is far from probative. However you will note from the conclusion at the end that civilians being armed or not had little effect. The biggest effect is that civilians had the opportunity to intervene, so from that standpoint, what the shooter carries and how overwhelming his firepower matters.

The huge analytical flaw, however is that it completely ignores any consideration of civilians that tried to stop the rampages and failed. So ... what it boils down to is, that rampage shootings that are successfully stopped before they have run their course result in less deaths. No ****ing ****!



Been seeing this argument around a lot today and it's extremely weak.

See: Ireland circa 1965-1990

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

See: Ireland circa 1965-1990

Yeah that was basically a guerrilla war. The IRA had plenty of guns.

[Volucris]

>arguing with drgonzo
>2012

please

[EPAPressure]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Yeah that was basically a guerrilla war.

Does that negate the fact that they were people willing to use any means necessary to kill others? It was an oppressive government that took away firearms from the citizens and tried to govern their every day lives in and out.

There are far, far more firearms in circulation in the U.S. right now than there were in 20th century Ireland. Do you really think violence would all of the sudden quell if we were to eliminate firearm ownership right now? There would be tens and tens of millions of guns still in private hands that were not turned in. You would see people using more explosives than ever, just like in Ireland. This is exactly what the English tried and failed miserably at, several times in several colonies, and now our own government officials are hinting at trying it here.

We have a culture of violence, not a culture of gun violence.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

If there's anything misleading, it's lumping those two together. That dilutes the very strong correlation between guns and murder -- the statistics show clearly that firearms are the deadliest weapon used in assaults. It's more than a little disingenuous to lump shootings together with fist fights.

Why is that? there is something in our culture that promotes violent criminal behavior, including murder with firearms, and that needs to be addressed. Trying to prevent murders by eliminating firearms leaves the real problem in tact and will do nothing to reduce the overall level of violence in our country.

Why do you insist on focusing on a relatively small problem, when it's primary cause is shared by much more significant ones? Shouldn't our efforts be more focused on stopping violent crime as a whole instead of murders committed with a particular weapon?

Even if assault weapon legislation is passed, it will not effect the over all murder rate with firearms in any real way. So even if your intent is to reduce murders with firearms, all of the recently proposed legislation will do nothing to effect that.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

Does that negate the fact that they were people willing to use any means necessary to kill others? It was an oppressive government that took away firearms from the citizens and tried to govern their every day lives in and out.

Tying this to gun policy is bull****. You are trying to say that normal life in the US is the same as Ireland during a period of war. They bombed people because that's how you **** with a superior force you can't beat in open conflict, see: Iraq, Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

There are far, far more firearms in circulation in the U.S. right now than there were in 20th century Ireland.

There were plenty of guns in the hand of combatants, and no shortage of shootings. Trying to say this is an example of people turning to bombs instead of banned guns is foolish.

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

Why do you insist on focusing on a relatively small problem, when it's primary cause is shared by much more significant ones? Shouldn't our efforts be more focused on stopping violent crime as a whole instead of murders committed with a particular weapon?

Guns by the numbers are still the single most commonly used weapon in aggravated assaults (note that murders are included in the count). Guns, the power they represent, and their deadliness is part and parcel of the mindset of American violence. Guns are part of the American psyche. Less deadly methods of assault aren't nearly the problem that guns are.

Death is a pretty big issue, I don't know why you are trying to downplay it. Heck two men can consent to fight each other for money, but if either one of them dies, intentionally or not, there's big trouble.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Guns by the numbers are still the single most commonly used weapon in aggravated assaults (note that murders are included in the count). Guns, the power they represent, and their deadliness is part and parcel of the mindset of American violence. Guns are part of the American psyche. Less deadly methods of assault aren't nearly the problem that guns are.

Death is a pretty big issue, I don't know why you are trying to downplay it. Heck two men can consent to fight each other for money, but if either one of them dies, intentionally or not, there's big trouble.

Why do you insist on limiting firearms and not addressing the actual underlying social issues leading to the violent behavior to begin with?