People shouldn't be allowed to play with numbers without the right training. Somebody will get hurt.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
People shouldn't be allowed to play with numbers without the right training. Somebody will get hurt.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
ROFL!
I just love this place!
Speaking of numbers and people getting hurt, 26 people died in Texas Sunday. We can't do anything about that, but we can lessen the likelihood of it happening again. And if we pay attention to our European cousins we can lessen it significantly.
"In the 18 years between 1979 and April 1996, Australia experienced 13 mass shootings (defined as having five or more victims, not including the perpetrator), in which 104 people died. In the 21 years and five months since the Port Arthur massacre and the passage of the law that followed swiftly afterward, we have seen precisely none." Fortune Magazine, Oct. 4, 2017
Now if you use the FBI measure that number increases to three. One in 2003 and two in 2014. And that's all. That's 3 in 21 years.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. using the same FBI definition we've had 378 in 2017 alone.
"In the 18 years between 1979 and April 1996, Australia experienced 13 mass shootings (defined as having five or more victims, not including the perpetrator), in which 104 people died. In the 21 years and five months since the Port Arthur massacre and the passage of the law that followed swiftly afterward, we have seen precisely none." Fortune Magazine, Oct. 4, 2017
Now if you use the FBI measure that number increases to three. One in 2003 and two in 2014. And that's all. That's 3 in 21 years.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. using the same FBI definition we've had 378 in 2017 alone.
Last edited:
It's noting that curing cancer would make disease rates better overall. It's a misleading analogy unless you want to claim that curing cancer makes all the other diseases worse.
It would be a correct analogy if the cure for cancer was to give the patient a disease that would kill them at about the same rate as cancer... then cheering about how dramatically cancer rates went down. And then when reasonable people say curing cancer that way doesn't matter, you argue vociferously "curing cancer would be a good idea even if it didn't cure anything else".
My data was very clear what deaths were counted and when.
Then you shouldn't have used mushy data to make the point.
Mass shootings are statistically insignificant within the larger context of violent crime, so making sweeping laws because of them is foolish. And don't forget that your foolishness won't ever stop until guns are banned because there will always be another mass shooting, and guns will always be able to kill a lot of people quickly.
But back to laws that would make a difference. Those that address gangs, black markets, and broken homes. Laws to fix these items are not very complicated, and they would save many more lives than mass shootings take. These aren't laws to fix the vague notion of poverty.
Mass shootings are not common in Canada - a nation with which America shares 55250 miles of border!
Canadians are allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns, but there are strict regulations for handguns and semi-automatic weapons are banned,
Its not that Canadians are inherently better people than Americans, its just that organizations like the NRA don't have a strangle hold on Canadian politics and there isn't the same access to assault rifles - whereby one disturbed individual can kill/injure dozens and even 100's of innocent men, women and children at a time!
Last edited:
No, I didn't do that, though it's peculiarly entertaining watching someone contort what I did to tell me that.
lain:So we can significantly reduce the likelihood of mass murder by firearm. If you're suggesting that doing that would simply transfer an equal harm to some other means you'd have to demonstrate that as a likelihood. So far you haven't.
Which isn't the topic, though you'd need to state how and demonstrate it with hard data. And it's significant in a personal and national sense to most Americans.
Well, be sure and do let everyone know when enough school children, concert goers, and worshipers have died to make the effort worthwhile to you.
That's as stupid as saying we'll eventually ban cars in the name of automotive safety.
Rather, I've literally said that we'll never eliminate the problem, but that we should do what we can to reasonably reduce it's likelihood. If future generations decide to end the ownership of weapons that's going to be up to them. It's not what I'm talking about and it's not what has happened in the places I'm speaking to/of. In Australia, by way of example, twenty one years have passed and the same weapons you could possess after the Port Arthur massacre are possessed today. If your understanding naturally advances it's a very, very slow advance.
Just to note for the record that Yor hasn't actually proposed a single law. Not one.
And I noted in response, now multiple times, that there are any number of issues that could also impact gun violence and I'm on board for continuing to address them. In the meantime, we should also do what we can do and what we've seen every other industrialized, Western democracy do about guns. If we do that, we won't have to compare our gun violence rates with third world nations.
He says that, but again he hasn't proposed a single one of these supposedly simple laws while I've had no problem noting particular ways to impact gun violence, from mandatory training to using the model of limiting access to certain classes of weapons and aids that make mass shootings possible.
Actually, people did do something about it. Heroes got their guns and cars and stopped the murderer doing more damage. If the people in the church had been armed — unfortunately, it seems that Texas regulations outlaw handguns in churches — even fewer people would have lost their lives.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
You remain absolutely moronic on every topic you post on.
Maybe. Or since he was leaving the church after killing all those people, maybe he'd done what he meant to. This wasn't a random shooting by someone on a spree. And they'd have been far less likely to need to if the nut hadn't been able to get his hands on that AR to begin with.
The problem with people like Stripe, well, one of the problems, is that they only begin their examination of the problem after the violence begins.
We can do better than that.
Probably true. And my mother in law was once saved by not wearing a seat belt.
Or maybe the law wouldn't have made a difference. Handgun regulations don't outlaw guns in church here. I don't know anyone who takes their gun to church though.
Here's an interesting article citing a study by Lankford that found correlation between the number of guns in a society and mass shootings. Stripe will probably say something like "grass is green" to rebut...nothing. (link)
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I'd actually agree with this point mass shootings are not the most pressing gun issue. They are the most visible and horrific tip of the iceberg, but its not where most damage is done. If you stopped the mass shootings you would save a somewhere between 100 - 300 people a year in the US, which isn't insignificant, but is dwarfed by the 9,000+ people murdered by guns and the many other gun deaths in the sates.
Law changes need to focus on the larger issue, but sensible measures to take excessive firearms or accessories out of circulation will not hamper those.
I don't see those as not very complicated issues and I think law makers all over the world are trying to solve those issues. With differing degrees of success.
For most of the rest of the word guns are not the issue as they are in the states as many countries see no issue with strict gun controls. It would seem its is a difficult issue in the states for these reasons.
1) The sheer amount of guns, a plan to reduce the 300,000,000 guns in circulation will not be easy or straight forward and will leave lots guns available for the black market.
2) The american constitution links guns and freedom in a way no other culture in the world does. Most of us have the same freedoms as Americans have apart from the right bear arms, however that is not the general perception over there.
3) The NRA and the lobbying power of the arms industry makes the most limited, logical and sensible changes to gun policy virtually impossible, democracy has been bought by a special interest group.
Those are things that make decent gun laws complex is the USA.
Only if you don't believe the reports.
:AMR:
He left because he got shot.
Therefore, something. :idunno:
Because of your precious regulations?
The problem with people like TH — well, one of the problems — is that they think violence is solved with rules.
We can do better than that.
Absolutely true.
Great.
Completely irrelevant, but fantastic.
Rules didn't save her.
Given that you have no appreciation of what the law is or how it works, we can safely ignore this.
Where is "here"?
I was talking about Texas:
| "A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, on or about the license holder's person, on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship." |
If your precious regulations had been ignored, the number of dead people might have been zero. But preferably one.
Or your counter might be that if the perp had followed the rules...
lain:That's nice.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
jgarden,
Your little political cartoon is so misleading it's almost criminal. Those guns just got up all by themselves, loaded their own magazines, went and found a person they didn't like, were mad at, or maybe just picked at random, and then aimed and fired themselves at the chosen person killing them. Like I said, it's so misleading and so mistaken it's almost criminal in intent to decieve.
If you think such duplicity/dishonesty actually improves the perception of your side of the argument you're sadly mistaken. It makes your side look like lying jerks.
Your little political cartoon is so misleading it's almost criminal. Those guns just got up all by themselves, loaded their own magazines, went and found a person they didn't like, were mad at, or maybe just picked at random, and then aimed and fired themselves at the chosen person killing them. Like I said, it's so misleading and so mistaken it's almost criminal in intent to decieve.
If you think such duplicity/dishonesty actually improves the perception of your side of the argument you're sadly mistaken. It makes your side look like lying jerks.
Meanwhile, using the FBI measure of mass shootings to tally the dead:
2013: 457
2014: 364
2015: 423
2016: 647
2017: 531 so far this year.
And the wounded:
2013: 1,176
2014: 1,213
2015: 1,387
2016: 1,781
2017: 1,619 so far this year.
Status quo is not the answer. It's time to take action before the next tally.
2013: 457
2014: 364
2015: 423
2016: 647
2017: 531 so far this year.
And the wounded:
2013: 1,176
2014: 1,213
2015: 1,387
2016: 1,781
2017: 1,619 so far this year.
Status quo is not the answer. It's time to take action before the next tally.
Doing nothing and expecting different results is a societal definition of insanity.
Support intelligent, empirically based and universal gun laws.
Support intelligent, empirically based and universal gun laws.
everready
New member
They don't have near the problems in Switzerland in Switzerland they arm their citizens to prevent crime.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Switzerland/United-States/Crime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM8_bXhPlYo
everready
*edit: Forgot this.
http://www.10zap.com/switzerland-country-with-the-lowest-crime-rate-world/
Last edited:
Is the NRA correct? How about the Pew Research data?
Yes you did. In the analogy with cancer, we were to assume "Wow, taking guns will be like a cure for cancer? Who would be against that?"
But as it turns out nothing about restricting or banning guns is anything like curing cancer. As you saw in Australia, and can be shown in every other restriction or ban like those in England Ireland or Canada, there is no correlation between gun restrictions/bans and overall crime.
ClimateSanity
New member
Canadians don't have nearly so many broken homes or fatherless homes. They don't have a segment of population that were formerly slaves that have stubbornly refused to assimilate into the larger culture whereby much of their poverty exists and from which the gang culture stems.
Mass shootings are not common in Canada - a nation with which America shares 55250 miles of border!
Canadians are allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns, but there are strict regulations for handguns and semi-automatic weapons are banned,
Its not that Canadians are inherently better people than Americans, its just that organizations like the NRA don't have a strangle hold on Canadian politics and there isn't the same access to assault rifles - whereby one disturbed individual can kill/injure dozens and even 100's of innocent men, women and children at a time!