Mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA

[IrishLax]

Truth is that many countries that have banned guns have seen (in some cases drastic) increases in overall violent crime rates. Whether or not overall homicides rates significantly drop depends on the country.

So yes, with super restrictive gun laws (such as banning all guns) you'd have a HUGE impact on mass shootings and overall gun fatalities. But I'm not sure if that's the miracle cure that some might think it is.

One thing that always bothers me in the gun control debate is that suicides drastically skew numbers. Something like 60% of gun fatalities are suicides... but eliminating guns doesn't get rid of suicides (see: Japan). I read a Washington Post (a left leaning publication) article on this awhile ago and it was staggering just how much misinformation is spun as fact by some pundits.

Also, contrast Vermont to Baltimore, etc. ... obviously, there are more factors in play than just the presence of firearms.

 

[IrishinSyria]

He came back with manufactured bombs. You can't manufacture bombs on the spur-of-the-moment.

Yeah, I get that. Obviously there was some degree of planning. There was planning at Columbine and Aurora too though, so that doesn't really get to motive.

The tactics and backgrounds suggest terrorism.
The target suggests personalized violence.

That's all we really know.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Dude didn't just leave and grab a bomb he happened to have built at his home for no reasom, return with his wife, both fully armed and reported to be dressed in military gear, with multiple fire arms in the vehicle, because he got upset at his party.

 

[NDdomer2]

obama on tv meow.....

said mixed motives may be a part of this. WPV and Act of Terror

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I actually think that most of those things are what Obama would refer to as "common sense gun reform." I don't see any disagreement there. Why can't we do those things?

I just don't hear anyone saying that we should ban all guns. Republicans love guns. Democrats love them just a bit less.

Because people have been led to believe that any further gun legislation is the last step before the military goes door-to-door collecting every firearm they own.

Fear, as usual.

 

[kmoose]

I'm saying "common sense and recent history tells us how this story ends."

And all I am saying is that the best way to know how the story ends is to wait until the end of the story, instead of trying to extrapolate it from the events leading up to the halfway point.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I actually think that most of those things are what Obama would refer to as "common sense gun reform." I don't see any disagreement there. Why can't we do those things?

I just don't hear anyone saying that we should ban all guns. Republicans love guns. Democrats love them just a bit less.

It's more than likely the distrust factor. While I don't follow the NRA or really know much about them, I can bet their argument would be that if they were to agree to support one law, then another, and then another at some point the anti-gun establishment would move to ban as many guns as they could.

One thing we do know. Chicago and DC have or have had very high gun related murders even though they have some of the most restrictive laws on guns in this country. On the other hand, NYC has seen a pretty significant decrease in gun related murders with their highly restrictive gun laws. As Lax said, there are factors that contribute to the statistics but I don't see either side of the debate actually addressing those. Pass some of the common sense gun control measures while finding out what the factors are and work to understand and improve on that.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

This is an amazing breakdown of the gun situation in America. If you have a little time, I strongly encourage you to listen.

Some of Sam Hariss' best and has nothing to do with religion, save for a short introduction piece that's related to a previous shooting.(skip to 10:30)
The Riddle of the Gun:
http://youtu.be/I0DYpaLgWIo

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It's more than likely the distrust factor. While I don't follow the NRA or really know much about them, I can bet their argument would be that if they were to agree to support one law, then another, and then another at some point the anti-gun establishment would move to ban as many guns as they could.

One thing we do know. Chicago and DC have or have had very high gun related murders even though they have some of the most restrictive laws on guns in this country. On the other hand, NYC has seen a pretty significant decrease in gun related murders with their highly restrictive gun laws. As Lax said, there are factors that contribute to the statistics but I don't see either side of the debate actually addressing those. Pass some of the common sense gun control measures while finding out what the factors are and work to understand and improve on that.

Of course, some criminals will still be able to get guns. But Chicago laws aren't very useful if you can just take an hour drive across the Skyway to buy one in Gary. Not sure what the Indiana laws are, but you get my point

Someone above mentioned that he thought we'd only be able to stop 5% of the mass shootings. I'm in. Just because we can't stop every one doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop some of them.

Also, to your last sentence...there's currently a ban on research of gun violence. Let's stop that right now and look at all factors.

 

[pkt77242]

It's more than likely the distrust factor. While I don't follow the NRA or really know much about them, I can bet their argument would be that if they were to agree to support one law, then another, and then another at some point the anti-gun establishment would move to ban as many guns as they could.

One thing we do know. Chicago and DC have or have had very high gun related murders even though they have some of the most restrictive laws on guns in this country. On the other hand, NYC has seen a pretty significant decrease in gun related murders with their highly restrictive gun laws. As Lax said, there are factors that contribute to the statistics but I don't see either side of the debate actually addressing those. Pass some of the common sense gun control measures while finding out what the factors are and work to understand and improve on that.

Why that won't happen.

Congressional ban on gun violence research renewed - Business Insider

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

 

[wizards8507]

It's more than likely the distrust factor. While I don't follow the NRA or really know much about them, I can bet their argument would be that if they were to agree to support one law, then another, and then another at some point the anti-gun establishment would move to ban as many guns as they could.

The more compelling argument is that lawbreakers don't obey laws, by definition. Stricter gun control would make gun ownership more onerous for law-abiders, while doing nothing to prevent access to firearms for those who would do evil. The anti-gun lobby likes to use shootouts on the street as the horrifying conclusion of mass gun ownership, but I'd sure as hell rather be in a gunfight than an execution.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Why that won't happen.

Congressional ban on gun violence research renewed - Business Insider

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

It goes back to the distrust factor. If the CDC was an independent agency, void of political leanings, then study away. But that isn't the case no more than the NRA doing their studies. Study after study has mentioned assault rifles as needing to be banned yet they are used in something like less than 4% of gun related murders. So ban the 4% but leave the 96% alone? That's the politics of gun control at work. Again, some common sense laws could help and I would support those.

Find independent agencies to investigate the factors that lead to guns being used in violent crimes. Then address the factors. How can NYC see significant improvement in gun related deaths but DC and Chicago doesn't? How can a city the size of Houston, Tx have less gun related murders than comparable cities... even with Texas having some of the most lax gun laws in this country? The answer isn't "guns are the reason." It goes deeper than that.

 

[IrishLion]

Yeah, I get that. Obviously there was some degree of planning. There was planning at Columbine and Aurora too though, so that doesn't really get to motive.

The tactics and backgrounds suggest terrorism.
The target suggests personalized violence.

That's all we really know.

These things aren't mutually exclusive though. It's both.

 

[ginman]

Wow, hopefully I can add to the insanity! After we add these new laws to the books to deter these otherwise sane people who some people are calling radical Islamic terrorists....... what we need to focus in on next is this "workplace violence" aspect. What is causing all the hostility at work? Maybe we need more supportive work environments, elimination of Christmas parties that could offend some, adding anger management groups, informing employees clearly that guns and knives at work is frowned upon by management.

Not all problems can be solved by making laws or wishing the world was the way we want to see it.

 

[wizards8507]

Wow, hopefully I can add to the insanity! After we add these new laws to the books to deter these otherwise sane people who some people are calling radical Islamic terrorists....... what we need to focus in on next is this "workplace violence" aspect. What is causing all the hostility at work? Maybe we need more supportive work environments, elimination of Christmas parties that could offend some, adding anger management groups, informing employees clearly that guns and knives at work is frowned upon by management.

I'm honestly not sure if you're serious.

 

[IrishinSyria]

These things aren't mutually exclusive though. It's both.

Yeah, if I had to guess I'd say it's workplace violence inspired by Islamist rhetoric. Basically a copycat of two of the worst trends in recent American history.

 

[Booslum31]

The more compelling argument is that lawbreakers don't obey laws, by definition. Stricter gun control would make gun ownership more onerous for law-abiders, while doing nothing to prevent access to firearms for those who would do evil. The anti-gun lobby likes to use shootouts on the street as the horrifying conclusion of mass gun ownership, but I'd sure as hell rather be in a gunfight than an execution.

Yup. Events like yesterday don't exactly make me want to give up my firearms. Like the saying goes...everyone turn in their guns but take mine last.

 

[Wingman Ray]

A christmas party that he'd attended without issue for the last four years. And maybe you've seen something I haven't, but when you say "radical Muslim" I feel like you're assuming the conclusion here.

As any should.

The guy is Muslim. The guy goes to Saudi. The guy comes back starts collecting weapons. People get zapped.

I dont see any other reason to conclude anything else.

 

[Wingman Ray]

Maybe we need more supportive work environments, elimination of Christmas parties that could offend some, adding anger management groups, informing employees clearly that guns and knives at work is frowned upon by management.

Not all problems can be solved by making laws or wishing the world was the way we want to see it.

You have got to be out of your flippin mind.

Christian roots is the ONLY reason America stands out as the worlds leader in giving, support and brotherly love. You have no clue what you are talking about. Ive been to Europe. Ive walked in Russia where if you are bleeding in the streets, people just walk around you. Have you?

Mankind is a wretched, terrible thing. Self serving, self obsessed and without remorse nor care. Take God out of our lives and you will see something you truly arent prepared for.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

YChristian roots is the ONLY reason America stands out as the worlds leader in giving, support and brotherly love.

Europe doesn't have Christian roots?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The more compelling argument is that lawbreakers don't obey laws, by definition. Stricter gun control would make gun ownership more onerous for law-abiders, while doing nothing to prevent access to firearms for those who would do evil. The anti-gun lobby likes to use shootouts on the street as the horrifying conclusion of mass gun ownership, but I'd sure as hell rather be in a gunfight than an execution.

Yup. Events like yesterday don't exactly make me want to give up my firearms. Like the saying goes...everyone turn in their guns but take mine last.

The thing is, no one is seriously advocating we ban all weapons and go door-to-door forcing gun owners to turn them in. People do want there to better laws though. Most gun owners pride themselves on taking the firearm seriously and abiding by the rules. A poll stated that over 70% of NRA members would like regular background checks (no harm, no foul approach). 90% of Americans want regular background checks for gun owners. Yet where is the legislation for that? California has a ban on assault weapons, yet somehow this guy was able to still get them. Shouldn't that be investigated? Why was it so easy for him to obtain these weapons? And then you have guys like Paul Ryan who recently blocked a bill from being passed that contained legislation banning terrorist on a watch list from getting guns. WTF? Too dangerous to be on a plane, but not too dangerous to own a gun in this country? *NRA slides Mr. Ryan a check to say thanks* Or what about the Rep. in Texas (can't recall if it was the Gov. or a mayor) who said hell no to Syrian refugees...why?..."Because it's too easy for them to get guns." He blatantly admitted it!

I mean c'mon. Something seriously needs to be done. I'm not against gun owernship in the form of a rifle or pistol. But there needs to be some serious changes and it needs to start with getting the fucking NRA out of the pockets of government officials, and everyone accepting the fact that gun violence in this country is out of control.

 

[kmoose]

And then you have guys like Paul Ryan who recently blocked a bill from being passed that contained legislation banning terrorist on a watch list from getting guns. WTF? Too dangerous to be on a plane, but not too dangerous to own a gun in this country? *NRA slides Mr. Ryan a check to say thanks*

What else was in that bill, do you know?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

What else was in that bill, do you know?

I do not. But the example fit my rhetoric so I went with it.

 

[goldandblue]

I don't understand how people can be so naive.....

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I don't understand how people can be so naive.....

Towards...? Care to elaborate?

 

[EuropeanDomer22]

I'm honestly not sure if you're serious.

It actually already happened in Europe, unfortunately.

 

[goldandblue]

Towards...? Care to elaborate?

trying to come up with a million different reasons of what motivated this attack.... Some just can't seem to use logical sense in fear of not conforming to the PC movement in this country. Call me what you want.... I really think some people are afraid to apply logic in that they believe someone might get offended.

More than 1 armed gunman goes into a place filled with innocent people and begins killing them. Explosives left at scene.... Person or Persons are of middle eastern descent... All this screams Terrorism to me. As soon as I saw the pictures of the guy and his name.... coupled with the fact that it was a planned attack, Terrorist. Bar none, no doubt.

It's not hard... Workplace violence bullshit... I would like to know in how many workplace violence cases has there been multiple shooters/offenders? People eat the slop the media dishes out like it is candy.....

So, I think some people are just naive.... I think they have a magical fairytale view of the world and how they wish it would/should work. Me, I'm a dog eat dog kinda guy.

 

[Irish Insanity]

trying to come up with a million different reasons of what motivated this attack.... Some just can't seem to use logical sense in fear of not conforming to the PC movement in this country. Call me what you want.... I really think some people are afraid to apply logic in that they believe someone might get offended.

More than 1 armed gunman goes into a place filled with innocent people and begins killing them. Explosives left at scene.... Person or Persons are of middle eastern descent... All this screams Terrorism to me. As soon as I saw the pictures of the guy and his name.... coupled with the fact that it was a planned attack, Terrorist. Bar none, no doubt.

It's not hard... Workplace violence bullshit... I would like to know in how many workplace violence cases has there been multiple shooters/offenders? People eat the slop the media dishes out like it is candy.....

So, I think some people are just naive.... I think they have a magical fairytale view of the world and how they wish it would/should work. Me, I'm a dog eat dog kinda guy.

Dude. You eat dog. That's gross.

 

[wizards8507]

The thing is, no one is seriously advocating we ban all weapons and go door-to-door forcing gun owners to turn them in.

They said the same thing about Obamacare not being a backdoor path to socialized single-payer health insurance, but that was a lie, too. That's the thing about Progressives. They never stop progressing. They start with a fine idea and then, once they achieve their stated (often noble) goals, they move on to the next logical step.

Feminism:
Good goal - Women get the right to vote
Good goal - Women have fair access to education and employment
Radical agenda - Abortion on-demand, free contraception, shaming of stay-at-home moms

Alternative lifestyles:
Good goal - End violence and hostility towards homosexuals
Radical agenda - Normalize deviant behavior, lionize genital mutilation as "courageous"

Race:
Good goal - End slavery
Good goal - The Civil Rights movement
Radical agenda - Affirmative action, racial quotas, #BlackLivesMatter, #FuckThePolice

So forgive me for not buying the leftist argument that "no one is seriously advocating we ban all weapons and go door-to-door forcing gun owners to turn them in."

And before you accuse me of it, I'm not singling out that one line for comment. I'm responding to your entire post but clipped the quote to save thread clutter.

 

[MNIrishman]

They said the same thing about Obamacare not being a backdoor path to socialized single-payer health insurance, but that was a lie, too. That's the thing about Progressives. They never stop progressing. They start with a fine idea and then, once they achieve their stated (often noble) goals, they move on to the next logical step.

Feminism:
Good goal - Women get the right to vote
Good goal - Women have fair access to education and employment
Radical agenda - Abortion on-demand, free contraception, shaming of stay-at-home moms

Alternative lifestyles:
Good goal - End violence and hostility towards homosexuals
Radical agenda - Normalize deviant behavior, lionize genital mutilation as "courageous"

Race:
Good goal - End slavery
Good goal - The Civil Rights movement
Radical agenda - Affirmative action, racial quotas, #BlackLivesMatter, #FuckThePolice

So forgive me for not buying the leftist argument that "no one is seriously advocating we ban all weapons and go door-to-door forcing gun owners to turn them in."

And before you accuse me of it, I'm not singling out that one line for comment. I'm responding to your entire post but clipped the quote to save thread clutter.

If you give a politician the ability to find everyone with guns, he's not going to sit on that information and not use it indefinitely.