Another Shooting

[IrishLion]

Only the good guys with trench coats can defeat the bad guys with trench coats.

 

[Cackalacky]

We need a security guard for everyone who wears a trench coat.

 

[ACamp1900]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">But won’t this stop law-abiding citizens from getting trench coats? If a bad guy wants a trench coat they’ll just find a way to get one. <a href="https://t.co/awWUIS15mj">https://t.co/awWUIS15mj</a></p>— Alex Wind (@al3xw1nd) <a href="https://twitter.com/al3xw1nd/status/998988724762566658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Mind blowing....

 

[Legacy]

Be of good cheer. Those matriculating Santa Fe H.S. students continuing their higher education at Texas public universities will be protected on campus by those students with concealed carry handgun permits.

Laws Concerning Carrying Concealed Firearms on Campus in Texas (Armed Campuses)

Campus Concealed Carry - UT-Austin specifics

Texas legislators have considered Open Carry without a permit in the state for anyone over 18.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Clearly, you are a firearm wizard. This is the other reason gun owners shut down when people who clearly don't know guns try to tell them that they should sacrifice their rights.

Or it's 11:00 at night and just a typo after a long day.

It's a neckbeard move to shoot down an argument on the basis of grammar/spelling/tTypo.

Yes, criminals break laws. So why pass more laws that only burden the law-abiding and will have nil impact on criminals? That's not supporting anarchy, that is opposing overreaching laws that unnecessarily infringe on our rights.

Who says they'll have nil impact?

 

[IrishSteelhead]

But with a trench coat ban, how will HS kids know who to bully?

 

[loomis41973]

But with a trench coat ban, how will HS kids know who to bully?

More importantly....what will I wear to go flashing?

 

[drayer54]

A pretty wonderful display of how it's impossible to have a gun conversation without someone immediately jumping to, essentially, "it's a slippery slope and eventually they'll ban everything."

None of the proposals that were pushed after Florida would have stopped the Texas shooting. So imagine we propose those.

Then Texas happens. Then we pass more?

What about the next one? At what point is it no longer 'common sense' or for the children to keep chipping away at 2A?? We just ban away and never address the real issue with these people until how many of my rights get stripped away in the name of feel-good legislation designed to hack away at a real right.

Me personally, I am not interested in budging an inch on anything that weakens the First, Second or Fourth Amendment.

You want an AR-15? Cool, show me your certified gun safe.

*21 to buy a gun
*8-round clip law
*Pass a mandatory national background check (no violent crimes)
*Must own a gun safe

Stephen Paddock fired 1,100 rounds in his shooting. He had some magazines holding 100-round clips. It can't hurt to make those harder to obtain.

Or it's 11:00 at night and just a typo after a long day.

It's a neckbeard move to shoot down an argument on the basis of grammar/spelling/tTypo.

You mention 'clip' bans twice. Typo or conceptual error?

 

[Cackalacky]

None of the proposals that were pushed after Florida would have stopped the Texas shooting. So imagine we propose those.

Then Texas happens. Then we pass more?

What about the next one? At what point is it no longer 'common sense' or for the children to keep chipping away at 2A?? We just ban away and never address the real issue with these people until how many of my rights get stripped away in the name of feel-good legislation designed to hack away at a real right.

Me personally, I am not interested in budging an inch on anything that weakens the First, Second or Fourth Amendment.

You mention 'clip' bans twice. Typo or conceptual error?

This is essentially what I like to call the "God of the Gaps" fallacy combined with the divine fallacy.
AS scientific data and observations lead to an incontrovertible conclusion, the spaces left between the facts gets smaller leaving very little room for people to hide in their arguments that are counter to what the facts show. Hence why all the gun supporters have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at trying to explain why we have a gun problem that doesnt involve guns... video games, music, doors, Ritalin, participation trophies, no dads....This lits gets more ridiculous becasue the defense gets more ridiculous and the options get smaller every time something happens.

The divine fallacy is an informal fallacy that often happens when people say something must be the result of superior, divine, alien or supernatural cause because it is unimaginable for it not to be so.[1] A similar fallacy, known as argument from incredulity, appeal to common sense, or personal incredulity,[2] asserts that because something is so incredible or difficult to imagine, it is wrong. Arguments from incredulity are called non sequiturs.[3] Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.[4]
Arguments from incredulity happen when people make their inability to comprehend or make sense of a concept their argument

The divine portion of this is where one fails to see a possible solution or set of solutions (or a willingness to accept a possible solution or set of solutions) is possible and therefore the proposed outcomes are unobtainable and pointless.

 

[drayer54]

This is essentially what I like to call the "God of the Gaps" fallacy combined with the divine fallacy.
AS scientific data and observations lead to an incontrovertible conclusion, the spaces left between the facts gets smaller leaving very little room for people to hide in their arguments that are counter to what the facts show. Hence why all the gun supporters have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at trying to explain why we have a gun problem that doesnt involve guns... video games, music, doors, Ritalin, participation trophies, no dads....This lits gets more ridiculous becasue the defense gets more ridiculous and the options get smaller every time something happens.


The divine portion of this is where one fails to see a possible solution or set of solutions (or a willingness to accept a possible solution or set of solutions) is possible and therefore the proposed outcomes are unobtainable and pointless.

It’s simple to me. I will not accept the premise that we must accept bans, restrictions, and sacrifice a little more freedom every time something bad happens or someone gets scared. I dedicate a lot of my time to advocacy on this topic and am pretty passionate about individual liberty. My logic and yours may not align and you can call it whatever you want.

The Second Amendment is the right that preserves all our other rights. It’s clear that myself and others on here just aren’t going to agree. I respect you all, but we must just disagree here.

 

[Irishize]

This is essentially what I like to call the "God of the Gaps" fallacy combined with the divine fallacy.
AS scientific data and observations lead to an incontrovertible conclusion, the spaces left between the facts gets smaller leaving very little room for people to hide in their arguments that are counter to what the facts show. Hence why all the gun supporters have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at trying to explain why we have a gun problem that doesnt involve guns... video games, music, doors, Ritalin, participation trophies, no dads....This lits gets more ridiculous becasue the defense gets more ridiculous and the options get smaller every time something happens.

Could it be because the items you just listed have become a glaring issue this generation where it was unheard of or only a blip on the radar in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? Guns were readily available (maybe moreso) back then than they are now so that has seemed to stay constant. However, a person who thinks banning guns will solve violence is myopic and missing the forest through the trees.

I’ll try to find Malcolm Gladwell’s piece on the rise of school shootings & why they will unfortunately continue.

EDIT: found the Gladwell article. I encourage all to read it. Very interesting.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

 

[Cackalacky]

It’s simple to me. I will not accept the premise that we must accept bans, restrictions, and sacrifice a little more freedom every time something bad happens or someone gets scared. I dedicate a lot of my time to advocacy on this topic and am pretty passionate about individual liberty. My logic and yours may not align and you can call it whatever you want.

The Second Amendment is the right that preserves all our other rights. It’s clear that myself and others on here just aren’t going to agree. I respect you all, but we must just disagree here.

And this is why its pointless to argue or discuss it with you (general you). My and others main point is that there are reasonable limits on all of our enumerated (and non-enumerated) rights becasue taken to the extreme, exercising one's individual rights can (does) cause massive public damage to citizens and property and to have a stable society, limitations are placed on these individual rights so as to have a sensible status quo.

For example there are limitations to the 1st Amendment;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Scalia on 2nd Amendment

But even though the 5-4 majority ruling makes an intellectual end run around the language of the Second Amendment to get to their ruling, they very clearly state that society (government, convened to collectively protect us from what we can’t protect ourselves from as individuals) has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles. Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting.

4th Amendment - there are certainly limitations to one's expectations of privacy, especially in public areas.

5th Amendment

Limits to the Fifth

Though the Fifth Amendment offers broad protections, there are limits to its use. An important exception was added in 1984, when the U.S. Supreme Court found, in New York v. Quarles, that if public safety is at immediate risk, a suspect's statements are admissible in court, even if his or her Miranda rights have not been explained.

And in an important child-abuse case, Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Jacqueline Bouknight, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that a parent with limited custody rights cannot refuse to tell a judge the child's whereabouts. Protections against self-incrimination did not apply because of the immediate risk to the safety of the child.

I can go on but almost all limitations derived through our legal system are based on protecting our society (public safety, general public welfare) en masse.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Could it be because the items you just listed have become a glaring issue this generation where it was unheard of or only a blip on the radar in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? Guns were readily available (maybe moreso) back then than they are now so that has seemed to stay constant. However, a person who thinks banning guns will solve violence is myopic and missing the forest through the trees.

I’ll try to find Malcolm Gladwell’s piece on the rise of school shootings & why they will unfortunately continue.

EDIT: found the Gladwell article. I encourage all to read it. Very interesting.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

Concur. Great article.

 

[NorthDakota]

And this is why its pointless to argue or discuss it with you (general you). My and others main point is that there are reasonable limits on all of our enumerated (and non-enumerated) rights becasue taken to the extreme, exercising one's individual rights can (does) cause massive public damage to citizens and property and to have a stable society, limitations are placed on these individual rights so as to have a sensible status quo.

For example there are limitations to the 1st Amendment;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Scalia on 2nd Amendment


4th Amendment - there are certainly limitations to one's expectations of privacy, especially in public areas.

5th Amendment


I can go on but almost all limitations derived through our legal system are based on protecting our society (public safety, general public welfare) en masse.

3D printers can print magazines. Big ones. Little ones. Trying to regulate the number of rounds is a waste of time.

 

[Cackalacky]

Could it be because the items you just listed have become a glaring issue this generation where it was unheard of or only a blip on the radar in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? Guns were readily available (maybe moreso) back then than they are now so that has seemed to stay constant. However, a person who thinks banning guns will solve violence is myopic and missing the forest through the trees.

I’ll try to find Malcolm Gladwell’s piece on the rise of school shootings & why they will unfortunately continue.

EDIT: found the Gladwell article. I encourage all to read it. Very interesting.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

These are all excuses put forth by gun rights advocates as deflection over the last few decades. These all have zero credibility becasue all other countries have these exact same things and do not have a problem like America does. There is no supporting evidence to support any of these idiotic excuses.

Has the culture changed from the 1960's? Yes absolutely. Guns have gotten more powerful, more lethal, cheaper and more accessible to people of all ages. These are absolutely the things that have occurred that the gun rights advocates are deflecting away from by blaming too many doors.

The gun regulations groups have not really changed their arguments at all over the last few decades. Its the gun rights advocates who have been changing their excuses to suit the situation. Not the other way around.

 

[NorthDakota]

Not really sure guns have gotten more powerful in any meaningful sense.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

These are all excuses put forth by gun rights advocates as deflection over the last few decades. These all have zero credibility becasue all other countries have these exact same things and do not have a problem like America does. There is no supporting evidence to support any of these idiotic excuses.

Has the culture changed from the 1960's? Yes absolutely. Guns have gotten more powerful, more lethal, cheaper and more accessible to people of all ages. These are absolutely the things that have occurred that the gun rights advocates are deflecting away from by blaming too many doors.

The gun regulations groups have not really changed their arguments at all over the last few decades. Its the gun rights advocates who have been changing their excuses to suit the situation. Not the other way around.

Check out the article he posted, Cack.

Also, just recently, there's reference to it in this one: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/

This isn't just about guns. This is a very complicated issue. See this thread that Whiskey posted a while back:

This Twitter thread makes a similar point:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Some thoughts on why we and our institutions may be failing to deal with mass shootings because we approach them as part of broader problems, not as a distinct and self-perpetuating plague.</p>— Ari Schulman (@AriSchulman) <a href="https://twitter.com/AriSchulman/status/964614619523362816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

When you initiate scientific research using control groups to resolve issues to answer particular questions that would impact on legislation, you have to be ready for whatever results that research concludes. YJ, I believe, felt we have enough research. Bishop, I believe, asked about keeping a gun in the home and felt it would not be expedient if not loaded. It also has implications for solutions to Gladwell's Thresholds of Violence

There was a landmark study twenty-five years ago that answered his question and which has been known in health care and in gun rights circles.

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home (New England Journal of Medicine)

Abstract
BACKGROUND
It is unknown whether keeping a firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent crime in the home. To study risk factors for homicide in the home, we identified homicides occurring in the homes of victims in three metropolitan counties.

You are free to analyze its results, which have been replicated. Other studies over thirty year periods and published in Public Health journals that address other aspects of gun ownership with homicides and suicides.

The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
(American Journal of Public Health)

Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates Among US Men and Women, 1981–2013

There are many more, but the scientific conclusions of all these research studies are that gun ownership increases the risk of homicides and suicides. Further, the reduction in the prevalence of gun ownership will reduce the number of homicides and suicides in the U.S. Suicides generally account for 60% of gun deaths in states.

The gun lobbies, gun manufacturers and gun rights advocates in Congress were so alarmed about the results of these studies that they passed two Amendments - The Dickey Amendment forbidding the CDC from conducting research (posted before) and the Tiahart Amendment that prohibit:

- the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing firearm trace data for use by cities, states, researchers, litigants and members of the public;
- Require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to destroy all approved gun purchaser records within 24 hours; and
- Prohibit ATF from requiring gun dealers to submit their inventories to law enforcement

We really don't need further studies, though private researchers continue to give further insight into the dangers of gun ownership. In applying this to Gladwell's Threshold of Violence, those teenagers who have access to guns will continue to commit school shooting with family ownership of guns and with exposure to loaded guns in the household for self-defense in addition to increased homicides, suicides and domestic violence homicides. This contradicts the beliefs of some, but is well researched and accurate. Congress was convinced.

Statistics also show that the most dangerous states for homicide rates are those with lax gun laws.

The gun rights lobbyists and those legislators in Congress and in the states work in the opposite direction to make guns more available, to deregulate military style weapons, keep the gun show loophole for private sales, and are working to make guns obtained at gun shows legally able to cross state borders impacting states with strong gun control laws and low rates of gun deaths.

Feel free to look at the research critically. Read the references. This is not just about gun accessibility, but is a social issue that involves all of us and just can't be mandated. We all need to think about these issues contributing to gun violence.

 

[Cackalacky]

Check out the article he posted, Cack.

Also, just recently, there's reference to it in this one: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/

This isn't just about guns. This is a very complicated issue. See this thread that Whiskey posted a while back:

I did. I guess I am missing the point. Nothing in that article dispels the simple conclusion fact that access to powerful and lethal guns is far too easy for anyone. IT ultimately is about access and the massive lethality of modern guns and the fact that US is awash with guns.

All other countries have these same people with the same problems with the same societal ills brought on by Western Philosophy. They do lack one thing... the deification of the 2nd Amendment. We lack two things they have... strict gun regs and far fewer guns.

Sure its complicated on individual cases. No one is arguing against that. I am certainly not. But its clear what the ACTUAL problem is. Everything else is noise or an excuse.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I did. I guess I am missing the point. Nothing in that article dispels the simple conclusion fact that access to powerful and lethal guns is far too easy for anyone. IT ultimately is about access and the massive lethality of modern guns and the fact that US is awash with guns.

All other countries have these same people with the same problems with the same societal ills brought on by Western Philosophy. They do lack one thing... the deification of the 2nd Amendment. We lack two things they have... strict gun regs and far fewer guns.

Sure its complicated on individual cases. No one is arguing against that. I am certainly not. But its clear what the ACTUAL problem is. Everything else is noise or an excuse.

What is "actual" problem though?

Since '94 gun ownership rates have dropped by something like 35%. Homicide rates in the same time frame have dropped by 50%. Yet active shooters and mass shooters have increased.

There was a time period when the U.S. was still the world leader in gun ownership but had very few, if any, mass shootings the ones we see today. Gladwell is simply referencing the studies done on what is essentially a domino effect, not that of copy cats, but of a behavioral threshold. The more shootings that happen, the more media coverage the shooters get, the other troubled people may decide to "join the riot."

I just find this issue to be extremely complicated and multi-faceted.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

When you initiate scientific research using control groups to resolve issues to answer particular questions that would impact on legislation, you have to be ready for whatever results that research concludes. YJ, I believe, felt we have enough research. Bishop, I believe, asked about keeping a gun in the home and felt it would not be expedient if not loaded. It also has implications for solutions to Gladwell's Thresholds of Violence

There was a landmark study twenty-five years ago that answered his question and which has been known in health care and in gun rights circles.

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home (New England Journal of Medicine)



You are free to analyze its results, which have been replicated. Other studies over thirty year periods and published in Public Health journals that address other aspects of gun ownership with homicides and suicides.

The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
(American Journal of Public Health)

Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates Among US Men and Women, 1981–2013

There are many more, but the scientific conclusions of all these research studies are that gun ownership increases the risk of homicides and suicides. Further, the reduction in the prevalence of gun ownership will reduce the number of homicides and suicides in the U.S. Suicides generally account for 60% of gun deaths in states.

The gun lobbies, gun manufacturers and gun rights advocates in Congress were so alarmed about the results of these studies that they passed two Amendments - The Dickey Amendment forbidding the CDC from conducting research (posted before) and the Tiahart Amendment that prohibit:


We really don't need further studies, though private researchers continue to give further insight into the dangers of gun ownership. In applying this to Gladwell's Threshold of Violence, those teenagers who have access to guns will continue to commit school shooting with family ownership of guns and with exposure to loaded guns in the household for self-defense in addition to increased homicides, suicides and domestic violence homicides. This contradicts the beliefs of some, but is well researched and accurate. Congress was convinced.

Statistics also show that the most dangerous states for homicide rates are those with lax gun laws.

The gun rights lobbyists and those legislators in Congress and in the states work in the opposite direction to make guns more available, to deregulate military style weapons, keep the gun show loophole for private sales, and are working to make guns obtained at gun shows legally able to cross state borders impacting states with strong gun control laws and low rates of gun deaths.

Feel free to look at the research critically. Read the references. This is not just about gun accessibility, but is a social issue that involves all of us and just can't be mandated. We all need to think about these issues contributing to gun violence.

The CDC has also buried data that supports defensive use of firearms. So...

 

[Cackalacky]

What is "actual" problem though?

Since '94 gun ownership rates have dropped by something like 35%. Homicide rates in the same time frame have dropped by 50%. Yet active shooters and mass shooters have increased.

There was a time period when the U.S. was still the world leader in gun ownership but had very few, if any, mass shootings the ones we see today. Gladwell is simply referencing the studies done on what is essentially a domino effect, not that of copy cats, but of a behavioral threshold. The more shootings that happen, the more media coverage the shooters get, the other troubled people may decide to "join the riot."

I just find this issue to be extremely complicated and multi-faceted.

The actual problem is access and lethality of modern guns for sale. There is little defense against someone fitted with multiple high capacity guns who commits a sudden attack.

Gun ownership rates are falling That is true. Also gun sales have increased exponentially. How is that possible? Guns are concentrating in the hands of those people who deify the 2nd Amendment or are being distributed illegally. These people own way more guns than they need.That is a very clear trend.

Further, access to guns is ridiculously easy, whether its a 13 yo being able to buy a gun at a gun show no questions asked, or they are unlocked at home. Point is, its too easy to get MULTIPLE guns with HUGE CAPACITIES if someone (mentally ill, broken-hearted, scared, bullied etc) to commit a killing.

The point of regs is not to STOP ALL INCIDENTS FROM OCCURRING. No one is claiming that is the goal although its a common strawman from the gun rights advocates.

The point of the proposed regs is to limit ( as much as possible) the death dealt out by a person who does choose to carry out such activities for whatever reason.

TO be clear....as a comparison....highway deaths were crazy high in the 1940s and 1950s. So the Highway Safety department was created and identified behaviors that caused these highway deaths. The they then created highway standards, safety requirements, speed limits, signage, road markings, etc. Highway deaths plummeted as the miles driven increased. Then we learned and came up with seat belts. Better seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, ALB, on and on. Now accidents at high speed are not longer as lethal as they once were for those driving as well as the ones they collide with.

The Highway Safety department didnt say... all deaths must be avoided so the speed limit therefore must be 10 mph. That is impractical for all kinds of obvious reasons. they did say... well there are certain areas of the public that are susceptible to high speed cars, so the limit will be 25-45 here. Highway speed can increase because those conditions dont exist on a freeway so the speed can be 55 mph or greater. You see?

NO one is saying these underlying society ills should be ignored but hey are not well studied either and individual cases quite clearly vary. They should not. However, the obvious issues of the total death toll is clear and should be certainly addressed.


Another example... Do you think there would be as big a problem in the NFL with concussions, if the people didnt play with helmets? I know there are concussions in other sports from unprotected heads, but none of them are at the level of CTE damage experienced by college and NFL football players. If outlawing helmets occurred I doubt we would see all of the projectile style tackles and crowning we see.

 

[Irishize]

These are all excuses put forth by gun rights advocates as deflection over the last few decades. These all have zero credibility becasue all other countries have these exact same things and do not have a problem like America does. There is no supporting evidence to support any of these idiotic excuses.

Has the culture changed from the 1960's? Yes absolutely. Guns have gotten more powerful, more lethal, cheaper and more accessible to people of all ages. These are absolutely the things that have occurred that the gun rights advocates are deflecting away from by blaming too many doors.

The gun regulations groups have not really changed their arguments at all over the last few decades. Its the gun rights advocates who have been changing their excuses to suit the situation. Not the other way around.

So EVERY other country has equal or higher rates of fatherlessness than the U.S.? Wow, I didn’t think the fatherless rate could get worse than the U.S, but I trust your research.

Also, please read the Gladwell article as even he cites video games such as Doom as being an influence on a specific school shooter. Don’t read that as me blaming video games for all the school shootings. It’s just an example of one of a myriad issues combined w/ guns, mental illness & according to this CNN article https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/health/tower-documentary-shooting/index.html the internet & today’s society obsession w/ fame.

Grant Duwe, a criminologist and author of “Mass Murder in the United States,” said that in the 50 years before Whitman’s attack, there were 25 mass public shootings, defined as the killing of four or more people in a public place without a connection to drug deals, gang disputes or other underlying criminal motive. Charles Whitman, of course; was the killer who murdered 17 when he shot them w/ a rifle from a University of Texas clock tower. This was suspected to have been a logistical motivation to the Las Vegas killer as well. He had a cache of weapons that could have been obtained through both legal & illegal means. So why didn’t kick off a spree of similar attacks over the next three decades until 1999 when Columbine seemed to become the touchpoint for today’s shootings?

 

[Cackalacky]

So EVERY other country has equal or higher rates of fatherlessness than the U.S.? Wow, I didn’t think the fatherless rate could get worse than the U.S, but I trust your research.

Also, please read the Gladwell article as even he cites video games such as Doom as being an influence on a specific school shooter. Don’t read that as me blaming video games for all the school shootings. It’s just an example of one of a myriad issues combined w/ guns, mental illness & according to this CNN article https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/health/tower-documentary-shooting/index.html the internet & today’s society obsession w/ fame.

Grant Duwe, a criminologist and author of “Mass Murder in the United States,” said that in the 50 years before Whitman’s attack, there were 25 mass public shootings, defined as the killing of four or more people in a public place without a connection to drug deals, gang disputes or other underlying criminal motive. Charles Whitman, of course; was the killer who murdered 17 when he shot them w/ a rifle from a University of Texas clock tower. This was suspected to have been a logistical motivation to the Las Vegas killer as well. He had a cache of weapons that could have been obtained through both legal & illegal means. So why didn’t kick off a spree of similar attacks over the next three decades until 1999 when Columbine seemed to become the touchpoint for today’s shootings?

I did and I already responded to it. It was ok but it doesn't dispute anything I am saying. It certainly adds context.

But to other countries having single parent homes....Well yes... haha developed countries have similar to same problems that have. Even accounting for the slight statistical difference btw Canada and the US, it does not correlate with as well as it does with the number of guns, and lethality of those numbers of guns.

They also have video games, music, doors, trench coats, fatherless sons, motherless daughters, metnal illness, anxiety. I guess you get my point and have way less of a gun problem. These are all excuses/secondary and tertiary issues put forth to hide or cover the real problems.

Single parents were very common in the 17th and 18th centuries. The most common cause: death of a parent. Approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of all children in this era experienced the death of a parent during childhood.

Since then, medical advances and improvements in sanitation and maternal care have significantly reduced mortality of people in reproductive age. Thankfully, death of a parent is now a much less common cause of single parenting. Divorce, accidental pregnancies and single parenting by choice are now the leading reasons for the rising number of single parents.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2011), 15% of children live in single parent households worldwide, and women head approximately 85% of these households. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of single parents are employed.

English speaking countries have the highest proportion of single parent households (above 20%). The largest increases in single parent households have been in industrialized countries.

The countries with the highest percentage of single parents are:

The United States: 25.8%
Ireland: 24.3%
New Zealand: 23.7%
Canada: 22.1%
The United Kingdom: 21.5%

https://singleparenthack.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/single-parents-worldwide-statistics-and-trends/

 

[Irishize]

What is "actual" problem though?

Since '94 gun ownership rates have dropped by something like 35%. Homicide rates in the same time frame have dropped by 50%. Yet active shooters and mass shooters have increased.

There was a time period when the U.S. was still the world leader in gun ownership but had very few, if any, mass shootings the ones we see today. Gladwell is simply referencing the studies done on what is essentially a domino effect, not that of copy cats, but of a behavioral threshold. The more shootings that happen, the more media coverage the shooters get, the other troubled people may decide to "join the riot."

I just find this issue to be extremely complicated and multi-faceted.

Thank you. Anyone who makes it just about guns has an agenda. And yes, the NRA has an agenda, too but they don’t own politicians any more (& in some cases much less) than other lobbyists whose sacred cow leads to millions of deaths.

The suspect who was apprehended before murdering his family & blowing up his school was focusing on his homemade IEDs to do the most damage. Yes, he had guns, too; but he was going to murder a much higher number w/ the IEDs. He even noted the fact that he was going to avoid using an AR-15 b/c he wanted to show what kind of murderous havoc he would wreak by avoiding what the anti-gun folks point to as the end-all, be-all solution to school shootings: ban the AR-15.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The actual problem is access and lethality of modern guns for sale. There is little defense against someone fitted with multiple high capacity guns who commits a sudden attack.

Gun ownership rates are falling That is true. Also gun sales have increased exponentially. How is that possible? Guns are concentrating in the hands of those people who deify the 2nd Amendment or are being distributed illegally. These people own way more guns than they need.That is a very clear trend.

Further, access to guns is ridiculously easy, whether its a 13 yo being able to buy a gun at a gun show no questions asked, or they are unlocked at home. Point is, its too easy to get MULTIPLE guns with HUGE CAPACITIES if someone (mentally ill, broken-hearted, scared, bullied etc) to commit a killing.

The point of regs is not to STOP ALL INCIDENTS FROM OCCURRING. No one is claiming that is the goal although its a common strawman from the gun rights advocates.

The point of the proposed regs is to limit ( as much as possible) the death dealt out by a person who does choose to carry out such activities for whatever reason.

TO be clear....as a comparison....highway deaths were crazy high in the 1940s and 1950s. So the Highway Safety department was created and identified behaviors that caused these highway deaths. The they then created highway standards, safety requirements, speed limits, signage, road markings, etc. Highway deaths plummeted as the miles driven increased. Then we learned and came up with seat belts. Better seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, ALB, on and on. Now accidents at high speed are not longer as lethal as they once were for those driving as well as the ones they collide with.

The Highway Safety department didnt say... all deaths must be avoided so the speed limit therefore must be 10 mph. That is impractical for all kinds of obvious reasons. they did say... well there are certain areas of the public that are susceptible to high speed cars, so the limit will be 25-45 here. Highway speed can increase because those conditions dont exist on a freeway so the speed can be 55 mph or greater. You see?

NO one is saying these underlying society ills should be ignored but hey are not well studied either and individual cases quite clearly vary. They should not. However, the obvious issues of the total death toll is clear and should be certainly addressed.


Another example... Do you think there would be as big a problem in the NFL with concussions, if the people didnt play with helmets? I know there are concussions in other sports from unprotected heads, but none of them are at the level of CTE damage experienced by college and NFL football players. If outlawing helmets occurred I doubt we would see all of the projectile style tackles and crowning we see.

Which new regulations specifically do you support?

For the record, I don't oppose re-enforcing our current laws. I don't oppose national background checks. I don't oppose new ideas either, such as but not limited to, GVROs, etc.

I agree that there are plenty of things we can do to help minimize the risks and minimize the damage caused by these attacks, but I don't support the notion that this is just a gun issue.

 

[Irishize]

I did and I already responded to it. It was ok but it doesn't dispute anything I am saying. It certainly adds context.

But to other countries having single parent homes....Well yes... haha developed countries have similar to same problems that have. Even accounting for the slight statistical difference btw Canada and the US, it does not correlate with as well as it does with the number of guns, and lethality of those numbers of guns.

They also have video games, music, doors, trench coats, fatherless sons, motherless daughters, metnal illness, anxiety. I guess you get my point and have way less of a gun problem. These are all excuses/secondary and tertiary issues put forth to hide or cover the real problems.

https://singleparenthack.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/single-parents-worldwide-statistics-and-trends/

So it is much higher in the US when you look at volume since we are talking about individuals. Last I checked the fatherless rate for black kids in America hovers around 70%. So I think this statistic more adversely affects the murder epidemic in urban centers like Chicago where black kids are murdering black kids. Not so much school shootings in the burbs. Which accounts for a heck of a lot more dead bodies, but since they’re not members of a suburban, upper middle class high school, they get cast aside as victims of gang violence which the political & media elites deem beneath them as they are unaffected by those deaths & they know that regardless of gun laws, those kids will find a way to murder each other.

US 25.8% of 325 million = 83,850,00
UK 23.7% of 65 million = 15,405,000
IRE 24.3% of 4.7 million = 1,142,100
CAN 22.1% of 36 million = 7,956,000
NewZ 23.7% of 4.7 million = 1,113,900

Those four nations combined don’t even equal half of what the US has. Again, I’m speaking to volume since there’s a larger number of parentless kids who miss the parenting that they would otherwise receive. What happens when they don’t have that male & female parent or role model? They find one soon enough but it’s not mom, dad, uncle, aunt, grandparent....it’s usually an older kid on the streets who manipulate them to do their dirty work. All kids deserve & desire to be loved & cared for...when it’s offered to them in whatever twisted way on the streets, they don’t think of the end game b/c they’re getting that elusive “love & affection” that they missed when mom &/or dad abandoned them.

 

[GowerND11]

So it is much higher in the US when you look at volume since we are talking about individuals. Last I checked the fatherless rate for black kids in America hovers around 70%. So I think this statistic more adversely affects the murder epidemic in urban centers like Chicago where black kids are murdering black kids. Not so much school shootings in the burbs. Which accounts for a heck of a lot more dead bodies, but since they’re not members of a suburban, upper middle class high school, they get cast aside as victims of gang violence which the political & media elites deem beneath them as they are unaffected by those deaths & they know that regardless of gun laws, those kids will find a way to murder each other.

US 25.8% of 325 million = 83,850,00
UK 23.7% of 65 million = 15,405,000
IRE 24.3% of 4.7 million = 1,142,100
CAN 22.1% of 36 million = 7,956,000
NewZ 23.7% of 4.7 million = 1,113,900

Those four nations combined don’t even equal half of what the US has. Again, I’m speaking to volume since there’s a larger number of parentless kids who miss the parenting that they would otherwise receive. What happens when they don’t have that male & female parent or role model? They find one soon enough but it’s not mom, dad, uncle, aunt, grandparent....it’s usually an older kid on the streets who manipulate them to do their dirty work. All kids deserve & desire to be loved & cared for...when it’s offered to them in whatever twisted way on the streets, they don’t think of the end game b/c they’re getting that elusive “love & affection” that they missed when mom &/or dad abandoned them.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/family-structure-the-growing-importance-of-class/

Fatherlessness is worsening in the white population at an alarming rate today. Also, employment of both black and white males with soley a high school education has been on the decline as well resulting in their children lacking access to better education, after school activities, etc.

 

[Cackalacky]

So it is much higher in the US when you look at volume since we are talking about individuals. Last I checked the fatherless rate for black kids in America hovers around 70%. So I think this statistic more adversely affects the murder epidemic in urban centers like Chicago where black kids are murdering black kids. Not so much school shootings in the burbs. Which accounts for a heck of a lot more dead bodies, but since they’re not members of a suburban, upper middle class high school, they get cast aside as victims of gang violence which the political & media elites deem beneath them as they are unaffected by those deaths & they know that regardless of gun laws, those kids will find a way to murder each other.

US 25.8% of 325 million = 83,850,00
UK 23.7% of 65 million = 15,405,000
IRE 24.3% of 4.7 million = 1,142,100
CAN 22.1% of 36 million = 7,956,000
NewZ 23.7% of 4.7 million = 1,113,900

Those four nations combined don’t even equal half of what the US has. Again, I’m speaking to volume since there’s a larger number of parentless kids who miss the parenting that they would otherwise receive. What happens when they don’t have that male & female parent or role model? They find one soon enough but it’s not mom, dad, uncle, aunt, grandparent....it’s usually an older kid on the streets who manipulate them to do their dirty work. All kids deserve & desire to be loved & cared for...when it’s offered to them in whatever twisted way on the streets, they don’t think of the end game b/c they’re getting that elusive “love & affection” that they missed when mom &/or dad abandoned them.

Again you are clinging to this secondary and tertiary issue namely fatherless/motherless children. Per capita they are comparable. Volume is meaningless except in that the number of incidents would concurrently be higher, which we dont see. All developed countries has single parent families, and all have similar levels of drug use, mental illness, etc... except with guns, so singling out single parent houses as a large or singular cause is not correct.

Also I dont have an agenda as you insinuated above.Just having a discussion.

Also you are proving my point. America has a singular problem that others do not and its not fundamentally related to societal ills and blaming these secondary and tertiary things for gun violence is a cop out and deflection. How many of these school/mass shooters are from single parent families? Do you know? What race are they as well? What we do know is the majority of these mass shooters are predominantly white, male, and from broken homes, however the overarching fundamental trait in this country is GUNS

Homicid rates are 25 times higher in america.
Gun onwership is 3-5 times higher than most developed countries

Factors That Don’t Correlate
If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. And Mr. Lankford, in an email, said countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings.

Whether a population plays more or fewer video games also appears to have no impact. Americans are no more likely to play video games than people in any other developed country.

Racial diversity or other factors associated with social cohesion also show little correlation with gun deaths. Among European countries, there is little association between immigration or other diversity metrics and the rates of gun murders or mass shootings.

Violent Country
America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Americans sometimes see this as an expression of deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

America is an outlier when it comes to gun deaths, but not overall crime

States with more guns have more gun deaths

IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY AN ISSUE WITH THE NUMBER, ACCESSIBILITY AND LETHALITY OF GUNS AVAILABLE IN THIS COUTNRY

 

[Legacy]

Since this has trended towards gun deaths in other countries, about a week ago, Australia, which changed its gun laws after a massacre in Port Arthur in the 1996, had a mass murder that shook the country. Some called it "devastating" to them. Australia defines a mass murder as a shooting involving five or more victim.

The Police Commissioner of the small town Osmington in Western Australia said:

“This is an horrific tragedy for any person involved and, clearly, officers and other first responders attending these sort of scenes, they find it tragic. We will get on with our job but, regrettably, these tragedies do take their toll on everyone.”

The Shire President of Augusta-Margaret River, Pam Townsend said:

“It’s surreal that this is happening here in our beautiful little community. When we hear of violence like this, it is just shocking. We really need to talk about violence, don’t we, in our society.

and

“Such a horrific killing is going to affect our community very deeply. We’re all connected to each other one way or another.”

Premier Mark McGowan described the incident as a “shocking tragedy”.

“Clearly this is a distressing day for Western Australia,” he said, adding that it was “a dark day for every family member or friend of the people involved.”

The mass murder of seven individuals was the worst mass murder since 1996, though there are as many guns in Australia as back then. Australia just requires guns to be licensed. Their nation and communities were able to come together after the '96 Port Arthur massacre to take steps to mutually support measures that would decrease gun violence.

Margaret River murder-suicide: Seven people found dead at home near WA holiday town (Australia Broadcasting Company)

Gun laws in Australia (Wiki)