Gun control debate (merged)

#28,026
#28,026
luthervol said:
You're eliminating the all important rational and reasonable qualifiers.
Click to expand...
Not really. What makes one rational and reasonable is your subjective opinion. If you want to be logical, I understand that is probably going to escape you, none of those things are necessary so they should be banned for the betterment of society.
 
#28,027
#28,027
85SugarVol said:
Yes there were 4 or 5 in the 70’s that would match up with what we see today.
One was committed by a 16 year old girl that attacked an elementary school in San Diego.

Started picking up steam in the 80’s for sure. The 90’s saw the real rise of what we see today.

There were a couple in the 60’s
None in the 1950’s

I think ND40’s timeline is pretty close. Guess you could argue that for ~190 years guns weren’t the problem.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, the infamous Brenda Ann Spencer ... better known as the "I don't like Mondays" killer.

Brenda Ann Spencer, The Girl Who Shot Up A School Because She Didn't Like Mondays

When asked by a reporter why she did it, she replied :

"I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day."

Yeah ... nothing wrong with her. LOL.
 
#28,028
#28,028
What is the definition of "mass shooting" event yall are using in this thread?
 
#28,030
#28,030
luthervol said:
I think we're a little beyond that. Someone was on here a few days ago claiming the government can trace any gun used in a crime back to the original purchaser. That seems almost like a national registry, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Keep kneeling at the altar of government, and one day you will have a pistol at the back of your head when you do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#28,032
#28,032
turbovol said:
yea, I know about stop and frisk. I'm not opposed to it in urban areas awash in guns....It's one thing I'm conservative about....

As for government vs. "freedom," we have a serious gun-violence problem in America. Go take a look at the photo circulating of the dead in Allen, Texas--including the 5-year-old kid. I don't care about some redneck's desire to play with assault rifles because he's got so little else going on his life....Sorry.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#28,033
#28,033
luthervol said:
I still don't really thing that is a legitimate argument. But if guns are viewed more as a problem today, the question then becomes why. Maybe because since 1970 the population has increased by 130 million while the number of guns in circulations has increased by 300 million. That's a 65% increase in population with a 300% increase in the number of guns.
Stated another way, the growth in gun ownership has increased at a rate 5 times greater than the population.

We are a gun crazed society today much more than we were in 1950, 60, or 70.
Click to expand...
Still just blaming the gun.

Something happened with the population itself sometime in the 70’s or 80’s that led to these “spree killings” (that’s a BB term) taking off in the 90’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, InVOLuntary and SpaceCoastVol
#28,034
#28,034
McDad said:
What is the definition of "mass shooting" event yall are using in this thread?
Click to expand...
Oh boy.

“199 ‘mass shootings’ so far this year!!!”
That is 4 people simply shot (not including the shooter), no fatalities required.

Deliberate, mass attack events (Vegas, Buffalo, Aurora, Uvalde) - those are the ones I was counting up for Luther.

A father killing his entire family with a shotgun is horrible. Not a mass attack like those others.
Two gangs shooting it out. Not a mass attack.
Police mowing down protesters. Nope.
A guy enters a store, robs it, then kills everyone. Not the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123, hog88, McDad and 2 others
#28,035
#28,035
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#28,036
#28,036
85SugarVol said:
Still just blaming the gun.

Something happened with the population itself sometime in the 70’s or 80’s that led to these “spree killings” (that’s a BB term) taking off in the 90’s.
Click to expand...
Alfred Hitchcock searched for a long time to find the right melon into which sticking a knife would sound like a person being stabbed. Directors like Brian DePalma and Martin Scorsese brought those concepts to the visual sense. I am not saying that that is what started it, but it certainly has helped with the desensitization of people to this kind of violence. Now blood and guts are shown nightly on TV. People are fascinated with death. The bloodier and more gory the better.

I think to answer your 'question' though, it is the fact that people have been desensitized to it all and that genie isn't going back in the bottle.
 
#28,039
#28,039
85SugarVol said:
Still just blaming the gun.

Something happened with the population itself sometime in the 70’s or 80’s that led to these “spree killings” (that’s a BB term) taking off in the 90’s.
Click to expand...
A lot happened in the 70's and 80's. A lot happens every decade.

The 60's saw more political assassinations than any other decade. What was up with that. Maybe that fed into the 70's.
 
#28,040
#28,040
luthervol said:
The list that Hog provided for Japan seemed to be when 2 or more people were killed.
Click to expand...
Based on the current “mass shooting” definition that CNN & NBC love to trot out.

A madman enters a school and murders 3 children. Then he turns the gun on himself.

That ^ does not meet the criteria to be included in the “mass shooting” data. How would you classify it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#28,042
#28,042
85SugarVol said:
Oh boy.

“199 ‘mass shootings’ so far this year!!!”
That is 4 people simply shot (not including the shooter), no fatalities required.

Deliberate, mass attack events (Vegas, Buffalo, Aurora, Uvalde) - those are the ones I was counting up for Luther.

A father killing his entire family with a shotgun is horrible. Not a mass attack like those others.
Two gangs shooting it out. Not a mass attack.
Police mowing down protesters. Nope.
A guy enters a store, robs it, then kills everyone. Not the same.
Click to expand...

Mass shooting =/= mass attack?

Since those are different, are injuries or fatalities required to meet the definition of either?

Has anyone explained why the 4 additional scenarios you provided are not considered MS or MA events?
 
#28,044
#28,044
85SugarVol said:
Based on the current “mass shooting” definition that CNN & NBC love to trot out.

A madman enters a school and murders 3 children. Then he turns the gun on himself.

That ^ does not meet the criteria to be included in the “mass shooting” data. How would you classify it?
Click to expand...
I would define it as a mass shooting. That's the problem with concrete, black and white, definitions. But so many here in the PF can only function with the concrete (black and white). You know me, I'm a continuum man.
And I would place your example on the low end of the "mass shooting" continuum.
 
#28,045
#28,045
McDad said:
Is that your definition?

Is that the definition you reasonably surmise others are using?
Click to expand...
I don't have a concrete definition. But if one must be established, I guess that's as good as any.

What do you think the best definition would be?
 
#28,046
#28,046
85SugarVol said:
Based on the current “mass shooting” definition that CNN & NBC love to trot out.

A madman enters a school and murders 3 children. Then he turns the gun on himself.

That ^ does not meet the criteria to be included in the “mass shooting” data. How would you classify it?
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, I think "mass" is a number starting around 5 (injured or killed) or more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#28,047
#28,047
luthervol said:
That's one of the many problems. What does happen? Warn their employers? Put them on a high risk watch list? Monitor their movements and communications? There is no easy answer for what to do when someone is identified as a potential mass shooter.
Any suggestions on your end?
Click to expand...
lol. how about none of the above. none of your suggestions would stop mass shootings. 100 million gun owners, and we can't even track the guys we know are problems. you would be limiting freedoms and getting essentially nothing out of it. remember all those issues you have with the criminal justice system? Now combine that with an even more aggressive and entrenched enforcement arm. forget having the 6 highest prison population per capita, you want to go head first for number 1.

There is a reason rights are rights, and not left up to the laws. the entire point is to protect controversy. because once the government starts taking one step, they don't stop. again I point out how you are bulldozing more than the 2A here, and you don't even batt an eye, or express any remorse. just full steam ahead to an authoritarian government.
 
#28,048
#28,048
LouderVol said:
lol. how about none of the above. none of your suggestions would stop mass shootings. 100 million gun owners, and we can't even track the guys we know are problems. you would be limiting freedoms and getting essentially nothing out of it. remember all those issues you have with the criminal justice system? Now combine that with an even more aggressive and entrenched enforcement arm. forget having the 6 highest prison population per capita, you want to go head first for number 1.

There is a reason rights are rights, and not left up to the laws. the entire point is to protect controversy. because once the government starts taking one step, they don't stop. again I point out how you are bulldozing more than the 2A here, and you don't even batt an eye, or express any remorse. just full steam ahead to an authoritarian government.
Click to expand...
So, it's your stance that if someone as identified as a likely mass shooter, nothing should be done?

That kind of goes against everyone's immediate reaction of "how were the warning signs missed", "he should have been stopped before it happened", "he was showing obvious signs of mental illness."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top