Today's mass shooting in the US

MissChief said:
The ones with most of the guns are the ones that want extremism and fascism. They’re not going to overthrow the people they voted for.

As is typical in America it’s always about the money. Republicans and the NRA scream that democrats will come after your guns, will take them away from you or introduce such strict regulations you’ll never be able to buy any ever again. Gun loving nut jobs lap this up, rush out and buy more guns, gun makers and NRA profit. Democrats come into power, DON‘T introduce legislation, or if they do it’s powers are limited, everyone has panic bought for no reason, gun makers profit massively.
Click to expand...

Why are people nut jobs for having an interest in fire arms? You realise a lot of people on here attend shooting clubs, if they lived in America the might own a few guns at home, are they all nuts as well?
 
Dis86 said:
You didn't look very hard! Guns are responsible for about 45000 deaths in the US each year. The 10th most common cause of death, kidney disease is responsible for about 50000. So guns seem to sit just outside the top 10.
Now what's not clear is out of the top 10 causes of death, how many are classed as 'preventable'. Every single one of those gin deaths is so they could quite easily climb in to the top 10.
Click to expand...

Most fatal shootings in the USA are suicides.

While every suicide could be classed as preventable, that doesn't mean that every person who uses a gun to commit suicide would automatically not commit suicide if they didn't have access to a gun.

Suicide rates in the USA have increased quite consistently over the last 20 years. Gun ownership rates in the USA haven't. It appears that they've decreased over that time, although any figures are estimates. But it's clear that gun ownership isn't the sole cause of suicide.

Banning sugar would have a bigger effect on the number of preventable deaths than banning guns.
 
Angilion said:
Most fatal shootings in the USA are suicides.

While every suicide could be classed as preventable, that doesn't mean that every person who uses a gun to commit suicide would automatically not commit suicide if they didn't have access to a gun.

Suicide rates in the USA have increased quite consistently over the last 20 years. Gun ownership rates in the USA haven't. It appears that they've decreased over that time, although any figures are estimates. But it's clear that gun ownership isn't the sole cause of suicide.

Banning sugar would have a bigger effect on the number of preventable deaths than banning guns.
Click to expand...
No one kills a dozen kids with Sugar do they?
 
chroniclard said:
I would have guns if I lived there, but I would favour extremely tougher gun controls.
Click to expand...

Switzerland style? There are oodles of guns in Switzerland and most of them are as "military grade" as can be because they're actually military issue. But Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting for 20 years and it's almost certain that part of the cause is that Switzerland has stringent gun controls. Only part of the cause, though. Switzerland has lower crime rates in general, lower suicide rates, etc. There are other factors, but gun control is one factor.
 
MissChief said:
No one kills a dozen kids with Sugar do they?
Click to expand...

No. It's a lot more than a dozen. It's also irrelevant to the claim I was replying to unless you're arguing that ~45,000 children per year are shot dead in the USA in mass shootings. Which would be a ridiculous argument.

I think it's distasteful to use murdered children as political tools.
 
Angilion said:
No. It's a lot more than a dozen. It's also irrelevant to the claim I was replying to unless you're arguing that ~45,000 children per year are shot dead in the USA in mass shootings. Which would be a ridiculous argument.

I think it's distasteful to use murdered children as political tools.
Click to expand...
I suppose more moderate folk would say that murdered children is a touch more than 'distasteful'.
 
[FnG]magnolia said:
I suppose more moderate folk would say that murdered children is a touch more than 'distasteful'.
Click to expand...

I suppose more moderate people would be able to differentiate between children being murdered and using murdered children as a political tool for something else. But you carry on doing you.
 
Angilion said:
I suppose more moderate people would be able to differentiate between children being murdered and using murdered children as a political tool for something else. But you carry on doing you.
Click to expand...
I think you introduced murdered children as the political tool argument. And it's a pretty baseless argument but then there is a view that says maybe politicians should, I don't know, actually make progressive change to stop - and I'm spitballing here, bear with me - murdered children being the footnote rather than the headline. Like, stop kids from being murdered by guns.
 
[FnG]magnolia said:
I think you introduced murdered children as the political tool argument.
Click to expand...

MissChief did it in post 3985. Very blatantly, so blatantly that their post relied on the pretence that 45,000 children are shot dead per year in the USA.

[FnG]magnolia said:
And it's a pretty baseless argument but then there is a view that says maybe politicians should, I don't know, actually make progressive change to stop - and I'm spitballing here, bear with me - murdered children being the footnote rather than the headline. Like, stop kids from being murdered by guns.
Click to expand...

I think South Park made the most famous reply to that particular logical fallacy (false dilemma) in their "Vote Yes on Prop 10 or you hate children" episode.
 
How do you begin to try and put the genie back in the bottle with guns in the USA? Ownership in general is way past the point of no return given the volume of guns that exist.

The focus always goes on the 'assault rifle' part, but in truth most of these shootings - usually close quarters - could have been done with a handgun, they just choose not to. And most gun deaths overall are from handguns. So I don't believe an AR ban would achieve much.

Something I don't see discussed much when these shootings happen is age. It's madness to let an 18 year old have a gun when human brains aren't even fully developed until around 25.
I think raising the age limit to 25 or even 30, along with stricter background checks, would go a good way to reducing deaths.
Making it to 30 without a violent criminal record for example is a pretty decent track record to display.

But even just doing that I think would face tremendous opposition. I must admit, an obvious counter is 'but we let 18 year olds join the military'. Well, I don't agree with that either...but yes, we do.
 
Paracelsus said:
How do you begin to try and put the genie back in the bottle with guns in the USA? Ownership in general is way past the point of no return given the volume of guns that exist.

The focus always goes on the 'assault rifle' part, but in truth most of these shootings - usually close quarters - could have been done with a handgun, they just choose not to. And most gun deaths overall are from handguns. So I don't believe an AR ban would achieve much.
Click to expand...

Especially since assault rifles have been banned outside of the military in the USA since 1986 (and restricted since the 1930s). There are some assault rifles in civilian hands in the USA but they have to have been manufactured before 1986.

Paracelsus said:
Something I don't see discussed much when these shootings happen is age. It's madness to let an 18 year old have a gun when human brains aren't even fully developed until around 25.
I think raising the age limit to 25 or even 30, along with stricter background checks, would go a good way to reducing deaths.
Making it to 30 without a violent criminal record for example is a pretty decent track record to display.
Click to expand...

I think 25 would do it. With people under that age allowed to use guns at a club or other suitable premises.

Paracelsus said:
But even just doing that I think would face tremendous opposition. I must admit, an obvious counter is 'but we let 18 year olds join the military'. Well, I don't agree with that either...but yes, we do.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would work as a counter because military and civilian are very different circumstances.
 
Paracelsus said:
How do you begin to try and put the genie back in the bottle with guns in the USA? Ownership in general is way past the point of no return given the volume of guns that exist.

The focus always goes on the 'assault rifle' part, but in truth most of these shootings - usually close quarters - could have been done with a handgun, they just choose not to. And most gun deaths overall are from handguns. So I don't believe an AR ban would achieve much.

Something I don't see discussed much when these shootings happen is age. It's madness to let an 18 year old have a gun when human brains aren't even fully developed until around 25.
I think raising the age limit to 25 or even 30, along with stricter background checks, would go a good way to reducing deaths.
Making it to 30 without a violent criminal record for example is a pretty decent track record to display.

But even just doing that I think would face tremendous opposition. I must admit, an obvious counter is 'but we let 18 year olds join the military'. Well, I don't agree with that either...but yes, we do.
Click to expand...

Raising the age limit would help but it would need to come with additional strong regulation/laws around securing firearms, etc. as well to work - several mass shootings the shooter simply picked up a gun left lying around in their or a close friend or family household and/or knew the combination to the gun safe despite being a minor, etc. etc.

There is a lot of suspicion of any attempt to bring in firearms regulation in the US as often the debate is so polarised so those pro-gun see it as an attempt to erode their rights bit by bit rather than something which might bring around a more healthy environment for both those pro-gun and everyone else.
 

Matthew McConaughey has always had moving speeches whether in movies or motivational clips online. Great use of his platform to get the message across.
 
I'm confused, do Republicans think God wrote the second amendment?

www.bbc.co.uk

Uvalde attack: US House passes gun bill doomed to fail in senate

The measures include banning sales of semi-automatic weapons to under-21s, but they look set to be rejected.
www.bbc.co.uk

"America has lost more children from gun violence than any other cause. Does that embarrass you?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a debate on the bill. "To think that in our country, more children have died from gun violence than any other cause? These stories are tragically all too common in America today."
Click to expand...

But House Republicans claimed the bill was an attack on citizens' constitutional rights to own a firearm.
"The speaker started by saying this bill is about protecting our kids," Ohio Republican Jim Jordan said. "But this bill doesn't do it. What this bill does is take away second amendment rights, God-given rights, protected by our Constitution from law-abiding American citizens."
Click to expand...
 
Dis86 said:
You didn't look very hard! Guns are responsible for about 45000 deaths in the US each year. The 10th most common cause of death, kidney disease is responsible for about 50000. So guns seem to sit just outside the top 10.
Now what's not clear is out of the top 10 causes of death, how many are classed as 'preventable'. Every single one of those gin deaths is so they could quite easily climb in to the top 10.
Click to expand...
Yeah well ban Kidneys then!:mad:

Checkmate leftard!!!:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom