Today's mass shooting in the US

[Jono8]

True I guess, when you get an Islamist attack the US left tends to end up in denial, when you get a gimpy kid shooting up a school the US right tends to end up in denial.



Simple solutions tbh... crack down on guns, crack down on immigration from certain countries... stop pretending that restricting guns isn't the answer, stop pretending that islamist attacks have "nothing to do with Islam"...

Why would you have such a crackdown on something that is so insignificant that it falls somewhere around being killed by an asteroid, killed by a Tornado to below being killed by a shark or struck by lightning?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1

That includes 9/11 by the way^

Peoples irrational fear of foreigners is being preyed upon. The fear has no basis in reality and is about as rational as being afraid of flying but not scared of getting in a car.

Unfortunately, the statistics and facts show that threat of Islamic terrorism in America is relatively insignificant, especially compared with being killed by a white American citizen with a gun.

 

[dowie]

And have a sense of perspective.

Banning people and banning guns are very different things. Note that expelling everyone out of the USA will rid the USA of all crime.

I've not advocated either...

Why would you have such a crackdown on something that is so insignificant that it falls somewhere around being killed by an asteroid, killed by a Tornado to below being killed by a shark or struck by lightning?

Why wouldn't you? Just because other issues exist doesn't mean that you can't tackle more than one issue.

I mean you could use the same argument re: guns - why bother doing anything about guns when gun deaths are insignificant relevant to the obesity epidemic...

 

[Jono8]

Why wouldn't you? Just because other issues exist doesn't mean that you can't tackle more than one issue.

What is the issue though? Is the issue that the population is too big? Immigrants are no more likely to be criminals than native born Americans (https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-myths-crime-number-illegal-immigrants), so for any given population, nothing backs up the assertion that there would be less criminals in any given population, if less of them were not native born. Therefore there is no basis for the argument that Americans would be any safer if there were tighter immigration controls. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that much more strict gun control would make American's safer though.

There is simply no proof that America would be any safer/less crime filled, if there were less immigration.

 

[dowie]

There is simply no proof that America would be any safer/less crime filled, if there were less immigration.

OK but what does that have to do with my post?

 

[Jono8]

OK but what does that have to do with my post?

You said, "Simple solutions tbh... crack down on guns, crack down on immigration from certain countries"

What are you hoping to achieve by cracking down on immigration from certain countries?

 

[dowie]

You said, "Simple solutions tbh... crack down on guns, crack down on immigration from certain countries"

What are you hoping to achieve by cracking down on immigration from certain countries?

Well, in context, I'd probably not let in a bunch of Syrians (a country that had tens of thousands of ISIS fighters) at a time when ISIS was actively encouraging people to go to the west and carry on attacks.

 

[Jono8]

Well, in context, I'd probably not let in a bunch of Syrians (a country that had tens of thousands of ISIS fighters) at a time when ISIS was actively encouraging people to go to the west and carry on attacks.

But do you have proof/evidence and statistically based research that shows that among those 100,000 Muslim refugees mentioned in the picture, there would be more criminals/killers than a 100,000 refugees from elsewhere or 100,000 American born citizens?

 

[dowie]

But do you have proof/evidence and statistically based research that shows that among those 100,000 Muslim refugees mentioned in the picture, there would be more criminals/killers than a 100,000 refugees from elsewhere or 100,000 American born citizens?

see previous post:

Well, in context, I'd probably not let in a bunch of Syrians (a country that had tens of thousands of ISIS fighters) at a time when ISIS was actively encouraging people to go to the west and carry on attacks.

we're basically talking about protecting against tail risk/and extreme event here

 

[kwerk]

The problem with background checks is it's a slippery slope to a choke point for the government. The soviets used to diagnose anyone who said anything against communism as mentally ill.

And when the media and left are constantly claiming that Trump and his voters are all mentally ill (meanwhile they themselves cant even decide what race and gender they identify as), do you think anyone is going to trust the government with that?

1/3 of soviet political prisoners were locked up psychiatric hospitals.

 

[asim18]

Why would you have such a crackdown on something that is so insignificant that it falls somewhere around being killed by an asteroid, killed by a Tornado to below being killed by a shark or struck by lightning?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1

That includes 9/11 by the way^

Peoples irrational fear of foreigners is being preyed upon. The fear has no basis in reality and is about as rational as being afraid of flying but not scared of getting in a car.

Unfortunately, the statistics and facts show that threat of Islamic terrorism in America is relatively insignificant, especially compared with being killed by a white American citizen with a gun.

You're talking a lot of sense. Same thing happened with brexit literally. I remember when they had a followup with some leave voters and asked them why they voted leave and many were like "foreigners".

 

[Destination]

Why would you have such a crackdown on something that is so insignificant that it falls somewhere around being killed by an asteroid, killed by a Tornado to below being killed by a shark or struck by lightning?

Just to make a semi irrevelant point, where risk exists, we tend as human nature to try to mitigate it.
The risk of cancer from an xray is million to one, yet we l8mit our exposure to such radiation as best we can, only take when desired or essential, provide specific radio where required, us8ng focussed beams.
Just because something only happens rarely doesn’t mean you should not try to prevent it.

Else you end up with donkey bombs.

Secondly, the us is a fractured concept, now filled with a media so diverse that there is no middle ground, and unfortunately people are left to assume they have to be in one camp or the other. Middle ground would win everytime, but it isnt on offer, no neither side sees a compromise,

Look closer to home in NI, two extremes, no middle ground, get rid of the whisky washy middle, create something newa nd it would attract 60-70 support. Shame. Won’t happen, US is the same. Money talks, money works in the middle.

 

[Yas786]

The problem with background checks is it's a slippery slope to a choke point for the government. The soviets used to diagnose anyone who said anything against communism as mentally ill.

And when the media and left are constantly claiming that Trump and his voters are all mentally ill (meanwhile they themselves cant even decide what race and gender they identify as), do you think anyone is going to trust the government with that?

1/3 of soviet political prisoners were locked up psychiatric hospitals.

So let mentally ill people have access to guns right?? Because nothing is more important than protecting your pathetic gun rights over children’s lives.

Also Trump and his supporters are mentally deranged idiots that much is true. I mean how can anyone support a guy who rolled back a law making it difficult for mentally ill people to obtain guns and weapons?? Oh sorry I forgot 30mill reasons why he did that.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Nobody is denying the average American buying guns, I just want to stop the crazies getting them.

Apparently some people wants the crazies to have guns too.

Can someone explain that to me how that works?

 

[adolf hamster]

The problem with background checks is it's a slippery slope to a choke point for the government.

slippery slope my ****, this line gets toted a lot by the "pro gun" lobby, when if you take a good hard look at the reality:
gun controls introduced
the crazies/criminals/idiots cant get them
gun deaths go down
no more gun problem=no more gun restrictions imposed
the guys who really want guns can still get them

"the man" isn't after your guns, and you don't need an armed to the teeth population to maintain a democracy, or does the whole of europe not count as a case study for effective gun control? seriously the usa isn't going to turn into north korea just because it's citizenry has to justify their need to purchase firearms and have their medical/criminal background monitored.

what being so rigid and inflexible is doing to the gun community is making things worse, it's making the anti gun brigade more extreme. it starts off with "lets maybe have licenses for guns" and every shooting pushes things towards "just ban all the guns"

 

[magick]

So let mentally ill people have access to guns right?? Because nothing is more important than protecting your pathetic gun rights over children’s lives.

Also Trump and his supporters are mentally deranged idiots that much is true. I mean how can anyone support a guy who rolled back a law making it difficult for mentally ill people to obtain guns and weapons?? Oh sorry I forgot 30mill reasons why he did that.

Kwerk has a point though and don't you think? The authors of the constitution deliberately left the second amendment open ended because no doubt they forsaw future governents might well attempt to roll back the principles of the second amendment. You do realise that today there are some in the establishment who would catergorise you as mentaly ill if you belive in UFOs, 9/11 conspiracy theories or anything that doesn't fit it within the states narative. So if you believe in UFOs, 9/11 from the states perspective you could be termed mentaly ill. I personaly define the ******** with there gender neutrailty, pacifism towards enemies yet aggression to people who should our allies like Assad/Putin are mentaly ill but I accept I don't have the right to limit any of their rights because of it.

This is just like governments using very real, serious and emotive issues like online bullying & trolling leading to suicides, child abuse and so called fake news to tighten and limit freedom of information on the internet. The government generaly don't really want to tackle these issues, instead it bothers them they no longer have control over the information people digest and can no longer centralise and control the narative like they did back in the 80s/90s. When politicians talk of repealing the second amendment I can assure you it isn't for the well being of children. The governemnt cannot be trusted to be impartial when it comes to the freedoms of its citizens. Many people don't have a problem with making it difficult for evil people to do commit murder, people have a problem with their rights being eroded because the government claims it's for their own protection.

 

[VincentHanna]

To be fair people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies do tend to be mental.

 

[magick]

slippery slope my ****, this line gets toted a lot by the "pro gun" lobby, when if you take a good hard look at the reality:
gun controls introduced
the crazies/criminals/idiots cant get them
gun deaths go down
no more gun problem=no more gun restrictions imposed
the guys who really want guns can still get them

"the man" isn't after your guns, and you don't need an armed to the teeth population to maintain a democracy, or does the whole of europe not count as a case study for effective gun control? seriously the usa isn't going to turn into north korea just because it's citizenry has to justify their need to purchase firearms and have their medical/criminal background monitored.

what being so rigid and inflexible is doing to the gun community is making things worse, it's making the anti gun brigade more extreme. it starts off with "lets maybe have licenses for guns" and every shooting pushes things towards "just ban all the guns"

I can assure the anti-gun lobby with a will never succed in a blanket ban of firearms in the USA. They may call for it and in a very vocal manner but the government know that it would meet huge and more than likely armed resistance from armed citizens along with police and military as I know many in the poilce and army who would not support the repeal of the second ammendment.

 

[magick]

I can assure the anti-gun lobby with a will never succed in a blanket ban of firearms in the USA. They may call for it and in a very vocal manner but the government know that it would meet huge and more than likely armed resistance from armed citizens along with police and military as I know many in the poilce and army who would not support the repeal of the second ammendment and would fight to defend it.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I can assure the anti-gun lobby with a will never succed in a blanket ban of firearms in the USA. They may call for it and in a very vocal manner but the government know that it would meet huge and more than likely armed resistance from armed citizens along with police and military as I know many in the poilce and army who would not support the repeal of the second ammendment and would fight to defend it.

Nobody even dream of or asking for a blanket ban, they just want to stop criminals and crazies.

But seemingly that’s too much, they rather lose their children than take guns away from the crazy people.

 

[adolf hamster]

I can assure the anti-gun lobby with a will never succed in a blanket ban of firearms in the USA. They may call for it and in a very vocal manner but the government know that it would meet huge and more than likely armed resistance from armed citizens along with police and military as I know many in the poilce and army who would not support the repeal of the second ammendment.

they won't need to blanket ban firearms, if they introduce effective controls.

as has been discussed to death already the problem isnt what a citizen can legally own/obtain access to, it's how easy it is for them to get it.

is owning a gun so important that you need to be able to obtain one quickly? i mean long waiting times, extended background checks and transfer papers seem to be fine for items like suppressors, "short barrelled rifles" and machine guns, so why do pistols, rifles and pump action shotguns need to be obtained on a whim?

hell you could make the whole process much simpler-
-implement the same transfer rules for all firearms as are current for machine guns
-make suppressors an unrestricted item (because the gun's the dangerous bit)
-get rid of the whole short barrelled rifle nonsense, if pistols are going to be legal then what's the point?
-require a justifiable reason for owning any firearm- membership of a range, C&R licence, membership of a hunting club, member of CMP or provable threat to life for self defence
-introduce a licence, under which you can buy whatever you want that fits the categories of your justification (for example if you have a duck hunting licence you can buy whatever shotguns you like but no rifles/pistols)
-have a minimum 6-month time for obtaining a licence, and 1 month for any purchases for that licence
-require mandatory safe storage for all firearms (so you can have as many guns as you can afford cabinets for)

there you go, you can still get guns (thus not threatening the right to bear arms) but the process has been made enough of a pain in the proverbial to put off anyone who isn't dedicated (and therefore significantly more likely to be a responsible owner), plus you've now got the ability to stop criminals and crazies from getting their hands on guns.

so tell me, exactly what is wrong with this plan?