Today's mass shooting in the US

[Sankari]

 

[wordy]

As a generalised statement that is not true, poll after poll shows the majority (>50%) of voters do want tighter gun control.

This is split along very partisan lines with like 80% of Democrats for and 70% Republicans against. The people against gun control are the NRA, who spend millions of dollars bribing lobbying congress to not pass any restrictions

This

If they/us/everyone wants to change something then you've got to ****ing care about it. The NRA absolutely does care about stopping gun control, so they turn up, they lobby and they get bills stopped. But there are only about 5 million of them. If even 10% of Americans started calling their elected representatives, let them know they want something done about gun control & pestered them until they got the message, then things would get done. The NRA know that, that's why they are focused and lobbying against gun control in the long term, both before and after mass shootings, instead of people just saying we should do something about it for a couple of weeks after a church gets shot up, or a school, for ****s sakes. at least 90% of Democrat and 77% of Republican citizens favour gun control laws at gun shows and for the mentally ill, but nothing is getting done because no one is holding their senators to account.
You've got to make an effort, because the people who want to legalise the sale of silencers for guns are, and they'll win. Posting about it on a message board, or on Twitter isn't enough, posting #pray for.... on Facebook isn't enough. You've got to ****ing bother and that means putting an effort into democracy and making it work for you, because even if 10% of Americans do that then something will get done, sharpish.

 

[IronWarrior]

or they could, i dunno, require a licence for guns, requiring an in-depth background check by the police, details of the type of firearm they want to buy, and a reasonable and provable justification for why they need said firearm.

They have this already in many states.

The current and biggest loophole is private sales among people and at gun shows, where in some states they don't require background checks or anything while some states do force that even among private sales.

It's stupid, but if you try to debate a american about it, they will argue that the government shouldn't be involved in private sales.

 

[adolf hamster]

They have this already in many states.

The current and biggest loophole is private sales among people and at gun shows, where in some states they don't require background checks or anything while some states do force that even among private sales.

It's stupid, but if you try to debate a american about it, they will argue that the government shouldn't be involved in private sales.

indeed, but it's still not as tightly vetted as here, and you're right about the gun show loophole.

 

[wesimmo]

Ban semi-autos/machine guns and keep hand guns legal but require stronger background checks on them.

This will still ensure compliance with the 2nd amendment whilst keeping mass shooting death tolls lower.

Guns do save lives in a lot of situations though... home invasions etc... It only logically makes sense to ban semi/automatics.

You really need to watch Jim Jeffries and his sketch about gun control. Home invasions? WTF?

 

[Sankari]

'America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts.'

In the developed world, these levels of gun violence are a uniquely American problem. Here’s why.

America is an exceptional country when it comes to guns. It’s one of the few countries in which the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. But America’s relationship with guns is unique in another crucial way: Among developed nations, the US is far and away the most violent — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms.

These charts and maps show what that violence looks like compared with the rest of the world, why it happens, and why it’s such a tough problem to fix.

 

[Rroff]

So he wasn't legally permitted to own the guns found on him - wasn't expecting that.

 

[Angilion]

States Trump is dumb. Goes on to agree with Trump logic. Amazing.

Out of curiousity, do you think your post makes sense (when it clearly doesn't) or are you just trolling me?

 

[Vonhelmet]

So he wasn't legally permitted to own the guns found on him - wasn't expecting that.

Ah, that's ok then, no need to do anything about gun control, the system was operating as planned, he was just outside it.

 

[Angilion]

Owning a gun makes you more, not less, likely to be shot and killed. [..]

Correlation is not causation. If there's a correlation between the chance of owning a gun and the chance of being shot and killed there are at least two possible explanations:

1) Owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and killed for some reason.
2) People who are more likely to be shot and killed for any reason are more likely to own a gun because they are aware of the increased risk and thus more likely to want an effective weapon.

What makes you think the correct explanation for the correlation (assuming it exists) is (1) rather than (2) or some other explanation? The explanation for most correlations is coincidence, so there's another possible explanation.

 

[Angilion]

From what I've read he sounds your typical outspoken Atheist, he probably felt frustrated by not being able to convert 'stupid people' to Atheism. It's a shame Christianity is so looked down upon in modern society we could use values like "thou shalt not kill" now more than ever.

That was never a value of Christianity. Christianity is absolutely fine with killing. The objection in that commandment (which is more Jewish than Christian, but that's a grey area and not directly relevant to this point) isn't to killing. It's to killing without permission from the clerics. The English translation you use is wrong and misleading.

 

[glenimp617]

has anyone said "it's not the guns it's the people" yet?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

has anyone said "it's not the guns it's the people" yet?

I think you have the wrong thread, this was a white guy or we would have gotten the standard 'religion of peace', 'savages by nature', the usual crap then punctuated with a story of how Chris Wilson once saved a veteran from being eaten by Muslim immigrants down his local boozer.

 

[Caged]

Veterans aren't halal though so it's unlikely that Muslims would have been eating one.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

You know what? You're right!

I'm starting to think that these pub stories may not be completely true

 

[Angilion]

He was playing devil's advocate.

As an Australian, I'm pretty damn proud of the fact that we haven't had a mass firearm homicide for 20 years.

He also has a point. Homicides have also decreased in the USA over the same period of time, including homicides using guns, despite the large increase in the population of the USA over the same period of time. The connection between gun control and gun-using homicide rates is far less clear than it might appear from a graph created to make it appear clear.

Gun control laws do seem to have an effect on mass homicides with guns, though. At least if you use a high enough number for "mass". The USA currently uses 3, which I think is too low for a simple cut-off point. A scenario in which someone kills 3 people for a specific reason regarding those 3 people is different to a scenario in which someone kills dozens of people they don't even know.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Correlation is not causation. If there's a correlation between the chance of owning a gun and the chance of being shot and killed there are at least two possible explanations:

1) Owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and killed for some reason.
2) People who are more likely to be shot and killed for any reason are more likely to own a gun because they are aware of the increased risk and thus more likely to want an effective weapon.

What makes you think the correct explanation for the correlation (assuming it exists) is (1) rather than (2) or some other explanation? The explanation for most correlations is coincidence, so there's another possible explanation.

A correlation can be enough to make you mindful of a risk even if it isn't understood or is arguably coincidental. Car insurance and the like employ a lot of Bayesian statistics and such like that say that if you have one accident - even one in which you're not at fault - then you're more likely to have another. Does that make any sense just thinking about it? No. Does it make sense statistically? Yes, but good luck explaining or understanding it.

Maybe owning a gun does make you more likely to get shot. It may not be causative but it clearly works.

 

[hornetstinger]

has anyone said "it's not the guns it's the people" yet?

We owned guns. Never shot anyone or had any intention to.

 

[Rroff]

Ah, that's ok then, no need to do anything about gun control, the system was operating as planned, he was just outside it.

Doesn't sound like the system was working - there were all sorts of reasons that in pretty much any other country would have precluded him from being able to own a gun and should have meant he couldn't buy a gun - but he was able to purchase them anyhow due to a mixture of poor organisation and omitting details.

 

[Vonhelmet]

That was never a value of Christianity. Christianity is absolutely fine with killing. The objection in that commandment (which is more Jewish than Christian, but that's a grey area and not directly relevant to this point) isn't to killing. It's to killing without permission from the clerics. The English translation you use is wrong and misleading.

The commandment given on the mountain doesn't refer to clerics, though it may do elsewhere in the Pentateuch, I'm not about to look. I've always understood it's more like "murder" than just "kill".