Mass shooting thread

[Mango kid]

 

 

There about 300 mass shooting. A year sense 2012 sandy hook

Yeah and you'll find most of those are from Miami, Detroit, Houston, and Chicago. Usually 3 to 6 people and a lot of them are domestic or gang related. There are a whole lot of people in this country. Not real surprising.

That's not even close to being true

 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?page=1

[Generations]

 

There about 300 mass shooting. A year sense 2012 sandy hook

 

Yeah and you'll find most of those are from Miami, Detroit, Houston, and Chicago. Usually 3 to 6 people and a lot of them are domestic or gang related. There are a whole lot of people in this country. Not real surprising.

 

 

Meaning...what? That the fact that they were shootings (with guns) is somehow irrelevant because of that? Because, you know...that the discussion here. Gun restrictions. Not whether most shootings are done by gangs or not...

[Bdon]

 

 

There about 300 mass shooting. A year sense 2012 sandy hook

Yeah and you'll find most of those are from Miami, Detroit, Houston, and Chicago. Usually 3 to 6 people and a lot of them are domestic or gang related. There are a whole lot of people in this country. Not real surprising.

That's not even close to being true

 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?page=1

 

How so exactly? You see how many of those on the list come from major cities like Chicago. Did you see how many times Chicago was on the lis? Drive-by's and what not. Usually a lot of gang involvement. If there is a shootout and bystanders get hit then it would be considered that too. How am I off about the numbers? 3-6 are either murdered or injured in most of them.

 

[Generations]

How many of those shootings would happen without guns? None? Okay then. Look...we all get it...criminals find ways to get guns. But that doesn't stop it from being easier to find guns if the number of guns in circulation is higher. Lower that number (via sales restrictions) and you will impact those numbers of shooting deaths by at least some. No one is claiming that it will end entirely. But it will go down. Guns need to come from somewhere to begin with...they don't just materialize out of thin air. Even illegal guns are legal to begin with. When the problem is gun violence, you can't just point the blame at gangs or "bad people"...you need to accept that other steps need to be taken to keep guns out of the hands of those people.

 

[Bdon]

How many of those shootings would happen without guns? None? Okay then. Look...we all get it...criminals find ways to get guns. But that doesn't stop it from being easier to find guns if the number of guns in circulation is higher. Lower that number (via sales restrictions) and you will impact those numbers of shooting deaths by at least some. No one is claiming that it will end entirely. But it will go down. Guns need to come from somewhere to begin with...they don't just materialize out of thin air. Even illegal guns are legal to begin with.

 

 

And what do you propose we do about the the over 1 billion guns in this country already in circulation?

 

[Generations]

 

And what do you propose we do about the the over 1 billion guns in this country already in circulation?

 

That's a pointless question to ask. Those guns exist. We can't miraculously gather them all up and dispose of them. But we can make the process of adding additional guns to that number a more vetted process. Of course it isn't perfect...of course we still have the guns on the street. But, it's the best we've got. And the argument has never been about whether we have a perfect solution or not. The argument has always been pro-gun people arguing against any sort of additional vetting...period; Which is irresponsible and selfish. We can't refuse to take responsibility for things just because we enjoy them. If that was the case, everyone would be flying down the road at 120mph and jerking off in public. Gun owners need to accept that their hobby is potentially deadly, and they need to accept that part of that hobby comes with accepting that jumping through more hoops is necessary. No one is coming for the guns that they own. But if they want to buy more in the future, then they need to accept that there need to be more safeguards.

 

Also, gun enthusiasts NEED to stop romanticizing and glorifying guns. The NRA can suck a whole bag of dicks, tbh. It's your right to own firearms. That's cool. But there is nothing positive to be gained from entire groups of people who pitch guns as a way of life and go out of their way to encourage other people to buy them... is there? The only winner in that scenario are the gun manufacturers themselves. I would force the NRA to disband, if it was up to me. I would say "it's perfectly within your rights to own guns...but it is not acceptable to be out there influencing first time buyers". That's what I would do first and foremost. *Censored* the NRA.

[Mango kid]

I mean it and another fact is America has more mass shootings at any other country in the world that's saying something

[Bdon]

 

 

And what do you propose we do about the the over 1 billion guns in this country already in circulation?

 

That's a pointless question to ask. Those guns exist. We can't miraculously gather them all up and dispose of them. But we can make the process of adding additional guns to that number a more vetted process. Of course it isn't perfect...of course we still have the guns on the street. But, it's the best we've got. And the argument has never been about whether we have a perfect solution or not. The argument has always been pro-gun people arguing against any sort of additional vetting...period; Which is irresponsible and selfish. We can't refuse to take responsibility for things just because we enjoy them. If that was the case, everyone would be flying down the road at 120mph and jerking off in public. Gun owners need to accept that their hobby is potentially deadly, and they need to accept that part of that hobby comes with accepting that jumping through more hoops is necessary. No one is coming for the guns that they own. But if they want to buy more in the future, then they need to accept that there need to be more safeguards.

 

Also, gun enthusiasts NEED to stop romanticizing and glorifying guns. The NRA can suck a whole bag of dicks, tbh. It's your right to own firearms. That's cool. But there is nothing positive to be gained from entire groups of people who pitch guns as a way of life and go out of their way to encourage other people to buy them... is there? The only winner in that scenario are the gun manufacturers themselves. I would force the NRA to disband, if it was up to me. I would say "it's perfectly within your rights to own guns...but it is not acceptable to be out there influencing first time buyers". That's what I would do first and foremost. *Censored* the NRA.

 

But what additional hoops would you suggest seeing as how everything that could be legislated without imposing more on those rights is already in place? You say the argument has never been about the perfect gun laws. Maybe not for you. But for those more extreme than you, it is. If they could rid any American of them they would. As I said earlier it will never be good enough.

 

As far as enthusiasts romanticizing then that should also go for Hollywood too for glorifying murder and war and everything else. As far as pitching guns as a way of life or a way to sell, it is kind of the point of the business. But what you said is completely subjective. The problem there is like I said. That will vary and it's more or less people on both sides just wanting the other to cave to the other's opinions and not finding a compromise. That just won't happen. It's about wanting people to bend to your side because you don't see their point. Or I should say, you don't relate. With the NRA, I don't think we need to force them to disband but I'm not a member nor will it effect me. Just don't see a reason.

 

[M3J]

CITY, Tenn.) Federal agents are trying to determine why a man pulled over for speeding in Tennessee was carrying a cache of weapons including two submachine guns and 900 rounds of ammunition.

 

Deputies found Scott Edmisten, 43, of Johnson City, carrying a .357-caliber Magnum, a loaded .45-caliber semi-automatic, a .223-caliber fully automatic assault rifle, a .308-caliber fully automatic assault rifle, more than 900 rounds of ammunition, and survival equipment, Washington County Sheriff Ed Graybeal said.

 

 

Anytime you have several firearms and several hundred rounds of ammunition in a vehicle, that always causes a concern, said Michael Knight, spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

 

Authorities still havent determined why Edmisten was carrying all that firepower, but they dont see a connection to recent mass shootings, Knight said.

 

A cache of weapons is displayed in Johnson City Tenn. Federal agents are trying to determine why Scott Edmisten, a man pulled over for speeding in Tennessee, was carrying a cache of weapons including two submachine guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

The arrest came a day after Stephen Paddock killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 in Las Vegas, firing down on a music festival crowd from a high-rise hotel suite. Some of the 23 guns in the suite were equipped with devices that enable a rifle to fire continuously, like an automatic.

 

Its not connected to any of the other national incidents, but timing obviously was a concern, Knight said.

 

Graybeal asked the ATF to help investigate the source of the automatic weapons, which werent registered and lack serial numbers. He told The Johnson City Press that Edmisten also had modified the AR rifles to make them automatics.

 

Knight said investigators are tracing where Edmistens weapons came from.

 

Our priority is reducing violent crime on the front end, so thats the other thing were looking at, along with motive: Were these items going to be used for a criminal act or were they just being transported from one area to another area?

 

Graybeal said Edmisten threatened his arresting officer and lunged toward investigators trying to question him. Hes jailed without bond on charges of possessing prohibited weapons, speeding, and felony evading arrest. Its unclear if he has a lawyer.

Why does he or anyone need to have that many guns and ammunition? This is what most of us mean when we want stricter gun control laws.

 

Edmisten must be white though if he tried to attack the investigators and didn't get killed.

 

 

Just mind boggling that gun owners can't see any reason to change the restrictions at all.

 

I don't want to speak for all gun owners, but I believe M3J is the perfect example of why we struggle to find any kind of compromise. In a matter of just a few posts M3J went from:

 

Stricter Gun Laws ---> Family members of those with mental illness can't have guns ---> people with a bad temper can't have guns.

 

Now I understand that MJ3 doesn't speak for you, or everyone who believes in stricter gun laws. But the worry is that there are enough of him, especially in Washington that if we give you an inch, you're going to take a mile.

 

Well, given a friend lost her license to own a gun because of her anger/temper, it seems I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Plus, there are stats that show people with bad history or bad temper have shot and killed someone, mainly in domestic disputes. And there's nothing wrong with making it harder for people to get guns if they live with someone who might not be mentally sound.

 

We struggle to find compromise because of gun freaks like you refusing to budge an inch. Aren't republicans pushing for people with mental illness to have guns? aren't gun owners pushing for guns in sporting events? There are some people who want to ban guns, but there are many others who want stricter gun control, instead of gun lovers offering prayers, thoughts, and all that bullshit after a shooting happens every time.

[Bdon]

You say gun freak. I'd love to see how many people would want to compromise with you after.

[M3J]

What else do you call someone who wants more people to have more guns and wants guns to be allowed at sporting events, where people tend to get into fights as it is? Again, if an accurate description makes you not want to even think about compromising, then that's on you, especially when you have no issue calling the other side libtard or some other shit all the time.

[вrаndоn.]

Why can't they gather them all up though? They did it here in Australia in 86.

Now I understand there are millions of more guns in America than there are in Australia, but still.

Australians willingly handed there guns in, and to this day the country has not had another mass shooting.

 

I myself, don't see the point in owning a gun? For protection? Please, that's stupid imo.

Australians are only allowed guns for a few certain reasons, even then it takes at least a month before you get the weapon due to thorough background checks and a legitimate reason for needing a weapon.

 

[Senex Beast]

So what's going on with the shooter's gf? She's been vacationing in asia but reports say she's returning to the US soon to clear her name. Her picture is all over the news as if she's a suspect.

 

Is there evidence or rumors that she conspired the plan with him or what?

[вrаndоn.]

So what's going on with the shooter's gf? She's been vacationing in asia but reports say she's returning to the US soon to clear her name. Her picture is all over the news as if she's a suspect.

 

Is there evidence or rumors that she conspired the plan with him or what?

She's back in the US.

She was considered a 'person of interest' to the police and FBI.

 

They claimed she had no idea he had planned to do this. Apparently devastated by what he did.

[M3J]

Why can't they gather them all up though? They did it here in Australia in 86.

Now I understand there are millions of more guns in America than there are in Australia, but still.

Australians willingly handed there guns in, and to this day the country has not had another mass shooting.

 

I myself, don't see the point in owning a gun? For protection? Please, that's stupid imo.

Australians are only allowed guns for a few certain reasons, even then it takes at least a month before you get the weapon due to thorough background checks and a legitimate reason for needing a weapon.

 

As you said, too many guns, and it won't stop people from getting guns illegally. Making drugs, abortion, alcohol, and whatnot illegal haven't stopped people from acquiring them, it just usually made the providers money.

 

And protection is a valid reason. The problem is, you don't need more than 3 guns, at most.

[EJ!]

Honest take: there are multiple countries that have very little gun violence and very strict gun laws at the same time. The "there will still be gun violence" argument is valid of course, but the "it wouldn't make a difference" argument isn't. If you believe that, then you must also believe Americans are just inherently more violent. I definitely would agree that the culture for guns in America is stronger than any other country's but I definitely still think the numbers would go down dramatically. I don't see how anyone could argue that.

 

I'm not even in favor of a gun ban, but we gotta lot of guns in this damn country and access to them is still too damn easy. Y'all are saying the rules are strict enough already, but clearly they're not. We gotta remember what we're talking about here. Guns. The sole purpose of them is to kill things. There's no such thing as being too careful here. What's the rate of bomb violence in America? Can't imagine it's too high, because you can't go around buying bombs freely. Wouldn't guns work the same?

[Bdon]

What else do you call someone who wants more people to have more guns and wants guns to be allowed at sporting events, where people tend to get into fights as it is? Again, if an accurate description makes you not want to even think about compromising, then that's on you, especially when you have no issue calling the other side libtard or some other shit all the time.

I hope you are generalizing because I've never once used the term libtard nor do I think it's cute or clever. Any name like that on either side just shows how unintelligent and annoying a person can be. It's just school yard antics. Also someone not needing more than 3 guns is straight up opinion. You have a right to think that way but you have no right to tell other people that.

 

Why can't they gather them all up though? They did it here in Australia in 86.

Now I understand there are millions of more guns in America than there are in Australia, but still.

Australians willingly handed there guns in, and to this day the country has not had another mass shooting.

 

I myself, don't see the point in owning a gun? For protection? Please, that's stupid imo.

Australians are only allowed guns for a few certain reasons, even then it takes at least a month before you get the weapon due to thorough background checks and a legitimate reason for needing a weapon.

 

Well I can tell you right now Americans won't and will never just give them up freely like Australians did. Different culture and mindset is really all I can say but it won't happen. Also a big reason why a good deal of us don't think its stupid to have them. Just different culture. Maybe a buy back would work on a really small scale but not enough to make a dent. It's not that simple here. Too large of a population.

 

Honest take: there are multiple countries that have very little gun violence and very strict gun laws at the same time. The "there will still be gun violence" argument is valid of course, but the "it wouldn't make a difference" argument isn't. If you believe that, then you must also believe Americans are just inherently more violent. I definitely would agree that the culture for guns in America is stronger than any other country's but I definitely still think the numbers would go down dramatically. I don't see how anyone could argue that.

 

I'm not even in favor of a gun ban, but we gotta lot of guns in this damn country and access to them is still too damn easy. Y'all are saying the rules are strict enough already, but clearly they're not. We gotta remember what we're talking about here. Guns. The sole purpose of them is to kill things. There's no such thing as being too careful here. What's the rate of bomb violence in America? Can't imagine it's too high, because you can't go around buying bombs freely. Wouldn't guns work the same?

Not necessarily. Maybe on a small scale. But the thing I still want to know is what kind of actual legislation can we put in place that isn't already there to begin with? Fully automatic legislation is there. What's the answer to that? How exactly would we make it harder for people? Everyone talks about making it harder, enhancing background checks and such. But how? What should they be looking for in the background check? That can only go so far. What would you change in the process? Do you know what the actual cause of the problem is? What in the process is the part that's not enough? What other restrictions do we need for people and the guns themselves and why? Legit questions by the way. I'd like to know what people want exactly and how people think those things will work. All I get are vague answers. Gen talked about vetting them better. How would you do that?

 

Also about the bomb thing. Obviously they won't be sold in stores. Guns have more of a purpose than a bomb anyway. But you can also make your own bombs and even guns if you like. You don't really need to buy them if you have the resources. I imagine that other kinds of violence such as knife and bombs will go up if guns go down. There is always cause and effect. I know some will say "well less people die usually in those attacks so it would be better" but it's really not. It's still a horrible terror attack that seriously hurts and kills people so I really don't know why everyone has such a hard on for how scary guns are when getting attacked at all is pretty damn terrifying. You may think you can thwart other kinds of attacks easier but I promise you if someone wanted to hurt people then they will and you won't. You definitely can't depend on the government to be watching every where and if you want that then that's a whole other issue that we don't want to get into. And it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 100 people, it's terrible either way.

 

The biggest problem I see with all of this is, and I know I'm repeating myself over and over but this is 1 baby step in a direction of other baby steps that may seem ok for now. Right now it's just about finding a little bit better of a solution. Most can admit that nothing is perfect and it wouldn't stop everything but just a few mass shootings a year is all they are asking people to try and consider when they think about gun control. "Common sense" gun control. But then down the line it happens again and again. Maybe a few further in between but it's still terrible just the same. Eventually people will get angry again and then they'll have enough and have to do more to stop it. It's never ending. Then they'll "ask" us to compromise more and more on what to give up or regulate until they get what they want. I'm sure that might sound good to you and others that don't live in the states and don't understand the culture. But it sounds like absolute shit to me and millions of others that don't want to our rights trampled on if it does. And I know it won't end because it's just like everything else. You're ok with a little bit of something until you're not anymore. People don't just settle for very long. It'll work just the same. You can think it's stupid all you want, that's fine. But you won't change that and at least half the population feels that way. You got about a 50/50 split give or take on stricter gun control at the moment. If legislation continues more and more though you'll be on the losing end. But go ahead and elaborate on new legislation. I really do want to understand what everyone actually wants that isn't just "we need to vet and put more hoops in". Tell me what that means.

[Mango kid]

Isn't it against the law that you can't bring guns anywhere that sells alcohol

[M3J]

 

 

I hope you are generalizing because I've never once used the term libtard nor do I think it's cute or clever. Any name like that on either side just shows how unintelligent and annoying a person can be. It's just school yard antics. Also someone not needing more than 3 guns is straight up opinion. You have a right to think that way but you have no right to tell other people that.

Never said you did. but my bad for wording it like that. I meant that I've seen most conservatives act like that and attack the liberals/left all the time, so I don't see why the other side needs to be blamed here. Go to any comment on a tragedy, and you'll most likely see someone say "and those libtards are ruining this country by wanting to take away our guns!" within five seconds.

 

And yes, I agree. It's frustrating trying to be amiable but getting insulted, especially when you're not even a liberal. And then the other side will ironically say "tolerant left" when they're insulted back.

 

Um yeah, I do have a right to tell other people that. Freedom of speech. Just as you have a right to disagree. But why the bloody hell would you or anyone need so many guns? Why do guns have to be so easy to buy? There's absolutely nothing wrong with making it harder for people to buy guns, especially when it's not necessary.

[Creepia]

This has turned into the US politics thread. Same people.

[FulGore]

Don't worry. There will be some form of bill after this.

[sam the d00d]

I'm a little reluctant on the whole taking the guns away solution like Australia. Mainly because there's no *censored*ing part of me that wants to live in a country where American police are the only people with guns. On top of that there's a lot of places in this country where marginilized groups can't feel safe without a gun. Who am I, a white dude who lives in a low crime city, to say that nobody needs to own a gun? Police are probably out to protect me, sure, but they certainly aren't out here to protect everybody. And I have an hunch that if there were to be a gun ban, they'd be cracking down on these people they never protected in the first place before anybody else.

 

I'd tighten up access, probably no assault rifles. But unless there's a radical shift in how law is enforced then I'm never going to be for an all-round ban.

[Bdon]

 

I hope you are generalizing because I've never once used the term libtard nor do I think it's cute or clever. Any name like that on either side just shows how unintelligent and annoying a person can be. It's just school yard antics. Also someone not needing more than 3 guns is straight up opinion. You have a right to think that way but you have no right to tell other people that.

Never said you did. but my bad for wording it like that. I meant that I've seen most conservatives act like that and attack the liberals/left all the time, so I don't see why the other side needs to be blamed here. Go to any comment on a tragedy, and you'll most likely see someone say "and those libtards are ruining this country by wanting to take away our guns!" within five seconds.

 

And yes, I agree. It's frustrating trying to be amiable but getting insulted, especially when you're not even a liberal. And then the other side will ironically say "tolerant left" when they're insulted back.

 

Um yeah, I do have a right to tell other people that. Freedom of speech. Just as you have a right to disagree. But why the bloody hell would you or anyone need so many guns? Why do guns have to be so easy to buy? There's absolutely nothing wrong with making it harder for people to buy guns, especially when it's not necessary.

 

You have a right to express you're own beliefs but not to force it on other people. You sure don't have a right tell other people how to live their life and what they can't and can have. That's as far as it goes before you infringe on those rights.

 

Again it being necessary is subjective. People really don't have to have a reason for you on why they need or want more guns because that's the beautiful thing about the right we have with the 2nd amendment. They really don't owe you anything in the way of an explanation. I'll give you reasons although they've been said before by several and you still won't relate so it probably won't be good enough.

 

This has turned into the US politics thread. Same people.

Well it has become a political issue. You can thank the media and our politicians for that. It is related to the topic still. Didn't realize this thread had to be restricted to a bunch of RIP posts alone.

 

 

@Fulgore I can tell you what will actually happen. What will happen if a bill is proposed then the amount of gun sales will skyrocket and if it's anything like after Sandy Hook people will be spending and making a shit ton of money off of guns and ammunition. So this will actually get that much more guns in circulation. What do you think about them apples?

[Creepia]

I didn't say the thread had to be restricted at all, I simply made an observation.

[EJ!]

I don't know what the answer is, but I know there has to be an answer because we go through this way too often compared to other countries. Everyone hates how often this happens but I know gun enthusiasts definitely hate it because they know exactly what the response is gonna be. The 2nd amendment was thought of when guns took a minute to reload after one shot, things have surely evolved since then so we shouldn't cling to that amendment if we want to move forward. I think the gun enthusiasts should go on the offense and let everyone else know what ideas they have to stop these things, a lot of them are on the defense too much. We can't just shrug our shoulders every time this happens, and until we hear a better idea, a lotta people are gonna want guns outta here because they've seen how much that works.