[Nevyn]

Gotta love the hypocrisy. A foreigner who has been in states for 5+ years kills 8 ... we need 'extreme vetting' for people to come to the country.

An american citizen shoots 26 and .... lets not make this tragedy political ....

[Macros]

The shooter was white, clearly he was a lone wolf and not a terrorist

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 06 November 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Gotta love the hypocrisy. A foreigner who has been in states for 5+ years kills 8 ... we need 'extreme vetting' for people to come to the country.

An american citizen shoots 26 and .... lets not make this tragedy political ....

Don't forget Vegas...same thing as the church shooter...but same reaction...let's not politicize this! Meanwhile a guy who was radicalized IN the States...kills 8 with a truck and causes Trump to go all "Ban immigrants!"

It's fucking ludicrous, and OH so transparent.

[Nicodimas]

https://bearingarms....uns-four-years/

As a note you can easily fudge a 4473.. it literally asks you if you have a felony, courtmartialed.. etc however....

But that’s why you call it into FBI NICS. The government couldn’t intentify this person bought these guns and gave him them! A court martial for a dishorable discharge for assault no less means ..he shouldn’t have guns. This should have been a red flag and a door knock from local police... but...

The fbi said he could have guns.

They couldn’t even enforce this mere law on this very small scale. This is another clear case that the powers that be can’t keep you safe.

Keep training y’all and stay safe.

[Vengeance]

Nicodimas, on 06 November 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

https://bearingarms....uns-four-years/

As a note you can easily fudge a 4473.. it literally asks you if you have a felony, courtmartialed.. etc however....

But that’s why you call it into FBI NICS. The government couldn’t intentify this person bought these guns and gave him them! A court martial for a dishorable discharge for assault no less means ..he shouldn’t have guns. This should have been a red flag and a door knock from local police... but...

The fbi said he could have guns.

They couldn’t even enforce this mere law on this very small scale. This is another clear case that the powers that be can’t keep you safe.

Keep training y’all and stay safe.

Yeah cause the NRA and the gun lobbyist want everyone to be armed.

http://time.com/5011...h-donald-trump/


This sums up my feels

https://www.washingt...m=.0bdcdfef4fdb

[worry]

What did the 'good guy with a gun' use to shoot the shooter? A hunting rifle. Have you ever in your life heard a mainstream American politician say anything negative about hunting rifles?

We already know the cause and the solution to this problem. https://www.vox.com/...ng-good-guy-gun
And it's the opposite of "get more guns".

Quote

“Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide,” David Hemenway, the Injury Control Research Center’s director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health. For example, this chart, from a 2007 study by Harvard researchers, shows a correlation between statewide firearm homicide victimization rates and household gun ownership after controlling for robbery rates:

Social Science and Medicine A more recent study from 2013, led by a Boston University School of Public Health researcher, reached similar conclusions: After controlling for multiple variables, the study found that a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level.

This holds up around the world. As Zack Beauchamp explained for Vox, a breakthrough analysis in 1999 by UC Berkeley’s Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins found that the US does not, contrary to the old conventional wisdom, have more crime in general than other Western industrial nations. Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.

[Cause]

Im possibly reading that wrong but it says the opposite. The higher the percentage of people living in gun houses the lower the gun victimization number. Bottom right.

Am I missing something?

[worry]

Nah, it's a weird chart that also is controlling for robbery rates. And it's showing that in states with high, medium, or low robbery rates, the trend is still the higher the proportion of gun owning households, the higher the rate of gun homicides. The slope of the lines is what's important, not what portion of the chart they cover.

This post has been edited by worry: 06 November 2017 - 09:55 PM

[Cause]

worry, on 06 November 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

Nah, it's a weird chart that also is controlling for robbery rates. And it's showing that in states with high, medium, or low robbery rates, the trend is still the higher the proportion of gun owning households, the higher the rate of gun homicides. The slope of the lines is what's important, not what portion of the chart they cover.

Yes but the dotted slope representing the highest 32% of gun victimization numbers is in the early part of the graph whereas the dashed slope representing the bottom 32% of gun victimization rates is in the very high 50-60% gun ownership part. The slopes do go up, but its still better to be going up on the dashed slope than the dotted or regular line slope. Though 60% gun ownership seems a high target to aim for. The real interpretation of this graph is that gun victimization goes up linearly with guns until the 40-50% line is crossed and then it goes down dramatically.

This post has been edited by Cause: 07 November 2017 - 07:43 AM

[Traveller]

I'm curious to know if Americans that are pro gun change their views when their immediate family members are killed in these regular shootings.

Surely a number of the victims relatives are pro gun or own guns themselves. Are they still defensive about their right to own a gun, even if their child has been uneccessarily killed by one?

[Gorefest]

Many even moreso, I imagine. Because if they are gunowners there is a good chance that they already believe in the ludicrous adage that a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun. This bizarre mindset seems to run deep in American society. It’s the glorification of the vigilante mentality.

[Nevyn]

Cause, on 07 November 2017 - 07:42 AM, said:

worry, on 06 November 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

Nah, it's a weird chart that also is controlling for robbery rates. And it's showing that in states with high, medium, or low robbery rates, the trend is still the higher the proportion of gun owning households, the higher the rate of gun homicides. The slope of the lines is what's important, not what portion of the chart they cover.

Yes but the dotted slope representing the highest 32% of gun victimization numbers is in the early part of the graph whereas the dashed slope representing the bottom 32% of gun victimization rates is in the very high 50-60% gun ownership part. The slopes do go up, but its still better to be going up on the dashed slope than the dotted or regular line slope. Though 60% gun ownership seems a high target to aim for. The real interpretation of this graph is that gun victimization goes up linearly with guns until the 40-50% line is crossed and then it goes down dramatically.

Worry's point was that the different lines are for external causes (robbery rates) that drive the homicide rate.

So the dotted line controls for high robbery states, and within then the trend is more guns, more homicide.

The dashed is low robbery states, and within it, again, more guns, more homicide.

You are trying to connect the lines, but plotting doesn't really work like that. The lines are meant to be a somewhat central path through the points, so if you tried to ignore all external factors and variation and draw one trend line, it would likely look a lot like the solid line, with maybe a bit less slope.


Note: i am taking the robberies as the difference based on worry's post. The reason for the variation is not specified on the graph.

But it is pretty simple to tell why you would not compare gun homicide rates in, say, New York to those in say, Oklahoma. Population density plays a big role, especially since both poverty and crime trend towards high density areas. You need to compare similar states in population density and demographics with differing gun ownership rates.

[Nevyn]

T, on 07 November 2017 - 09:53 AM, said:

I'm curious to know if Americans that are pro gun change their views when their immediate family members are killed in these regular shootings.

Surely a number of the victims relatives are pro gun or own guns themselves. Are they still defensive about their right to own a gun, even if their child has been uneccessarily killed by one?

There are a number of individual cases of those touched by these mass shootings going from pro gun to being anti gun activists, to the point that some of them are very vocally involved.

But numbers wise, they are a drop in the population bucket and cannot touch the power of the gun and ammunition manufacturing lobby (you can call it the NRA, but it is not riflemen driving the policy).


And when you get into why that lobby is powerful, it comes down to demographics and gerrymandering. A number of congressmen and senators could be vulnerable to defeat in even moderate districts if they were targeted by the NRA. And in the meantime, there are a number of safe right wing districts where any level of pro gun position, no matter how ridiculous (legalizing open carry of rocket launchers) would not see the candidate defeated.

The net effect is there is zero political pressure on gun control opponents to consider even reasonable measures (wider and background checks, ban bump stocks). In the meantime, there is constant pressure on moderates not to take the lead on an anti-gun measure.

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 07 November 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

The net effect is there is zero political pressure on gun control opponents to consider even reasonable measures (wider and background checks, ban bump stocks). In the meantime, there is constant pressure on moderates not to take the lead on an anti-gun measure.

^^This right here is it in a microcosm from what I can see.

You can be pro-gun ALL you like as far as the government and gun supporters are concerned...but if you even dare BREATHE about gun controls of any kind....you get raked over the coals.

I mean, we can once again look at what had to happen in Australia in '96...from what I understand, a typically pro-gun politician (John Howard) had to take a stand and risk that political position to take up the higher cause of ridding his country of gun violence, AND he had to convince the various states in Oz to comply.

Not enough people in the political circle in Washington has even 1/4 of the sack to pull an about face like this on a policy that might threaten their lofty job. They selfishly choose their own power, over the lives of so many others.

Reminder: The incident that should have watershed similar strict gun control in the US already happened (Sandy Hook), and no one did anything.

[Nicodimas]

@ Qt: There will be no gun control measures that will occur in the US, different culture. People here may not quite put it together, but the 2nd simply keeps tyranny at bay. It makes the rest of the world more free.

@all: I like this article as it takes a very different viewpoint then I have personally, but definitely gets you thinking about the different path society can take to address the *real* problem. The person behind the weapon used. As a weapon is just the implement of another human being.

http://www.slate.com...ass_murder.html

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 07 November 2017 - 06:20 PM

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 07 November 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

@ Qt: There will be no gun control measures that will occur in the US, different culture.

This is bullshit. You know it's bullshit when you wrote it. It remains bullshit.

The whole 'it would never work here because we are special' is bullshit. Stop with this shitty excuse for your love of trinkets that are partially responsible for the death of thousands of american citizens every year.

[QuickTidal]

Nicodimas, on 07 November 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

@ Qt: There will be no gun control measures that will occur in the US, different culture. People here may not quite put it together, but the 2nd simply keeps tyranny at bay.

See, this defense always makes me laugh. Most countries on the planet have decent-to-solid gun control on the books...and we are all keeping ourselves SAFER than you lot have been. Our COLLECTIVE gun crime (mass shooting or otherwise) in a year, is less than yours in month.

This idea that you need that access and are somehow better off for it, flies in the face of every other country that utilizes gun control to lessen gun violence, and the fact that your gun violence tops every other country on the planet on a daily basis. It's a fairytale you tell yourself so you can keep these objects of destruction. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that your way isn't working....but you all ignore it, and then try to tell me that you need to keep yourself safe...I guess the rest of us are all dead and/or not keeping safe from day to day and year to year? We must be if your way is the only one that works, and what we all have with our gun control laws makes us super unsafe. Do you even hear yourself?

Nicodimas, on 07 November 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

It makes the rest of the world more free.

Congrats, this is literally the most bullshit thing you've ever said here (that I've seen). The rest of the world is not "more free" because you lot have such unrestricted access to such weaponry. In fact, in Vegas a bunch of MY countrypeople were slaughtered by some petulant, cowardly American asshole who decided to shoot at a mass of people from a hotel room, and then kill himself.

If mental health was the gut of the issue...then please explain the numbers of gun deaths (mass shooting or otherwise) in the USA VS other countries. Does Canada (for example) simply not have any people with mental health issues? I assure you we do. What's the difference then between the two countries and the MASSIVE disparity between the gun deaths? I can tell you that the difference is DING DING DING....unrestricted access to guns in the USA...NOT mental health.

[Nevyn]

Nicodimas, on 07 November 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

@ Qt: There will be no gun control measures that will occur in the US, different culture. People here may not quite put it together, but the 2nd simply keeps tyranny at bay. It makes the rest of the world more free.

Complete nonsense.

First, drop the culture excuse. Yes, the US has a gun culture problem, but polling consistently shows popular support for more gun control. It is politics and demographics that causes the inertia.

And it in no way makes anyone more free.

Americans have this crazy idea that they need the 2nd amendment and otherwise evil elitist governments will take away their guns. But most of the places with tighter gun control have it because nowhere near enough of their citizens WANT guns.

You don't have people in Canada or Britain or elsewhere desperate for guns to protect from burglars or tyranny. Most in those countries would guffaw at the notion that guns would help anyway. And if a groundswell of people in those countries did want them, they could get them. Many are parliamentary democraries, where it is in fact easier to get popular legal changes passed.

In fact, in a way America is less free than those countries, because while in them they could have tighter OR looser gun laws with the right public support, American citizens are held hostage first by a constitutional anachronism that restrains what the law can do, and second by special interests who can override popular opinion and steer debate.

And even worse, not only does the gun lobby obstruct any effort at regulation, whether it would impinge on 'rights' or not, at the same time , they also use the existence of the effort as a marketing gimmick to sell more guns and ammo..

[amphibian]

The odd thing is that the primary mechanism of American creation of freedom is murdering people with guns and/or giving them money to buy more weapons themselves.

[Silencer]

What I want to know is how are the guns supposed to protect you from a tyrant when so many of the vocal pro-gun side are also the ones voting for and supporting the most flagrantly authoritarian candidate/president in living memory?

(also, we've been over this before Nico - Australia was very pro-gun: there were large demonstrations and plenty of people threatening to kill to defend their right to gun ownership. They got over it. Our culture changed. We may not have had a 2nd amendment right but Australians were still very upset with the whole idea. Now we're mass shooting free, and the people who need guns or use them for recreation can get them after going through a thorough process, and we have no tyranny (and are very well aware that a few rifles amongst the population would do fuck all to stop a dictatorship because, you know, tanks and planes and missiles and an actual trained military...))