Another Mass Shooting In The Us...

I appreciate the education several of you provided on the Second Amendment. So, ok, assuming that the Second Amendment means what several of you claim, is there any solution to tragedies such as Sandyhook, Columbine, etc.?

Bob

Those of you who believe it's your God given right to carry a fire arm should come up with a plausible solution to the current rise in gun violence. You can't grasp onto the second amendment as if it were your last right in the world and ignore the current situation. Is that amendant worth the lives of innocent women, men and children? How many children need to be killed before you wake up to reality? Come up with a solution or keep quiet about your gun propaganda.
 
Those of you who believe it's your God given right to carry a fire arm should come up with a plausible solution to the current rise in gun violence. You can't grasp onto the second amendment as if it were your last right in the world and ignore the current situation. Is that amendant worth the lives of innocent women, men and children? How many children need to be killed before you wake up to reality? Come up with a solution or keep quiet about your gun propaganda.

Perhaps those of you who think citing facts is propaganda should take a look at the numbers:

Guns and Violence in the United States, By the Numbers

If the gun control activists are right, then more guns must equal more crime. However, even in this graph that shows the overall homicide rate in blue and the firearms related homicide rate in red, you can clearly see that the phrase “steady” is the worst you can use to describe the current state of affairs in the United States, and the phrase “decline” might be more appropriate for the years since 2005. These numbers are from the U.S. Government Center for Disease Control, which tracks all deaths in the United States, and I personally pulled them yesterday when researching this article.

Gun control activists constantly clamor that there’s a “gun violence epidemic” in the United States, but the numbers don’t reflect that statement. In fact, the argument could be made that as the firearms ownership rate increases there’s a correlation to a decline in the murder rate. So perhaps, more guns equal less crime? That’s the position taken by a recent study from Virginia that showed a decrease in violent crime as the number of firearms being sold increased, and while it’s an interesting possibility there’s no good way to decisively prove it. On the other hand, this data does decisively disprove the gun control hypothesis that “more guns = more crime.”

The burden of proof is on the gun control activists. Their assertion is that more guns equal more crime, that concealed carry means “shoot-outs in the streets” and deranged “gun nuts” looking to kill people, and that there’s a “gun violence epidemic” that needs to be addressed. But looking at the numbers from the CDC, I don’t see it. Gun sales have gone through the roof in the last six years, and at worst the numbers for firearm related deaths are stable. At best, they’re declining. Not one single metric that I could find indicated that gun owners were anything less than model citizens, and that gun ownership is not the root of all evil.

The best confirmation of this comes not from any study or calculation, but from the opinions of the American people themselves. Support for gun control is at an all time low. I’d like to think that it’s because people are finally understanding that the object is not the problem but instead it’s the behavior that needs to be changed. However, some people still don’t see the light. Hopefully with enough proof we can change their minds as well.


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/foghorn/guns-violence-united-states-numbers/

There is no argument that the "mass shootings" in the past few years are truly horrific, but the increase in the number of guns sold to private citizens since this article was published have not increased the rate of "gun violence" and, in fact, by virture of the sheer numbers, have decreased it.
 
Come on Steve, do you need to sell personal opinions of an NRA supporter as "scientific facts"? The real numbers are the reason that the NRA does everything to prevent the CDC researching gun violence as a public health issue. You can argue about whether the right to own a firearm should be limited or not, but don't fake the science if it doesn't fit your agenda. Here are references from Harvard's Center for Firearms Research which debunk all the point brought up by your "source": https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
I know it's a polarizing topic and your stance is very clear, but cherrypicking single data points and then trying to reverse the scientific results found is shameful, no matter which topic is discussed.
 
I would like a solution to mass shootings. And more gun control clearly isn't the answer. If we somehow did pass a 100% gun control bill - that all firearms were illegal and only the police and military had firearms do you really think that criminals would go back to using knives? If someone was motivated to kill lots of people they would find a way to get a firearm. People are very creative and, unfortunately, insane people sometimes are the most creative.
 
A Thought:
Impossible for me to it figure it all out. Nothing make any sense to me anymore. In the eyes of the law I am mentally stable enough to purchase and openly carry an AR 15 around town in my home state. Perfectly legal. Just your average nutcase: need to carry an AR 15. However, am not qualified or or stable enough to carry a bottle of water through the TSA checkpoint at the local airport, it is illegal and theoretically could be arrested. Why am I qualified for one thing (own and openly carry an AR15 and not the other, possess a bottle of water through the TSA checkpoint. Talk about a f... Up tyrannical government. The wheels have fallen off the bus.
 
I would like a solution to mass shootings. And more gun control clearly isn't the answer. If we somehow did pass a 100% gun control bill - that all firearms were illegal and only the police and military had firearms do you really think that criminals would go back to using knives? If someone was motivated to kill lots of people they would find a way to get a firearm. People are very creative and, unfortunately, insane people sometimes are the most creative.

This thread pretty much contains everything that can be said on the subject, from just about every angle. But there still seem to be those who think that strict gun laws can prevent the atrocities we've seen in the last few years. To this, I'll say: Norway.

Norway is strict in its rules for gun ownership. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia...itics_in_Norway

"Gun ownership is restricted in Norway, unless one has officially documented a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defense, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency.
There are special rules for collectors of guns. They are exempt from many parts of the regulation, but, in turn, they must meet even more narrow qualifications. Collectors may purchase, but not fire without permission, all kinds of guns in their respective areas of interest, which they have defined in advance.
Ownership is regulated in paragraph 7,[sup][1][/sup] and responsibility for issuing a gun ownership license is given to the police authority in the applicant's district.
Rifle and shotgun ownership permission can be given to "sober and responsible" persons 18 years or older. The applicant for the permission must document a need for the weapon. Two exceptions exist to this age qualification. Persons under the age of 18, but over 16 may apply for rifle or shotgun ownership licence with the consent of parents or guardian. For handguns, the lowest ownership age is 21 with no exceptions allowed. For inherited weapons, it is up to the local police chief to make a decision based on the individual facts of the case.
An applicant must have a clean police record in order to obtain an ownership license."

And yet, as we all remember: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#cite_note-trond-berntsen-21

"The 2011 Norway attacks, referred to in Norway as 22 July (Norwegian: 22. juli),[sup][14][/sup] the date of the events, were two sequential lone wolf terrorist attacks by Anders Behring Breivik against the government, the civilian population, and aWorkers' Youth League (AUF)-run summer camp. The attacks claimed a total of 77 lives.
The first attack was a car bomb explosion in Oslo within Regjeringskvartalet, the executive government quarter of Norway, at 15:25:22 (CEST).[sup][1][/sup] The bomb was made from a mixture of fertiliser and fuel oil[sup][15][/sup][sup][16][/sup] and placed in the back of a van.[sup][17][/sup] The van was placed next to the tower block housing the office of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.[sup][18][/sup]The explosion killed eight people and injured at least 209 people, twelve of them seriously.[sup][10][/sup][sup][11][/sup][sup][12][/sup]
The second attack occurred less than two hours later at a summer camp on the island of Utøya in Tyrifjorden,Buskerud. The camp was organized by the AUF, the youth division of the ruling Norwegian Labour Party (AP). Breivik, dressed in a homemade police uniform and showing false identification,[sup][19][/sup][sup][20][/sup] took a ferry to the island and opened fire at the participants, killing 68 of them outright,[sup][7][/sup][sup][8][/sup] and injuring at least 110 people, 55 of them seriously;[sup][11][/sup][sup][12][/sup] the 69th victim died in a hospital two days after the massacre.[sup][9][/sup] Among the dead were personal friends of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and the stepbrother of Norway's crown princess Mette-Marit."

Not trying to make a huge point here, but to underscore what others have said, with a horrible example. Stricter gun control laws would not have prevented the Norwegian tragedy.

As GS says, people are very creative, and some of them are very determined.
 
This thread pretty much contains everything that can be said on the subject, from just about every angle. But there still seem to be those who think that strict gun laws can prevent the atrocities we've seen in the last few years.

Nice straw man... There seem to be those who think that strict gun laws cannot prevent all homicides and mass killings, but reduce them significantly. Even though we cannot prevent fatal car accidents, it makes still sense to have seat belt laws and speed limits.
 
Perhaps those of you who think citing facts is propaganda should take a look at the numbers:

Guns and Violence in the United States, By the Numbers

If the gun control activists are right, then more guns must equal more crime. However, even in this graph that shows the overall homicide rate in blue and the firearms related homicide rate in red, you can clearly see that the phrase “steady” is the worst you can use to describe the current state of affairs in the United States, and the phrase “decline” might be more appropriate for the years since 2005. These numbers are from the U.S. Government Center for Disease Control, which tracks all deaths in the United States, and I personally pulled them yesterday when researching this article.

Gun control activists constantly clamor that there’s a “gun violence epidemic” in the United States, but the numbers don’t reflect that statement. In fact, the argument could be made that as the firearms ownership rate increases there’s a correlation to a decline in the murder rate. So perhaps, more guns equal less crime? That’s the position taken by a recent study from Virginia that showed a decrease in violent crime as the number of firearms being sold increased, and while it’s an interesting possibility there’s no good way to decisively prove it. On the other hand, this data does decisively disprove the gun control hypothesis that “more guns = more crime.”

The burden of proof is on the gun control activists. Their assertion is that more guns equal more crime, that concealed carry means “shoot-outs in the streets” and deranged “gun nuts” looking to kill people, and that there’s a “gun violence epidemic” that needs to be addressed. But looking at the numbers from the CDC, I don’t see it. Gun sales have gone through the roof in the last six years, and at worst the numbers for firearm related deaths are stable. At best, they’re declining. Not one single metric that I could find indicated that gun owners were anything less than model citizens, and that gun ownership is not the root of all evil.

The best confirmation of this comes not from any study or calculation, but from the opinions of the American people themselves. Support for gun control is at an all time low. I’d like to think that it’s because people are finally understanding that the object is not the problem but instead it’s the behavior that needs to be changed. However, some people still don’t see the light. Hopefully with enough proof we can change their minds as well.


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/foghorn/guns-violence-united-states-numbers/

There is no argument that the "mass shootings" in the past few years are truly horrific, but the increase in the number of guns sold to private citizens since this article was published have not increased the rate of "gun violence" and, in fact, by virture of the sheer numbers, have decreased it.

Why don't you show those statistics and studies to the parents of the dead kindergarteners?

Who cares about useless studies and statistics. Can you come up with a solution?
 
I would like a solution to mass shootings. And more gun control clearly isn't the answer.

Well, it certainly worked here in Australia. We haven't had a gun massacre since major reform after the last gun massacre in 1996. Not one. Currently we have around 11 times less murders by firearm than the US per 100,000 population. Maybe US citizens are so much more murderous than us, but just to say that 'more gun control clearly isn't the answer' is nonsense. If you really would like a solution to mass shootings as you say, perhaps you'd like to support some change to the law that would achieve that? Or is your love of guns more important? Why don't the gun nuts just say "We love our guns, doesn't matter how many people get killed, we're not giving them up". A bit of honesty please.
 
Exactly.
Refuting distractions off topic.

Why don't the gun nuts just say "We love our guns, doesn't matter how many people get killed, we're not giving them up". A bit of honesty please.
For the 1/2 always prefixed LawAbidingCitizens nothing is acceptable (there is NO solution .. NON).
The other 1/2 (presumably NonLawAbidingNonCitizens) they have to accept carnage collateral as a reality of life.
As one poster quoted statistics from reliable sources showing the good news the carnage is improving and getting better than ever.
 
Back
Top