El Paso Texas today active shooter Walmart - 18 reportedly shot- (news video & print article)

[SugarOcean]

Reality sucks doesn't it.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, I went to Walmart today, and there were no signs of mass shootings at all. I survived. There were a couple of rude people near the lunchmeat section, though.

 

[Jose Fly]

Number of Children & Adolescents Taking Psychiatric Drugs in the U.S

And therefore.......?

 

[Jose Fly]

And yet the UK still has high crime statistics even though guns are outlawed. Which makes your anti-gun rhetoric fail in comparison to reality there.

That's pretty dishonest framing on your part. The point of stricter gun control laws is not to reduce overall crime (e.g. car theft, vandalism), but to reduce the number of gun deaths.

And again, the data is abundantly clear....more guns = more gun deaths.

 

[We Never Know]

And therefore.......?

Therefore in the U.S. over 20% of kids ages 0-17 take some kind of psychiatric drug but many seem to think mental problems aren't an issue.

 

[Trailblazer]

Reality sucks doesn't it.

Fantasy is what sucks.

 

[Left Coast]

Incorrect. My example is the example set by the world itself. There are laws that the law abiding obey. And there are laws that are ignored by the criminal element.

Pretty much every law I've heard of is broken by somebody. So if the logic is that we shouldn't have a law because people will break it, then we shouldn't have any laws at all.

And crime statistics reflect the scope of the law that is disobeyed and that makes the law abiding the targets of those culprits.

No, what I mean is that people have more opportunity to break some laws more than others, based on how wide the scope of the law is and how well the law is enforced. If we want fewer people to break gun laws, we need to make it harder for them to do so. One method to accomplish this is to make gun laws nation-wide so people can't just cross the city or state border to get what would be illegal where they live.

That's a skewed point of view.
Police police communities and enforce the laws that law breakers break.

And they have to police communities with guns because...those communities have guns. This is obvious.

And you're wrong. As the examples of civilians stopping gun crime, some examples that I have already posted, as well as an off duty officer, are reality. Which you ignored apparently.

What I tend to ignore is anecdotal evidence, which is what you've got. Stats are much more convincing. The FBI's own stats on active shooter situations show that good guys with guns rarely resolve active shooter situations.

And yet the UK still has high crime statistics even though guns are outlawed. Which makes your anti-gun rhetoric fail in comparison to reality there.

And yet fewer people are killed in those crimes. Shouldn't we all universally agree that's a good thing? So no, they haven't found a public policy to magically make all crime disappear. They have found a way to maintain a society where vastly fewer people are killed. Why wouldn't we imitate success?

Given the ratio of gun ownership to crime by armed offenders?

Yes. The gun crime rate is vastly higher here than other countries, as is our gun ownership rate. If you think those are coincidences, you have your head in the sand.

Accidental gun deaths and injury are not part of crime statistics.

I don't care just about murder, I care about all preventable deaths. Don't you?

You're not aware that just because guns are outlawed that criminals still obtain guns? And that violent crime in such countries still occur?

Asked and answered. Criminals obtain guns because we make it easy.

A crime where the victim lives is generally preferable to a crime where the victim dies.

 

[Jose Fly]

Therefore in the U.S. over 20% of kids ages 0-17 take some kind of psychiatric drug but many seem to think mental problems aren't an issue.

I haven't seen anyone express the view that "mental problems aren't an issue". Do you have an example of someone doing so?

 

[columbus]

The NRA has been disgustingly effective in one regard....mass shootings are just background noise now. One happens, there's a day or two of coverage and debate, and then we all go back to our lives and nothing changes. Then the next one happens.....

I don't even think that the NRA is primarily about gun rights and education any more.

They're a Political Action Committee. They can support any politician or party they want to, and get tax deductible donations to do it with. From corporate welfare to USA militarism to christianism, the politicians that they throw money at have a lot more in common than just the 2nd Amendment.
Tom

 

[We Never Know]

I haven't seen anyone express the view that "mental problems aren't an issue". Do you have an example of someone doing so?

There are several posts in this thread. #77 for example.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't even think that the NRA is primarily about gun rights and education any more.

They're a Political Action Committee. They can support any politician or party they want to, and get tax deductible donations to do it with. From corporate welfare to USA militarism to christianism, the politicians that they throw money at have a lot more in common than just the 2nd Amendment.
Tom

Agreed. The NRA wasn't always like this either. But at some point they pivoted to a position of opposing any gun legislation at all, no matter what. IMO, that makes them an extremist organization.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are several posts in this thread. #77 for example.

Post #77 doesn't express the sentiment that "mental problems aren't an issue".

 

[columbus]

Agreed. The NRA wasn't always like this either. But at some point they pivoted to a position of opposing any gun legislation at all, no matter what. IMO, that makes them an extremist organization.

The NRA doesn't only oppose gun legislation.
They also support corporate welfare and foreign wars, and oppose abortion rights and infrastructure improvements.

Take a look at the politicians that they support and look at what they stand for.
It isn't just 2nd Amendment rights that the politicians that they support have in common.
Tom

 

[Jose Fly]

The NRA doesn't only oppose gun legislation.
They also support corporate welfare and foreign wars, and oppose abortion rights and infrastructure improvements.

Take a look at the politicians that they support and look at what they stand for.
It isn't just 2nd Amendment rights that the politicians that they support have in common.
Tom

Yup. Modern conservatism in the US has certainly taken an ugly turn. I used to pride myself on voting a split ticket, always focusing on picking the best candidate regardless of party. But lately I have a very difficult time finding Republicans who don't hold quite extreme views.

 

[We Never Know]

Post #77 doesn't express the sentiment that "mental problems aren't an issue".

Post #77 doesn't express the sentiment that "mental problems aren't an issue".

For shootings it clearly does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed. The NRA wasn't always like this either. But at some point they pivoted to a position of opposing any gun legislation at all, no matter what. IMO, that makes them an extremist organization.

It appears that the change in the NRA arose from a raid on a particular NRA memberl:

When the NRA Supported Gun Control

"A shift in the NRA’s platform occurred when in 1971 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, during a house raid, shot and paralyzed longtime NRA member Kenyon Ballew suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons. The NRA swiftly condemned the federal government. As Winkler points out, following the incident NRA board member and editor of New Hampshire’s Manchester Union Leader William Loeb referred to the federal agents as “Treasury Gestapo”; the association soon appropriated the language of the Panthers insisting that the Second Amendment protected individual gun rights."

And the government did screw up big time in that raid. A person may have seen a dummy grenade, actually marked "inert", but that was claimed to be a box of grenades.

Ken Ballew raid - Wikipedia

That was the beginning of the NRA's transformation it continued and by 1976 they were quite different from the past. In the past they supported gun control laws and by '76 they were rabidly against them:

The NRA's journey from marksmanship to political brinkmanship

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup. Modern conservatism in the US has certainly taken an ugly turn. I used to pride myself on voting a split ticket, always focusing on picking the best candidate regardless of party. But lately I have a very difficult time finding Republicans who don't hold quite extreme views.

I used to heavily lean right but the Republicans changed from being fiscally conservative to being pro-big business and opposed personal freedoms. Trump was the cure for me.

 

[columbus]

Yup. Modern conservatism in the US has certainly taken an ugly turn. I used to pride myself on voting a split ticket, always focusing on picking the best candidate regardless of party. But lately I have a very difficult time finding Republicans who don't hold quite extreme views.

Me too.
For most of my adult life I picked votes based on my opinion of their character and likelihood of delivering on campaign promises I wanted to see happen.
But around the late 90s I came to realize that the Republicans didn't care about the country any more, they're all about the Republican party. So I stopped voting for them more and more, although it took until 2010 to stop completely.
That's when the TeaParty took over, and the Republicans lost control.
Tom

 

[SugarOcean]

Pretty much every law I've heard of is broken by somebody. So if the logic is that we shouldn't have a law because people will break it, then we shouldn't have any laws at all.

Not what I said.Not even close.

No, what I mean is that people have more opportunity to break some laws more than others, based on how wide the scope of the law is and how well the law is enforced. If we want fewer people to break gun laws, we need to make it harder for them to do so. One method to accomplish this is to make gun laws nation-wide so people can't just cross the city or state border to get what would be illegal where they live.

Gun ownership is an unalienable right. A right. Not a privilege nor a right endowed by the Constitution. Rather the Constitution reiterates that our right to own guns s unalienable.

Thinking to take guns away from all people because crazy people use guns to act crazy is losing sight of the real issue. Crazy. Angry. Vengeful.

And they have to police communities with guns because...those communities have guns. This is obvious.

You're really not up to discussing this topic. Have a good one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not what I said.Not even close.



Gun ownership is an unalienable right. A right. Not a privilege nor a right endowed by the Constitution. Rather the Constitution reiterates that our right to own guns s unalienable.

Thinking to take guns away from all people because crazy people use guns to act crazy is losing sight of the real issue. Crazy. Angry. Vengeful.





You're really not up to discussing this topic. Have a good one.

Sorry, but like it or not "rights" come from the government. You are confused by the Declaration of Independence. It is not a legal document as to what are and what are not rights. But I bet that you do not understand the rights come from the government.