Ho hum, another day, another mass shooting in the US.

[Milton Platt]

You left out the part about how nobody's gun shot wounds were life threatening.

Anybody who wants to take my gun away from me is going to have to do this over my dead body.

Nobody will want to take your gun unless you start shooting police officers or people on the street.

 

[Curious George]

We can walk and chew gum, I would hope.

One of the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to violence in our culture is gun violence. The problem is that it has become so pervasive that we have been convinced it is inevitable and unchangeable.

You seem to have missed my point. It is not that "nothing" will progress the situation, it is that some of us treat specific gun control legislation as a non-starter that is really being opined. So let us walk and chew bubblegum. Do you believe that poverty, education and our violent culture are aspects that need to be addressed?

 

[Curious George]

40. Thousand. Deaths. And you want to argue semantics

Yes I want to discuss whether your reasons for "snark" are really as meritorious as you claim. You are vilifying one side because they do not agree with your proposed solution. That is problematic. If there is an obstacle in our midst, I would suggest that is the real one (not the fact that some people disagree with broad gun control legislation).

 

[Curious George]

~ half are suicides (which make up half of all suicides) Japan has very strict gun control and has a suicide problem so no, more regulations will not stop suicides.

Of the ~20,000 that are left, police chiefs around the nation approximate that %60 is drug or gang related, which leaves you with less than 10,000 deaths of various types.

you also avoided my direct question.

Over 60% are suicides. However gun control would likely lower our suicide rate as well. People using less efficient or expedient alternatives would provide more time for intervention.

I do agree with your point though as the suicide and homicide rates are not likely to dramatically decrease (as seen with other nations though comparing nations is problematic). Without doubt very strict gun control would make it a little harder for some people to kill others. It will not address the underlying problems which we still need to address. I wonder sometimes if gun control folks don't really care about poverty, education, health care, and our violent culture.

It is easy to write off the rest of society and say, as long as I am safer I could give two sh$%@ about the rest of them. I think it is very naive for young healthy, relatively wealthy, and strong individuals to preach about gun control. After all, gun control would likely make such people safer. There are many people, however, that will not be made safer.

 

[Stanyon]

Over 60% are suicides. However gun control would likely lower our suicide rate as well. People using less efficient or expedient alternatives would provide more time for intervention.

I do agree with your point though as the suicide and homicide rates are not likely to dramatically decrease (as seen with other nations though comparing nations is problematic). Without doubt very strict gun control would make it a little harder for some people to kill others. It will not address the underlying problems which we still need to address. I wonder sometimes if gun control folks don't really care about poverty, education, health care, and our violent culture.

It is easy to write off the rest of society and say, as long as I am safer I could give two sh$%@ about the rest of them. I think it is very naive for young healthy, relatively wealthy, and strong individuals to preach about gun control. After all, gun control would likely make such people safer. There are many people, however, that will not be made safer.

Calls for more gun control seems a simple band aid and go to for politicians wanting to score some points by pretending to "do something" or wanting to do something. It's far easier to do that than actually address and attempt to fix the underlying factors that causes the violence in the first place.

 

[Left Coast]

You seem to have missed my point. It is not that "nothing" will progress the situation, it is that some of us treat specific gun control legislation as a non-starter that is really being opined.

Why is it a non-starter?

If it won't progress the situation (contrary to all the evidence from around the world, not to mention common sense, that it will), what will? Why is it that we're the only developed country that suffers mass shootings at such an enormous scale, if it isn't the widespread availability of guns?

So let us walk and chew bubblegum. Do you believe that poverty, education and our violent culture are aspects that need to be addressed?

Yes. Do you believe that gun violence is one of the most obvious and lethal examples of violence in our culture?

Do you believe that other developed countries need to address poverty and education as well?

If other countries, like us, also need to address poverty and education, why do they have so much less gun violence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At least six officers were shot Wednesday in Philadelphia's Nicetown-Tioga area, authorities said.

Philadelphia police shooting today: At least 6 officers shot in "active and ongoing" situation — live updates - CBS News

Blue Lives Matter*



*but not as much as our precious guns.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everytime a gun is fired does not equate to a mass shooting.

That's right. It takes at least 4 people being shot in one incident for it to be classified as a mass shooting.

Is 6 more than 4?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are reasons why many legal gun owners don't want to budge, here is a few.
- There are already numerous laws on the books.
-High profile anti-gun legislators have said the ultimate goal is confiscation. (Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, to name a few)
- There will always be an excuse to enact more laws.

Other reasons:

- they care about their guns more than they do about the lives of their families.
- they care about their guns more than they do about the lives of police officers.
- they care about their guns more than they do about victims of crime.

 

[Curious George]

Why is it a non-starter?

If it won't progress the situation (contrary to all the evidence from around the world, not to mention common sense, that it will), what will? Why is it that we're the only developed country that suffers mass shootings at such an enormous scale, if it isn't the widespread availability of guns?

The same reason we do not get rid of free speech in order to fight racism.

Yes. Do you believe that gun crime is one of the most obvious and lethal examples of violence in our culture?

"One of?" Sure.

Do you believe that other developed countries need to address poverty and education as well?

Yes

If other countries, like us, also need to address poverty and education, why do they have so much less gun violence?

Because it is a multi-faceted problem that is, in part, embedded in our culture.

I would also say, and have said in other threads, that health care is another facet that needs addressing.

We are discussing murder rates yes? U.S. was 4.9, Turkey 4.3, Estonia 3.2, Canada 1.7, France 1.6, Israel 1.4, cyprus 1.3 many others are 1 or below. These are the "developed nations."

But are the developed nations really the standard by which we should compare?

Why are South Africa, Russia, Brazil, India, and Mexico on that list?

But to answer your question: despite other countries having some issues with poverty and education, The U.S. has more gang and rival gang activity than most of these "developed nations."

The U.S. also has more wealth disparity than most of these "developed nations," and less economic mobility.

The U.S. has pretty large disparities in education as well. Do other countries in the developed nations budget schools locally so that there are disparate funds going to high and low income school districts?

Regarding health care: the U.S. is notorious for there health care disparity. How do the other countries compare? How is access to mental healthcare?

In addition to all of this the U.S. has more people than most of these countries. This translates to more urban areas and it is the country with the most wealth.

We haven't even touched on cultural violence, historic and modern racism, emphasis on the individual vs. the community, religious bigotry, the fact that the U.S. imprisons people at a rate higher than any other nation in the world (not just "developed nations), how we treat minors in the justice system. Yeah there are many factors that need addressing.

But while we are at it. What was the homicide rate for any of those developed nations for the three years prior to any gun legislation and three years after?

Did you see a drop from 5 to 1? If not, do not pretend you will see such a drop in the U.S.

 

[Left Coast]

The same reason we do not get rid of free speech in order to fight racism.

We do place limits on free speech, specifically for safety reasons. So by that logic, you should be alright with limiting who can own which firearms in which circumstances, right?

"One of?" Sure.

Great, then it's an obvious place to start if violence in our culture is the issue you really care about.

Yes

Great, then poverty and lack of education are not the decisive factors in understanding and addressing why we have so much more gun violence than them.

Because it is a multi-faceted problem that is, in part, embedded in our culture.

This I can agree with. Part of the problem embedded in our culture is our obsession with guns. It is so deeply embedded we have been taught to equate guns with the very notion of freedom. That is definitely a problem that needs solving. But in the meantime, we can take basic steps to ensure public safety, can't we?

I would also say, and have said in other threads, that health care is another facet that needs addressing.

As someone who works in healthcare, I certainly agree. But improving our healthcare system won't solve our obsession with firearms and their subsequent widespread availability to everyone.

We are discussing murder rates yes? U.S. was 4.9, Turkey 4.3, Estonia 3.2, Canada 1.7, France 1.6, Israel 1.4, cyprus 1.3 many others are 1 or below. These are the "developed nations."

Gun violence extends beyond murder, but yes that's certainly part of the problem.

But are the developed nations really the standard by which we should compare?

Why are South Africa, Russia, Brazil, India, and Mexico on that list?

We can quibble about who exactly qualifies as a "developed nation" if you want, but that seems to sidestep the obvious point. Our homicide rate is far too high. Widespread availability of guns is an obvious factor in that statistic.

Obama was right when he said 'this type of mass violence does not happen in other developed countries'

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

But to answer your question: despite other countries having some issues with poverty and education, The U.S. has more gang and rival gang activity than most of these "developed nations."

That's probably true. Do you know how we'd reduce violence among gangs? Take away their deadliest weapons.

The U.S. also has more wealth disparity than most of these "developed nations," and less economic mobility.

That's true.

The U.S. has pretty large disparities in education as well. Do other countries in the developed nations budget schools locally so that there are disparate funds going to high and low income school districts?

No idea. While certainly support it for other reasons, do you think that increasing federal funding to schools would reduce the widespread availability of guns?

Regarding health care: the U.S. is notorious for there health care disparity. How do the other countries compare? How is access to mental healthcare?

The mental health narrative is faulty for at least three reasons:

1) It plays into the stereotype that people with mental health needs are inherently violent or dangerous to society, which is completely untrue. The vast majority of people needing mental health treatment are not violent or dangerous, and will never commit a violent crime.

2) The vast majority of gun violence in this country is not committed by the psychotic mass shooters who make headlines.

3) The US does not have a uniquely mentally ill population. The difference is that our mentally ill population has easy access to extremely deadly weapons.

In addition to all of this the U.S. has more people than most of these countries. This translates to more urban areas and it is the country with the most wealth.

Good point, and one of the reasons why easy access to deadly weapons is such a bad idea when we live in such close proximity to each other and we know conflict is more likely.

We haven't even touched on cultural violence, historic and modern racism, emphasis on the individual vs. the community, religious bigotry, the fact that the U.S. imprisons people at a rate higher than any other nation in the world (not just "developed nations), how we treat minors in the justice system. Yeah there are many factors that need addressing.

I agree. Walk and chew gum.

But while we are at it. What was the homicide rate for any of those developed nations for the three years prior to any gun legislation and three years after?

Did you see a drop from 5 to 1? Of not, do not pretend you will see such a drop in the U.S.

There are many different types of "gun legislation" and obviously many different countries, but here's a summary of one recent meta-analysis: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

 

[Curious George]

We do place limits on free speech, specifically for safety reasons. So by that logic, you should be alright with limiting who can own which firearms in which circumstances, right?

Sure we limit felons who have not had their gun rights restored. So I guess we are done, right?

Great, then it's an obvious place to start if violence in our culture is the issue you really care about.

Really, I think the obvious place to start is with legislation and social movements that do not limit our rights. Why do you want to jump straight to the most intrusive action?

Great, then poverty and lack of education are not the decisive factors in understanding and addressing why we have so much more gun violence than them.

Incorrect. Both are contributing factors. That they are not completely responsible does not mean they are not decisive.

This I can agree with. Part of the problem embedded in our culture is our obsession with guns. It is so deeply embedded we have been taught to equate guns with the very notion of freedom. That is definitely a problem that needs solving. But in the meantime, we can take basic steps to ensure public safety, can't we?

Not if that involves overstepping our authority.

As someone who works in healthcare, I certainly agree. But improving our healthcare system won't solve our obsession with firearms and their subsequent widespread availability to everyone.

I disagree. For one, health care includes mental healthcare. For two, our health care crisis is a contributing factor to economic depression, stress, and destitution.

Gun violence extends beyond murder, but yes that's certainly part of the problem.

Crime statistics then? I do not see people waving crime statistics, I see them waving murder statistics and occasionally conflating them with suicide statistics.

We can quibble about who exactly qualifies as a "developed nation" if you want, but that seems to sidestep the obvious point. Our homicide rate is far too high. Widespread availability of guns is an obvious factor in that statistic.

Okay then let's add them. Suddenly the U.S. isn't so far behind the pack.

I do agree that we should work on our homicide and violent crime rates though. But gun availability is not as "obviously problematic" when we add other countries.

Obama was right when he said 'this type of mass violence does not happen in other developed countries'

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Yes politicians are known to play with statistics to serve there party's purpose and create narratives of fear.

That's probably true. Do you know how we'd reduce violence among gangs? Take away their deadliest weapons.

Or we can invest more in reformation, rehabilitation, education and our youth in general.

No idea. While certainly support it for other reasons, do you think that increasing federal funding to schools would reduce the widespread availability of guns?

No but i think it would strike at one of the roots that are really the issue.

The mental health narrative is faulty for at least three reasons:

1) It plays into the stereotype that people with mental health needs are inherently violent or dangerous to society, which is completely untrue. The vast majority of people needing mental health treatment are not violent or dangerous, and will never commit a violent crime.

2) The vast majority of gun violence in this country is not committed by the psychotic mass shooters who make headlines.

3) The US does not have a uniquely mentally ill population. The difference is that our mentally ill population has easy access to extremely deadly weapons.

Except you are wrong. The people committing these crimes do suffer from mental health issues. That they do not have a specific diagnosis does not mean they are not tremendously disturbed, stressed, and disassociated.

Good point, and one of the reasons why easy access to deadly weapons is such a bad idea when we live in such close proximity to each other and we know conflict is more likely.

Except access to guns wouldn't be an issue if we were to address the real problems.

I agree. Walk and chew gum.

Me too, there are many problems to address. But we needn't focus on gun control to walk and chew gum. As I said, the issues are muti-faceted. We can address gun control if and when other methods that do not encroach on our fundamental right to self defense, once we have exhausted all reasonable alternatives with good faith efforts.

There are many different types of "gun legislation" and obviously many different countries, but here's a summary of one recent meta-analysis: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

Did you answer my question?

 

[Enoch07]

That's right. It takes at least 4 people being shot in one incident for it to be classified as a mass shooting.

Is 6 more than 4?

Not when its cops performing a drug raid.

 

[oldbadger]

Seriously? There's a massive shoot out, at least 6 officers injured, and you don't see a problem?

The perpetrator has a criminal record involving violence going back 18 years, so why shouldn't he have all his guns? This is the USA, after all.

 

[oldbadger]

Everytime a gun is fired does not equate to a mass shooting.

Six law enforcers shot by a criminal with an 18yr record. ..... So what's wrong with that, you ask?

 

[oldbadger]

?? How do you equate that with what I said, the police responded to narcotics activity and were shot.

OK........ No problem here then, folks. Just move along.
Known criminal has arsenal of guns and ammo....... fairly reasonable!
No problem!

 

[Left Coast]

Sure we limit felons who have not had their gun rights restored. So I guess we are done, right?

If that's the only example of a person who shouldn't own a firearm for public safety reasons. Convicted felons are the only ones, right?

Really, I think the obvious place to start is with legislation and social movements that do not limit our rights. Why do you want to jump straight to the most intrusive action?

Again, the idea that opposing unlimited access to all guns for all people in all circumstances is somehow an opposition to human rights is a part of the culturally embedded absurdity that we must solve. I thought you said you wanted to fix our cultural violence problem?

Incorrect. Both are contributing factors. That they are not completely responsible does not mean they are not decisive.

If two countries share the same problem (a), and yet one has an additional problem the other does not have (b), then obviously (a) is not the decisive factor causing (b).

Not if that involves overstepping our authority.

It doesn't, not even by the standards of American jurisprudence.

I disagree. For one, health care includes mental healthcare. For two, our health care crisis is a contributing factor to economic depression, stress, and destitution.

Mental health care is extremely important and I support us making our system better. Yet a mentally ill person without a gun will not shoot anyone.

Crime statistics then? I do not see people waving crime statistics, I see them waving murder statistics and occasionally conflating them with suicide statistics.

Also accidental shootings, which occur daily. Also, shouldn't we be trying to prevent suicide?

Okay then let's add them. Suddenly the U.S. isn't so far behind the pack.

Let's add who?

Homicide is no big deal here guys, nothing to see! We're safer than Honduras!

I do agree that we should work on our homicide and violent crime rates though. But gun availability is not as "obviously problematic" when we add other countries.

The fact that you want to lower the bar to compare us to countries in the middle of a war or overrun by gang violence just demonstrates how far into denial we've come as a society.

Yes politicians are known to play with statistics to serve there party's purpose and create narratives of fear.

There's no "play" involved. Did you read the linked sources? They provide reputable stats.

Or we can invest more in reformation, rehabilitation, education and our youth in general.

Agreed, walk and chew gum.

No but i think it would strike at one of the roots that are really the issue.

If it won't keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, then it's not striking at the most obvious root.

Except you are wrong. The people committing these crimes do suffer from mental health issues. That they do not have a specific diagnosis does not mean they are not tremendously disturbed, stressed, and disassociated.

That doesn't address any of the three points I raised.

Except access to guns wouldn't be an issue if we were to address the real problems.

Walk and chew gum.

Me too, there are many problems to address. But we needn't focus on gun control to walk and chew gum. As I said, the issues are muti-faceted. We can address gun control if and when other methods that do not encroach on our fundamental right to self defense, once we have exhausted all reasonable alternatives with good faith efforts.

Restricting unlimited access to firearms is not a fundamental attack on human rights. This is one of the narratives that compose the cultural problem we have in the US.

Did you answer my question?

Your question was arbitrary. I gave you a recent meta-analysis of the effect of gun control legislation in multiple countries. You're welcome to search for more in the peer reviewed literature.

 

[Enoch07]

Six law enforcers shot by a criminal with an 18yr record. ..... So what's wrong with that, you ask?

Plenty wrong with it. Plenty we can discuss ranging from:

-Reducing the flow of drugs entering the country, mainly at the southern border.

-Cracking down on the black market.

-Criminal rehabilitation in prison.

-Reducing poverty so that folks don't have to resort to selling drugs and becoming a criminal.

-etc etc etc

But it's not a mass shooting.

It's a drug raid gone bad.

Had the guy stepped out onto his porch and empties an uzi into his hood for no apparent reason, that's a mass shooting. But cops serving a warrant to search for narcotics then the guy grabbing his gun to fight them is a different issue all together.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not when its cops performing a drug raid.

I consider cops to be people. I'm not sure why you wouldn't.

 

[oldbadger]

Plenty wrong with it. Plenty we can discuss ranging from:

-Reducing the flow of drugs entering the country, mainly at the southern border.

-Cracking down on the black market.

-Criminal rehabilitation in prison.

-Reducing poverty so that folks don't have to resort to selling drugs and becoming a criminal.

-etc etc etc

But it's not a mass shooting.

It's a drug raid gone bad.

Had the guy stepped out onto his porch and empties an uzi into his hood for no apparent reason, that's a mass shooting. But cops serving a warrant to search for narcotics then the guy grabbing his gun to fight them is a different issue all together.

Lovely list of 'to do's', you've got there.

I notice that you've totally ignored the fact that an '18yr long record' criminal could acuire lots of guns and masses of ammunition.

You'll never learn....... will never want to learn.

Until next time, then....