Be a Supporter!

Guess What? Another Mass Shooting

  • 6,314 Views
  • 225 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 10:29:57 Reply

At 12/14/12 10:13 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 12/14/12 02:39 PM, adrshepard wrote: Or it's because mass shootings like this account for about 100 deaths per year, or about 1% of all gun-related homicides.
I'm taking his point to it's logical extreme. If the main crux of his argument is that the statistical percentage of what the total number of casualties incurred during mass shooting sprees is so low that it doesn't warrant a change in gun control laws, my question is how high does it have to be in order for you to be in favor of new/modified laws? How many events like this does it take?

If there's a silver bullet solution to end shooting sprees, I'm not seeing it. Banning assault weapons entirely may have some effect, but JMHX's graph suggests that most of the sprees are committed with handguns anyway and I doubt the type of people who go on rampages would think "Well I can't get my hands on an AR-15 or AK so I guess I'm not going to murder a bunch of random people." My point was that these mass shootings are too few and too small to justify policy changes. You couldn't prevent them without banning guns altogether and even then the government couldn't stop people from arming themselves.

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 47
Movie Buff
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 10:40:19 Reply

I first saw this on Knology and then Wikipedia. It makes me wonder if there are simply more dsyfunctional people as we know it. I think this may be the only time there was a major shooting and there was another spree killer who was still alive at the same time, from the Aurora shooting. What does James Holmes think of this guy anyway? As it wasn't in a theater, at least it wasn't a copycat crime. Now, those other killings you mentioned, possibly.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 12:22:13 Reply

You know what Mason, after further reading and research, I think the ELF is onto something, at least for first world countries.

It seems to be, by far, the best predictor for violence and gun violence in a country.

I know this is something democrats would NEVER talk about either, which is probably why this is the first I've heard of it. They're way too preoccupied with being PC to admit that cultural diversity is fucking shit and causes nothing but problems. The very thought that they'd have to blame cultural differences for violence goes against everything they stand for.

Anyway, as far as legislation, I think you could definitely limit the firepower of weapons people are allowed to carry. Just try it out for a couple years. Might make a dent, who knows.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:16:49 Reply

At 12/15/12 10:29 AM, adrshepard wrote: If there's a silver bullet solution to end shooting sprees, I'm not seeing it.

It's not going to be stopped entirely, that's unrealistic and naive, but there's a few effective things that can be done. As it is now, anyone who has ever been in a psych ward involuntarily (regardless of their eventual disposition or diagnosis), they're barred from purchasing from licensed dealers for life. However, they can still buy from unlicensed dealers at gun shows, or from a private seller. So, start there. Impose harsh penalties to sell weapons from an unlicensed dealer and buying from one. Make setting up gun shows much harder than it is now and make it felony to have an unlicensed dealer selling guns and ammo at the show. Start having more checks on private sales. Implement a national gun registry. Control high capacity magazine sizes. That's just off the top of my head.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:21:48 Reply

At 12/15/12 09:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Maybe Chris Rock had the right idea.

Make bullets a thousand dollars each.
THen people who own guns would probably only have 1 or 2 bullets.

You could own several guns, as long as they were the same calibre you'd still just need to own a few bullets .

With bullets being so expensive, no 20 year old could afford the ammunition needed to kill 28 people !

well actually Mexican drug cartels would expand to start selling ammunition and under sell legal sources.

come to think of it, if you start banning guns OR ammunition, the Mexican drug cartels would just start selling it and you would end up with more organized crime. See that one? the same argument for legalizing drugs can be used in favor of enforcing the second amendment. who would have thought?


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:22:46 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:21 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well actually Mexican drug cartels would expand to start selling ammunition and under sell legal sources.

Where do they get their guns from?

Jmayer20
Jmayer20
  • Member since: Jul. 3, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:23:07 Reply

Could you explain that chart and where you got that from because the numbers don't add up?

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:27:32 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:22 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 12/15/12 03:21 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well actually Mexican drug cartels would expand to start selling ammunition and under sell legal sources.
Where do they get their guns from?

gunsmiths and imports. Russian weapons tend to be pretty cheap and mass producible, and easily replicated.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:36:25 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:27 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: gunsmiths and imports. Russian weapons tend to be pretty cheap and mass producible, and easily replicated.

Wrong answer.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:42:38 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:36 PM, Feoric wrote: Wrong answer.

like I am going to take the ATF seriously after all the shit they pull. Fast and Furious, Illegal firearm seizures from people who purchase firearms from gun shows. if anything Dissolve the ATF and make it a office in the FBI. but you are right most of the guns do come from the US but citing something with the ATF..

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:51:43 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:36 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 12/15/12 03:27 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: gunsmiths and imports. Russian weapons tend to be pretty cheap and mass producible, and easily replicated.
Wrong answer.

my answer was where they would get their guns from after the USA outlawed them.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 15:54:06 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:42 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: but you are right most of the guns do come from the US

Then it shouldn't matter that the figure comes from the ATF, unless you think "the numbers are cooked!!!"

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 16:11:51 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:51 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: my answer was where they would get their guns from after the USA outlawed them.

Cheap to manufacture is only part of the equation.

You would transportation costs and smuggling costs. Chances are these costs cost more than the gun itself.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 16:20:24 Reply

At 12/15/12 04:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 12/15/12 03:51 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: my answer was where they would get their guns from after the USA outlawed them.
Cheap to manufacture is only part of the equation.

You would transportation costs and smuggling costs. Chances are these costs cost more than the gun itself.

Plus it's logistically easier and low risk to smuggle guns into a country across the border in an 18 wheeler, as opposed to importing Kalashnikovs via cargo planes.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 16:26:28 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:54 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 12/15/12 03:42 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: but you are right most of the guns do come from the US
Then it shouldn't matter that the figure comes from the ATF, unless you think "the numbers are cooked!!!"

knowing the ATF I bet they are. hell they have been running a fine line from getting disbanded for quite a while.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 16:30:54 Reply

At 12/15/12 12:22 PM, poxpower wrote: I know this is something democrats would NEVER talk about either, which is probably why this is the first I've heard of it. They're way too preoccupied with being PC to admit that cultural diversity is fucking shit and causes nothing but problems. The very thought that they'd have to blame cultural differences for violence goes against everything they stand for.

Diversity doesn't cause problems, segregation does. I'd know because I live in a community of ethnicities from every corner of the world and at the end of the day no one gives much of a shit about your ethnicity. There is no violence between ethnic groups, Pakistanni's and Indians get along like any other people. The problem arises when they segregate, thus in LA there is alot of de facto segregation hence there's alot more violence, the same in places like Chicago. Perhaps moreover problems also arise when people like to put race as part of the definition of the nation, as had been the case until the 1960's (not rapidly by any means, first we had to end being racist against groups of white people in WWII, then finally end all notions of race in the 60's)To just blame diversity as the main culprit is preposterous, I mean going by that logic College Campuses must be filled with violence.

Oh yah and this topic is about a mass shooting, which as far as we can tell was just a white dude murdering white kids.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 18:51:09 Reply

At 12/15/12 10:29 AM, adrshepard wrote:
... Banning assault weapons entirely may have some effect, ...

While I agree with what you said, I feel it is important to talk about this.

Yes, banning assault weapons would have some effect...but it would be the opposite of what you want. It would in fact make mass shootings way more lethal. After all, there is a reason why militaries have gotten away from having assault rifles that are full-auto in favor of selective fire between semi and burst. These are:

1) Spray and pray is a highly inaccurate way to shoot at a target.
2) The faster the rate of fire...the more muzzle rise you're going to get. If someone went on a shooting spree with a full-auto (or even burst) weapon all they would do is end up firing harmlessly into the air.
3) Military ammo, per international 'law' (Hague Convention), cannot be expanding or exploding ammo (ie: hollow points or jacketed hollow points) that will make death inevitable.

What a ban on military-style firearms would do is force that 30% of shooters who choose to employ 'assault weapons' to choose much more deadly and effective weapons like handguns and shotguns as well as more lethal ammo such as self-defense and hunting rounds.

In effect you'd be costing lives instead of saving them.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 18:59:17 Reply

At 12/15/12 06:51 PM, TheMason wrote: After all, there is a reason why militaries have gotten away from having assault rifles that are full-auto in favor of selective fire between semi and burst. These are:

Not to mention that it extremely rare that there will ever be a situation where more than several bullets will need to be expended at one time. When it is one of those situations, they have special weapons (see M-60 and such) that are better for the task.

When it comes to targets, unless you have a cluster of people all withing a foot or two of each other and people behind those, fully automatic provides no benefit over semi. In fact, the quick release of the rounds results in a shorter amount of time between reloading than semi and single shot. This results in less bang for the buck, even though more bullets are used.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 20:16:42 Reply

At 12/15/12 03:16 PM, Feoric wrote:
However, they can still buy from unlicensed dealers at gun shows, or from a private seller. So, start there. Impose harsh penalties to sell weapons from an unlicensed dealer and buying from one.

From what I can tell, selling guns without a license is already illegal, unless it's a sale of guns in very small quantities in private sales to other individuals. They aren't the type of people who are going to rent space at a gun show, and if they did so without a license, they could not legally sell their weapons.

Start having more checks on private sales.

I don't see how that could ever be enforced.

Implement a national gun registry.

I don't see how that would do anything to solve the problem. Someone illegally selling guns is not going to register them with the government, and the police are almost never going to find out if someone legally owns a firearm or not until after it is used in a crime. Maybe it would discourage private sales, but I doubt those occur with enough frequency that regulating them like normal sales would have much effect.

Control high capacity magazine sizes.

We already do on the state level. But I don't see how much that would affect the average mass shooting. People are generally running for their lives or hiding, not waiting for the shooter to reload so they have a chance to attack him. Maybe it gives them more time to run away since he spends more time reloading, but in an enclosed area, like a building, a few more seconds wouldn't make much of a difference I'd bet.

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 20:56:02 Reply

At 12/15/12 04:30 PM, Warforger wrote:
The problem arises when they segregate,

Well yeah, that's just one of myriad problems that arise from diversity.

If they had the same culture, language, practices , way of living and religion, then they wouldn't be diverse now would they.

We have constant shit here in Montreal between the english-speaking and french speaking. Keep in mind these are all middle-class white mostly non-religious people at each other's throats for a language / culture issue.


BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-15 22:36:35 Reply

At 12/15/12 08:56 PM, poxpower wrote:
At 12/15/12 04:30 PM, Warforger wrote:
The problem arises when they segregate,
Well yeah, that's just one of myriad problems that arise from diversity.

No, segregation is usually due to a perceived cultural reason, usually being they don't want to mix races. Thus here where I live in CA there isn't much segregation and well literally everything is fine. There is no violence among ethnic groups or any resentments.

If they had the same culture, language, practices , way of living and religion, then they wouldn't be diverse now would they.

That's the thing, having a multicultural society is fine, it's just when the values of one culture dictate to not mingle with another is a whole other.

We have constant shit here in Montreal between the english-speaking and french speaking. Keep in mind these are all middle-class white mostly non-religious people at each other's throats for a language / culture issue.

That's quite different now isn't it? The French were conquered in Quebec, they were discriminated against for a long time in Montreal thus segregated due to the Canadian values. There's also the problem of immigrants who assimilate but don't want to learn French.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Proteas
Proteas
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 01:41:33 Reply

If you guys get nothing else from what I post, just remember this; just like with Alcohol and Drugs, Prohibition does not work. If you want to solve this problem, you have to approach it from a different angle.

At 12/14/12 02:57 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Basically, "Smart guns" Would be an ideal solution is what I'm saying.

And how would you retrofit this technology to work with the estimated 300 million some odd guns currently in circulation as we speak? And how you do you intend to keep this technology from being hacked given how quickly technology is outdated?

At 12/14/12 04:33 PM, Feoric wrote: I also find it hilarious that there are people in this thread unironically calling for all the teachers to have guns.

I find it hilarious that there are people who would trust their children to the school system for 8 hours a day, but don't trust that same school system to keep their children safe in the event of a spree killing. Even the cops will tell you that they can't be there to protect you 24 hours a day, and that you are ultimately responsible for your own self defense. So why is it unreasonable that somebody on the school grounds be armed when the shit hits the fan?

At 12/14/12 05:21 PM, Feoric wrote: No, the reality is that there is never going to be any meaningful gun control law ever passed in this country because of the shitty second amendment.

No, the reality is that any gun control law you bunch can come up with will be rendered ineffective by one very simple fact; new gun control laws are aimed at controlling guns yet to be sold, not the guns already in circulation, of which there is an estimated 300 million. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban put the kibosh on the manufacture and resale of new high-capacity clips, but it did not prohibit the possession and resale of clips (or guns prohibited by the bill) already in circulation, thereby rendering the entire ban an ineffective joke, which explains why it had little to no effect on gun crime.

So, instead of writing laws that have little to no teeth which only serve to frustrate the legal acquisition of firearms, why not try coming up with some ideas that will actually work?

At 12/14/12 06:47 PM, JMHX wrote: In seriousness, can I get us to agree that the current lack of registration, mental health screening and background checking in the gun market now is a serious problem that needs to be fixed?

It was fixed. In the wake of the V-Tech shootings, a law was passed that mandated any information regarding a citizen's mental unsoundness be tied into their criminal background check. While a noble act that was supported by the NRA, this only works if the individual has ever been a legal reason for a person's sanity to be called into question.

So far, none of the shooters have ever seen the inside of a courtroom or been declared mentally unfit, rendering this law moot.

At 12/15/12 03:16 AM, Feoric wrote: Barring another constitutional amendment, it has to be respected and upheld in the courts.

Actually, the very wording of the amendment means it will never been amended away, and the courts have already voiced their opinion that it's not going away (Heller v. District of Columbia, 2008 reaffirmed the right of the average citizen to have guns, as ruled by the Supreme Court). Keep dreaming.

The trick isn't to take it away, it's to make it expensive and/or harder to obtain while still respecting your right as an American citizen.

Are you aware that it's a violation of the Commerce Clause to legislate against person-to-person gun sales, and as such, any law you write in an attempt to frustrate the average law abiding citizen's ability to purchase a new firearm will have ZERO effect on person-to-person transactions?

So, all someone has to do to sidestep your little idea is... go buy a gun off of a private owner instead of going to a shop where they have to fill out paperwork. Hell, before I bought my Mossberg for home defense, I had coworkers walk up to me with offers to sell firearms they didn't own. I had the chance to buy one gun that would have made every last one of you green with envy, but the guy wanted a month of my pay for it, so I passed.

But, hey, that's the legal situation in America right now. This is reality. Something of which the majority of you arguing for "stronger gun legislation" have little clue about.

At 12/15/12 03:16 PM, Feoric wrote: Impose harsh penalties to sell weapons from an unlicensed dealer and buying from one.

Harsh compared to what?

Make setting up gun shows much harder than it is now and make it felony to have an unlicensed dealer selling guns and ammo at the show.

Are you absolutely sure that's not a crime already?

Start having more checks on private sales.

And who would be the governing authority on that matter, and how do you propose such a thing should be enforced?

Implement a national gun registry.

Were you not paying attention to how Canada's National Gun Registry is, by and large, a bureaucratic failure and financial black hole?

Besides, what purpose would it serve? Is registering a gun going to magically keep it from being used in a crime?

Control high capacity magazine sizes.

You can't control something that's already out, as I've already mentioned. I've got a catalog right next to me from Cheaperthandirt.com where I can buy high-capacity magazines all day long. And unlike guns, they don't have serial numbers on them, so they can't be traced.

At 12/15/12 04:20 PM, Feoric wrote: Plus it's logistically easier and low risk to smuggle guns into a country across the border in an 18 wheeler, as opposed to importing Kalashnikovs via cargo planes.

Ah, yes, that's another issue you've got to deal with in this clusterfuck of a problem; the border with Mexico. It's never a problem until it magically is, now is it?


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 02:06:09 Reply

Can the news please stop talking about this? I really want a happy Christmas and all of the news coverage is making the mood really sad and glum. I've seen enough information on people who have been murdered in the past week to fill a year. Last thing I need is for them to be kids.

Everytime I see the news reports my mind wants to try and feel what the parents feel, but I don't want to.

Earfetish
Earfetish
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Melancholy
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 07:34:45 Reply

At 12/16/12 03:27 AM, Austerity wrote:
At 12/16/12 02:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Can the news please stop talking about this?
I agree, that's why I'm cutting off a lot of media supply for the next month: tv, radio, news websites, newspapers, etc. Just to get away from the constant coverage.

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

- Rodger Ebert

Earfetish
Earfetish
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Melancholy
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 07:37:59 Reply

oh btw the statistics you guys are citing re: UK diversity are really out of date and put a damper on the theory:

Compared to London where just 59% ticked White in 2011, and less than half of 8.2 million usual residents claimed to be White British. At the same time, Londoners are more likely to consider themselves âEUoeBritishâEU rather than âEUoeEnglishâEU, leading commentators to report the dawning of a new cosmopolitan sense of âEU~BritishnessâEUTM sweeping the Capital.

Population: ThereâEUTMs a lot more of us (and more of us were born elsewhere)

Of 56.1 million residents of England and Wales last year (that is 3.7m more than 10 years previously) some 7.5m were born abroad -that is 3m more than the number reported in 2001. Just under half of those had arrived in the past 10 years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/less-religiou s-and-more-ethnically-diverse-census-reveals-a-picture-of-br itain-today-8406506.html

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 08:46:49 Reply

At 12/15/12 09:47 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 12/15/12 09:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Maybe Chris Rock had the right idea.

Make bullets a thousand dollars each.
major flaw there. its easy to get the materials and tools to make them hell I can make some in my garage right now.

;;;
Simple fix, gunpowder, 500 dollara a gram.
Projectiles not for sale.
Brass cartridges ....not for sale
Primer caps not for sale.

Take away the ability to buy supplies, & sure people could produce cartridges, projectiles 7 even a propellant ....but it sure wouldn't be easy & it would no longer be cheap.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 09:00:05 Reply

At 12/16/12 02:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Everytime I see the news reports my mind wants to try and feel what the parents feel, but I don't want to.

;;;;This is another reason why I do not have TV in my home.

Even the so called "free" cable channels I get by being hooked up to a cable feed to the internet .... sorry I mean I COULD get IF I had a splitter on the cable line & sent it to my television. But I refuse to do so. WIth TV you have no control on what you watch, except the ability to turn it on & off & change a channel.
AN interuption or a news 'flash' , fuckin' stupid commercials , mindless drivelling TV shows the so called 'reality' shows which IMO are only a possible reality of the extrememly insane.
Just doesn't make having access to it worth it.

At least with the internet I can choose to look at news stories, or anything I want to see. When I wan tto see the local weather for example i don't have to see commercials on the latest tampon improvement ! I don't even understan why anyone would even watch the so called "news"
ITs a fuckin' spin doctored bunch of bullshit with look alike talking heads making assumptions, surmises & knee jerk reactionary CRAP !

So if its all such a pain for any of you ....why do you even bother turning the TV on ?
I haven't had one for over 7 years now & I do not miss it !
Whenever I'm at a friends or families home & their TV is playing there is never anything worth watching on it ! ! ! Lst time I went to Mum's she had Judge Judy on when I arrived & I couldn't even stay in the room for 5 minutes of that rehearsed ,regurgitated dog puke !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 13:46:20 Reply

At 12/15/12 10:36 PM, Warforger wrote:
That's quite different now isn't it?

No it's not. You don't seem to get that problems stemming for diversity are actually caused by diversity. It's not a coincidence that it happens almost every single time.
"Oh AIDs? That's not dangerous, it just destroys your immune system. That can't kill you. The problem isn't AIDs, it's pneumonia! Damn pneumonia!!"


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 15:46:46 Reply

At 121512 0816 PM, adrshepard wrote

From what I can tell, selling guns without a license is already illegal, unless it's a sale of guns in very small quantities in private sales to other individuals. They aren't the type of people who are going to rent space at a gun show, and if they did so without a license, they could not legally sell their weapons.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I'm basing this on old memory, but to my knowledge all dealers at a gun show do not have to perform the same background checks, only dealers who hold federal firearms licenses. This allows unlicensed sellers to sell firearms without performing the standard Brady background check. All actual dealers have to hold federal firearms licenses, they're required to do so by law. Any dealer at the gun show who has a table or is part of the gun show has such a license. The only people who don't are random joes who are just showing up with a couple of their personal firearms to sell. The latter is what I'm talking about.

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this and I can predict what your response will be so let me clear the air here and now. I'm talking about the 'gun show loophole,' but the problem is that the legislation to close it is not limited to gun shows. Any legislation that would close it would in effect be banning private firearm sales between two or more parties, and forcing everyone to get a license. Well, that's a problem, because that sure as hell ain't happening. The effect of the laws are fine with me. I'll say once again that requiring background checks does not equate to a banning of private sales. Forced licensing does not equate banning, and I don't see how licensing for the sale of a potentially dangerous item is some horrible conspiracy to rob people of their rights.

I don't see how that could ever be enforced.

100%? No way, but I don't see how it would hurt to try. You're guaranteed to stop someone somewhere down the line.

I don't see how that would do anything to solve the problem. Someone illegally selling guns is not going to register them with the government, and the police are almost never going to find out if someone legally owns a firearm or not until after it is used in a crime. Maybe it would discourage private sales, but I doubt those occur with enough frequency that regulating them like normal sales would have much effect.

Well, okay, but there's a massive can of worms that will eventually arise. If a national registry and a national purchase and destroy program costs a substantial amount of public money and wouldn't appreciably improve public safety, then obviously the ROI of the program comes into question. But even if this program stops 10 people a year, then you have to compare the cost of the program vs saving lives. If there is another cheaper, better, more efficient way to do that, then of course do that instead. But if there isn't one, then what do you do about it?

Control high capacity magazine sizes.

We already do on the state level. But I don't see how much that would affect the average mass shooting. People are generally running for their lives or hiding, not waiting for the shooter to reload so they have a chance to attack him. Maybe it gives them more time to run away since he spends more time reloading, but in an enclosed area, like a building, a few more seconds wouldn't make much of a difference I'd bet.

It absolutely make a difference. One magazine with thirty rounds takes up substantially less space than five magazines with six rounds a piece, making those thirty rounds much more difficult to conceal, making it more cumbersome to carry which impairs the efficiency of storing and reloading, and most importantly interrupting those thirty rounds with four separate spaces of time in which the shooter's attention isn't on spraying bullets at innocent people, but is instead focused on putting the feed end of the magazine into the magwell in the right direction. Assuming the shooter isn't injecting adrenaline and immediately drops the empty mag after it's empty and begins to grab a fresh one without looking, it still takes less time on average for a sack to happen in football. Extra seconds seems a hell of a lot shorter when you aren't in crisis. It's literally the difference between life and death.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Guess What? Another Mass Shooting 2012-12-16 17:36:42 Reply

I wanted to wait a bit until a lot of the knee-jerk reactionary responses had been said and done before I chimed in, and I'd like to remind some out there of some important issues that have yet to come up. I apologize if this is a little more rambling than my usual posts, but my own thoughts on the whole thing are a bit scattered.

First of all, let me say that for nearly every mass shooting that I have been witness to as an adult (from afar, natch), I have been able to understand (not justify, or defend) the motives of the shooter. In this one, however, I am lost. His mother, I understand. Family is often the first in the line of fire for people like this. Familial murder/suicide being the most common, and least expansive examples of mass killing, make my point. But elementary schoolchildren? Usually the target of the shooter is, at least in the shooter's mind, a vector for whatever pain drives them to kill. You lash out at the hand that pains you (Columbine vs bullies, Aurora vs consumerism (?), Norwegian guy vs an oppressive government (again, not justifying or defending)). What drove this kid to travel across town to slaughter children is beyond me. Except for one possibility.

The ONLY reason I can imagine that this kid did what he did in the way he did it, instead of lashing out at someone he felt wronged by, is because he wanted to be remembered. He wanted fame. He saw us dig into every nook and cranny of the lives of the Columbine kids, of the Aurora shooter, of the Norwegian shooter, of the V-Tech shooter. He saw a nation or a world held in rapt attention by the lives of these killers, and he saw the only avenue open to making his life something remarkable.

And yet how to make an impression when mass shootings have become almost passe in America? It's going to be hard to beat the numbers racked up in V-Tech and Norway in such a small town, so it has to be something where numbers aren't the only story. And what better way to horrify, to fascinate, to go down in infamy... than an attack where our most vulnerable should be at their safest?

Now before I go and say that our media culture is somehow responsible for this, or should be held accountable, and that weapon laws have nothing to do with the problem, let me nip some things in the bud. For full disclosure, I have long been an advocate for reasonable gun laws. I do not advocate banning anything outright. My stated preference has been for a licensing system similar to one you have for an automobile, with required training, psychological evaluation, licensing, and insurance, with multiple levels of licenses necessary for different types of weapons (similar to commercial licenses for trucks and taxis). The cost of these would be paid by those wanting the licenses.

A frequent argument against stricter gun laws is that if we outlaw guns only outlaws will have them. That criminals won't give a shit if they're breaking one law, when they're already breaking others. Well, in cases like these, that argument doesn't hold up. The vast majority of mass shootings have been perpetrated by completely legal firearms. Most have been also perpetrated by people with little to no criminal backgrounds. In this case, the limiting of legal firearms would, indeed, have an effect. (no, I'm not advocating the ban of all guns, hold the fuck on and read the whole post)

Another argument I have seen is that Mass shootings like this are so rare (accounting for less than 1% of firearm murders perpetrated per year) that any attempt on legislator's parts to codify a solution in law would be akin to swatting a fly with a stinger missile. There have been 16 mass shootings in the US this year alone, leaving 88 people dead.

Tied to this argument is that of the Second Amendment. Someone in this very thread put the second half of that amendment in all caps, to remind us all that it's the second most important law evar. He, of course, as is the wont of most gun apologists, ignores the first half of the sentence. I'd like to ask what well-regulated militia this kid was a part of, and how he guaranteed a free state?

I have also heard it said that gun deaths are a cost of our freedoms. Freedom isn't free, as some like to say. And I have to ask if this is an acceptable price to you. Are the lives of 20 children slaughtered at an elementary school, as well as 6 educators, the people in whose arms we place the care of those children, worth it? Look into the eyes of the parents of these kids, and tell them that their child was a necessary sacrifice. It's a price I am not willing to pay, personally. Shit like this is too expensive.

But the most insidious argument against re-thinking our gun culture, is the quoting of cherry-picked statistics. People point to places like Switzerland who has a similar gun ownership rate and gun control laws to America, with significantly lower crime rates than us. Others point to statistics that in America you're actually half as likely to be the victim of a violent crime as in, say, the UK. Some point to similar events elsewhere in the world as evidence that different laws make little to no difference in preventing shit like this. Hell, a man in China stabbed something like 22 kids in an elementary school just a day after our own attack. Obviously if crazies can do this with knives, the availability of guns would do nothing to stop crimes like this. Of course, missing in such examples are acknowledgement of the greater context of the statistics and events.

The Chinese attack resulted in exactly 0 deaths. Also, a knife cannot kill multiple people on the other side of a room. There's a reason that people whose job it is to wound/kill other people (or animals) use guns almost exclusively.

Switzerland is an almost entirely homogenous society, with mandatory military service (and training) and a host of other factors that obscure the actual correlation between gun laws and gun crime.

America, per capita, is more violent, by a staggering amount than any other OECD country. We don't just have a culture of gun ownership, we have a culture of glorifying violence. We can watch people getting shot, stabbed and blown up on prime-time television and in movies to which a person of any age can enter without a parent. We are desensitized to violence, and we in turn are a very violent people.

We glorify those who do terrible things. (note that I have not named a single perpetrator, because I refuse to give them one second more consideration than necessary)

We glorify violence in general in our entertainment.

We glorify a tool whose only function is harm.

We demonize mental health problems.

We basically require most families to have 2 incomes, making it difficult for parents to stay home to parent.

We demonize education, intellectualism, science, and fact-based inquiry.

These factors, as well as others, are the reason that we have had 62 mass murders (all done with firearms) in the last 30 years. This is nearly as many as the rest of the world combined in the same timeframe (not counting militia, government, actions).

Forgotten in all of this are the victims. Sure we weep and spout platitudes, but who here can name, without looking it up online, the names of those killed in Colorado? Who can name a single victim from V-Tech? Columbine? Connecticut?

Anyone?

CHARLOTTE BACON, 6
DANIEL BARDEN, 7
RACHEL DAVINO, 29
OLIVIA ENGEL, 6
JOSEPHINE GAY, 7
ANA G. MARQUEZ-GREENE, 6
DYLAN HOCKLEY, 6
DAWN HOCHSPRUNG, 47
MADELEINE F. HSU, 6
CATHERINE V. HUBBARD, 6
CHASE KOWALSKI, 7
JESSE LEWIS, 6
JAMES MATTIOLI, 6
GRACE MCDONNELL, 7
ANNE MARIE MURPHY, 52
EMILIE PARKER, 6
JACK PINTO, 6
NOAH POZNER, 6
CAROLINE PREVIDI, 6
JESSICA REKOS, 6
AVIELLE RICHMAN, 6
LAUREN ROUSSEAU, 30
MARY SHERLACH, 56
VICTORIA SOTO, 27

Remember those names. Not the name of the fucktard who slaughtered them. He doesn't deserve it.

And we deserve better.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.