2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Ghost_Wheel22]

The thing that gets me is Cornyn's proposal was backed by the NRA too. Seriously let that sink in.

The republicans and NRA supported a gun control bill, but the Dems rejected because it actually had provisions for due process.

And if you have a direct and constant fear of dying from something that has worse odds than getting hit by lightning or winning the lotto then I think there's a bigger issue that needs addressing.

[Tyrath]

And you if have a direct and constant fear of dying from something that has worse odds than getting hit by lightning or winning the lotto then I think there's a bigger issue that needs addressing.

I sure hope you don't mean being shot in America because that most definitely doesn't have worse odds than winning the lotto.

[Niiro]

The number of people killed in Orlando alone equaled the average number of yearly deaths from lightning strikes.

[Krandor]

I sure hope you don't mean being shot in America because that most definitely doesn't have worse odds than winning the lotto.

Well, maybe if you're white?

[Xno Kappa]

What kills me is you have lunatics like Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, argue that guns in bars would've helped prevented this. Listen, I'm as big a gun advocate as the next sane responsible individual, but once your rhetoric boils down to guns should be readily available in a location where heavy amounts of alcohol is consumed...you're a fanatic redneck who shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Byrthnoth]

Sound like you need to drink some more kool-aid. Guns prevent gun violence.

[Yuri-G]

Senate votes down all 4 gun control measures

Nobody should be surprised by this. Remember, nobody cared when Sandy Hook happened.

I mean, you would think the fear of walking into any public place whatsoever and potentially randomly dying would drive more fear than the government taking away "muh freedums", but what the fuck do I know.

if nobody cared when little kids were murdered, they sure as fuck weren't gonna care when a bunch of faggots bit the dust


harsh but true :/

[Anoat]

The people of America only care when it's pretty white women that get hurt, so don't expect any serious legislation unless a Victoria's Secret fashion show gets attacked or something.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

I sure hope you don't mean being shot in America because that most definitely doesn't have worse odds than winning the lotto.

The number of people killed in Orlando alone equaled the average number of yearly deaths from lightning strikes.

Well damn there goes my rough comparison. I'll retract that completely.

And if it's any consolation Yuri I donated blood (go go gadget O+) and donated $100 to Pink Pistols.

[Talint]

if nobody cared when little kids were murdered, they sure as fuck weren't gonna care when a bunch of faggots bit the dust


harsh but true :/

I was going to make a similar comment right down to the word "faggot", but I tried to reason that randomly getting murdered for being in a place could happen to anyone.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

[Niiro]

Well damn there goes my rough comparison. I'll retract that completely.

And if it's any consolation Yuri I donated blood (go go gadget O+) and donated $100 to Pink Pistols.

I mean, I get your point, but unlike lightning strikes or whatever firearm deaths are something that is fairly unique to the US (among first-world countries) and it's something self-inflicted.

It's something very, very visible and high-profile and it's something we are committed to doing nothing about, so people are going to be insistent on the issue and the inaction only causes more frustration with time.

I just kind of roll my eyes whenever this stuff happens and people want more regulation. I agree that there should be, but I also know it's just not gonna happen, especially not at the national level.

State-level restrictions are the best one can hope for, and while they aren't nearly as effective as nation-wide regulations, they're better than nothing.

[dasva]

I was going to make a similar comment right down to the word "faggot", but I tried to reason that randomly getting murdered for being in a place could happen to anyone.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

If by this you mean specifically guns sure. But China has alot mass knife killings

[Greatguardian]

State-level restrictions are the best one can hope for, and while they aren't nearly as effective as nation-wide regulations, they're better than nothing.

Not happening. See McDonald v City of Chicago. Scalia opened the door with Heller and Alito took the ball and ran with it. States can't infringe on the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted.

[Byrthnoth]

If by this you mean specifically guns sure. But China has alot mass knife killings

Gun control isn't about fixing the mental health system. There will always be breakdowns and there will probably always be people hell bent on hurting as many other people as they can.

Gun control is about mitigating risk. Those knife attacks in China were against soft targets (generally schools) and had much lower body counts than if they'd all been rocking AK47s. I'd hold them up as a testament to the success of gun control and the failure of China's mental health programs.



Thus, the title of the onion article is still justified. China's worst knife attack had 8 coordinated attackers and killed 29 civilians. How many of our mass shootings had less than 4 civilian deaths per attacker?

[dasva]

Not happening. See McDonald v City of Chicago. Scalia opened the door with Heller and Alito took the ball and ran with it. States can't infringe on the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted.

Don't be so sure. Maybe not with a single law but put some together and you can get rather restrictive. For example several years ago in California open carry was changed to make unloaded the same as loaded which is by permit only. Which has varying levels of requirements which can include "good cause" ie you believe you are in immediate danger. Recently the 9th district affirmed a lower courts decision saying "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." Which ends up being a ban for counties that choose to restrict firearms

[Niiro]

Not happening. See McDonald v City of Chicago. Scalia opened the door with Heller and Alito took the ball and ran with it. States can't infringe on the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted.

Eh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but don't different states have different requirements for firearm purchase and permits and whatnot?

I mean on the last page even Melena mentioned a change in a California assault-weapons bill.

[dasva]

Gun control isn't about fixing the mental health system. There will always be breakdowns and there will probably always be people hell bent on hurting as many other people as they can.

Gun control is about mitigating risk. Those knife attacks in China were against soft targets (generally schools) and had much lower body counts than if they'd all been rocking AK47s. I'd hold them up as a testament to the success of gun control and the failures of China's mental health programs.



Thus, the title of the onion article is still justified. China's worst knife attack had 8 coordinated attackers and killed 29 civilians. How many of our mass shootings had less than 4 civilian deaths per attacker?

Didn't really say it was just that that shit happens still. But sure a gun that has fully auto capabilities can do a lot more damage faster. It's also significantly more restricted already. Aside from federal laws making it decently harder/more expensive to get some states flat out say no. Hell iirc cali even refused to grandfather in old guns

I assume you mean the 2014 Kunming attack which was train station so not sure I'd call that a soft target.

[Greatguardian]

Eh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but don't different states have different requirements for firearm purchase and permits and whatnot?

I mean on the last page even Melena mentioned a change in a California assault-weapons bill.

Ultimately, they do. However, there are limits to those sorts of restrictions and significant risk of being overturned even in lesser courts if they're expanded (or in some cases, as-is). So long as the end result is a person without a diagnosed mental illness and no felony record being unable to legally purchase firearms you have the potential to be shut down in the courts until SCOTUS acts.

[Byrthnoth]

I assume you mean the 2014 Kunming attack which was train station so not sure I'd call that a soft target.

A Chinese train station isn't a soft target? It's no military base or police station and target density is through the roof. They probably could have optimized it by picking a busier station and doing it during morning rush hour, but 20 people stabbed per assailant is already a pretty high score. The conversion rate between knife wound and fatality is just low, which is the whole point.

I mean, imagine everyone in a given area spontaneously decides to play tag with you and you're "it." Could you tag 20 people?

[Ksandra]

Didn't really say it was just that that shit happens still. But sure a gun that has fully auto capabilities can do a lot more damage faster. It's also significantly more restricted already. Aside from federal laws making it decently harder/more expensive to get some states flat out say no. Hell iirc cali even refused to grandfather in old guns

I assume you mean the 2014 Kunming attack which was train station so not sure I'd call that a soft target.

So what's your answer to the problem?