Not Another Mass Shooting...

Squirrel_MurphyI'm just gonna leave this here.

Just to shorten up your point a bit... Yeah they were all on prescription drugs because they were fucked up in the head. The issue at hand is despite these people being so fucked up, they were all able to access firearms and ammunition LEGALLY. In a rare few cases, they obtained the firearms/ammunition from someone close to them who should not have owned a firearm in the first place.



They didn't throw pills really fucking hard at people to kill them and not everyone on Prozac is out on a murderous rampage. If anything, the prescription drugs all these psychos were on shows how pathetic our gun control laws are in this country for no fucking reason whatsoever. When you can obtain a driver's license much easier than a firearm, you know something is messed up... especially in Utah because the drivers here are terrible.

skierman. When you can obtain a driver's license much easier than a firearm, you know something is messed up... especially in Utah because the drivers here are terrible.

I wonder how deaths from vehicles vs. gun viloence match up?

All I'm saying is even these guys that had mental problems, they didn't do any mass shooting until they were on meds. Mental health assistance is one thing, but pills aren't the answer and Big Pharma will do whatever it takes to stay out of that conversation. The meds even have side affects that include suicidal thoughts or thoughts of harming other, but they're still allowed to be produced. That's pretty fucked.

Here's a point everyone seems to really over look. Apparently 93% of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained. Makes sense. But how many of these guns are actually smuggled into the U.S.? Most of these guns being used for crimes are legal guns being illegally used. These guns were legally sold in the U.S. at one point, and eventually made their way into the hands of a criminal. Most of these guns weren't smuggled into the U.S., they were either manufactured here or imported legally. Our legally sold guns in the U.S. get passed around so easily, that it's not even a question of why so many end up in the hands of the wrong people. And I emphasize "smuggled" because a gun smuggled into the U.S. is not the same as a gun that was legally sold in the U.S.. No criminal activity was ever required for a gun that was legally sold in the U.S., to enter this country. The actual cause of a drug dealer illegally possessing a fire arm that caused the death of an innocent bystander, is due to the fact that that fire arm was made available. It does not matter that the gun was stolen, that gun was in the U.S. because we allowed it to be here. And I know everyone likes to compare the banning of guns to the failing war on drugs. Illegal fire arms that were smuggled into the U.S. and an 8th of weed aren't even remotely in the same category. I bet 90% of kids on this site have a drug connect and could get various types of illegal drugs within a few hours. But I highly doubt anyone one this site has any form of a connection to an illegal fire arms dealer. And I'm not even talking about just getting a gun that has had the serial number whipped out, I mean a fire arm that was smuggled into this country. The difference is that a gun actually smuggled into the U.S. is going to be way harder and sketchier to get your hands on than one that was originally sold in the U.S. as a legal fire arm. Not to mention the sketchy-ass people you are going to encounter when dealing with illegal fire arms dealers. Everyone is just so stuck on the whole "If you can't eliminate guns completely, why bother changing anything?" and have it burnt into their brains that getting an illegal fire arm that was smuggled into the U.S. is just as easy as buying an 8th of weed.

wazawskiHere's a point everyone seems to really over look. Apparently 93% of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained. Makes sense. But how many of these guns are actually smuggled into the U.S.? Most of these guns being used for crimes are legal guns being illegally used.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.. First you say that the overwhelming vast majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, but then (it seems) you say that most guns used in crimes are legal guns being used illegally. If a gun is illegally obtained, it then can't be a legal gun. Unless I am misunderstanding your argument, these claims seem to be at odds with one another...

Squirrel_MurphyI wonder how deaths from vehicles vs. gun viloence match up?

What's your point comparing the body count from those two?

"durr lotsa people die from gun violence but like lotsa people also die from cars!"

Yeah, no shit. There are also a ton more people using cars all damn day and yet despite being a mode of transportation and not a tool designed to kill, its harder to obtain a driver's license than it is to obtain a gun.

Go load up one of your freedom boom sticks with an idea bullet and come back when something better pops into your head.

Squirrel_MurphyI wonder how deaths from vehicles vs. gun viloence match up?

All I'm saying is even these guys that had mental problems, they didn't do any mass shooting until they were on meds. Mental health assistance is one thing, but pills aren't the answer and Big Pharma will do whatever it takes to stay out of that conversation. The meds even have side affects that include suicidal thoughts or thoughts of harming other, but they're still allowed to be produced. That's pretty fucked.

First point isn't worth talking about, especially in the context we're in.

Second point - a) how do you know whether mass shooters were on meds? b) What is your alternative recommendation? I'm not saying meds are the end all be all, but how do you treat someone who has hallucinations w/o meds, or psychotic breaks, or crippling depression, or any other number of mental issues where meds are a legit solution?

onenerdykidI don't quite understand what you are saying here.. First you say that the overwhelming vast majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, but then (it seems) you say that most guns used in crimes are legal guns being used illegally. If a gun is illegally obtained, it then can't be a legal gun. Unless I am misunderstanding your argument, these claims seem to be at odds with one another...

The point I'm trying to make is where the guns originally came from. If we did, dare I say, have a buy back similar to Australia, everyone will argue that you'll only be taking to guns out of the hands of good people, and only criminals will now have access to guns. It's thinking that every illegally obtained fire arm came from the black market and was trafficked into the U.S.. But everyone fails to realize how the majority of these guns originally ended up in our country. If the guns were never here to begin with, than every gun would have to be trafficked into the U.S.. And I don't know how many currently are being trafficked into our country. I can tell you that 250,000 guns are being trafficked across the Mexico boarder every year, but they are coming from us and going to Mexico.

Kinda shitty how shootings have become more common but I feel like they are slightly less of a spectacle these days and that will probably cause the rate of shootings to go down in the future.

bighomieflockKinda shitty how shootings have become more common but I feel like they are slightly less of a spectacle these days and that will probably cause the rate of shootings to go down in the future.

that's pretty shit logic mate

onenerdykidI don't quite understand what you are saying here.. First you say that the overwhelming vast majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, but then (it seems) you say that most guns used in crimes are legal guns being used illegally. If a gun is illegally obtained, it then can't be a legal gun. Unless I am misunderstanding your argument, these claims seem to be at odds with one another...

he means that while 93% are illegally obtained, the vast majority of those were once legally sold to the wrong person. for a gun that was sold in the US to get into a criminals hands it means that somewhere down the track a person who purchased the gun legally fucked up.

The referenced post has been removed.

Figure what out? People with mental illness take medication to try to help themselves. Mentally healthy people don't go and try to kill a bunch of people. Doesn't it make sense that the people involved with these shootings would be mentally ill and on prescriptions? It's just as likely that these people did the things they did despite the medication as it is that they did them because of the medication.

WattsFigure what out? People with mental illness take medication to try to help themselves. Mentally healthy people don't go and try to kill a bunch of people. Doesn't it make sense that the people involved with these shootings would be mentally ill and on prescriptions? It's just as likely that these people did the things they did despite the medication as it is that they did them because of the medication.

before they figure out that the availability of guns to mentally ill teenagers is ridiculous.

pow_pow~he means that while 93% are illegally obtained, the vast majority of those were once legally sold to the wrong person. for a gun that was sold in the US to get into a criminals hands it means that somewhere down the track a person who purchased the gun legally fucked up.

This. Because after you purchase a gun from an authorized dealer, in most states, you can privately sell a gun to anyone (who looks of age) you want without the exchange of any form of documentation. This is what makes people in other countries think we are complete morons, because it seems so illogical. Here's my comparison. They should make driving a car a right instead of a privilege. You shouldn’t need a license to drive a car or have to register your car. You should be able to sell or give your car to anyone without having to transfer the cars title to the new owner. It’s just a hassle and it’s really no ones business who I sell my car to, or where the car ends up. If the person I sold or gave my car to is someone who shouldn’t be operating a motor vehicle, that’s not my problem. It’s my right to protect myself from having to take public transportation or like walk and shit. And there are roughly 2,400 and a half wild turkey related deaths every year, so even if you banned cars, people would still be dying from these wild turkeys making it pointless to make any changes to current car ownership laws.

WattsFigure what out? People with mental illness take medication to try to help themselves. Mentally healthy people don't go and try to kill a bunch of people. Doesn't it make sense that the people involved with these shootings would be mentally ill and on prescriptions? It's just as likely that these people did the things they did despite the medication as it is that they did them because of the medication.

The fact of the matter is you need to stop looking at situations like this as if there is only one or two things to blame. Someone on meds isn't going to go shoot up a school unless variable A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H (probably more) are present and happen to converge into a perfect storm. Meds might be one of those variables, but it might not be. Mental health might be, but it might not be.

saskskierThe fact of the matter is you need to stop looking at situations like this as if there is only one or two things to blame. Someone on meds isn't going to go shoot up a school unless variable A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H (probably more) are present and happen to converge into a perfect storm.

Don't know if the "you" here is supposed to be me specifically, but this is pretty much exactly the point I was trying to make. It's not right to look at that list and say "well all these people were on medication, therefore the medication is the problem," when there is so much else going on in a persons head and so much else to consider.

But I do feel pretty safe assuming that anyone whose mindset it is, apart from religious extremists and other types of bigots, to shoot up a school or mall or movie theater or whatever isn't perfectly healthy mentally. But I'm not a scientist or a psychologist, so maybe you know about evidence which suggests otherwise, in which case, please do share.

"But gun control is communist evil"

yo america how many school shootings have you had in the past 24 hours? 2?

how many school shootings has the rest of the developed world had in the past year? none.

what is the only difference between the us and the rest of the developed world in regards to school shootings? availability of guns. like you sell them at walmart for fucks sake.

time to wake up and realise, like the rest of the world, guns are your problem.

pow_pow~yo america how many school shootings have you had in the past 24 hours? 2?

how many school shootings has the rest of the developed world had in the past year? none.

what is the only difference between the us and the rest of the developed world in regards to school shootings? availability of guns. like you sell them at walmart for fucks sake.

time to wake up and realise, like the rest of the world, guns are your problem.

Funny because we just had another campus shooting today. 1 dead, 3 injured. Fantastic.

3 in one day. what the actual fuck.

are background checks really that big of an issue for the NRA?

skiermanFunny because we just had another campus shooting today. 1 dead, 3 injured. Fantastic.

i go to NAU and it wasn't a "campus shooting." nothing premeditated, no gunman wandering around campus looking for targets, just a fight that escalated and ended with a freshman pulling a gun and shooting 4 members of Delta Chi. media has spun it to make it sound like something it wasn't, albeit still a tragic evening.


unrelated to your comment, but if you use tragedies to preach your political viewpoints you can kindly go fuck yourself.

Rafikii go to NAU and it wasn't a "campus shooting." nothing premeditated, no gunman wandering around campus looking for targets, just a fight that escalated and ended with a freshman pulling a gun and shooting 4 members of Delta Chi. media has spun it to make it sound like something it wasn't, albeit still a tragic evening.


unrelated to your comment, but if you use tragedies to preach your political viewpoints you can kindly go fuck yourself.

Yeah, you're right this mass shooting doesn't count... and you're also right, when we have dozens of mass shootings a year, we should just ignore them and not think about taking ANY action whatsoever because its like... so political mannn.

To the rest of the world- these are the kind of insane morons we have in this country and its a big reason why no change of substance takes hold despite the immeasurable loss of life every year.

skiermanYeah, you're right this mass shooting doesn't count... and you're also right, when we have dozens of mass shootings a year, we should just ignore them and not think about taking ANY action whatsoever because its like... so political mannn.

To the rest of the world- these are the kind of insane morons we have in this country and its a big reason why no change of substance takes hold despite the immeasurable loss of life every year.

are you just... dumb? this wasn't a mass shooting. it was literally a fight that got out of hand and a freshman that was carrying pulled his gun and shot 4 guys. no different than shit that happens everyday across the world. news channels are just exploiting that it happened on/adjacent to a university campus and labeling it a "mass school shooting"

also i'm not saying to ignore them, but it's like protesting a soldiers funeral. there's a time and a place, and the wake of a tragedy isn't the time nor the place.

Rafikiare you just... dumb? this wasn't a mass shooting. it was literally a fight that got out of hand and a freshman that was carrying pulled his gun and shot 4 guys. no different than shit that happens everyday across the world. news channels are just exploiting that it happened on/adjacent to a university campus and labeling it a "mass school shooting"

also i'm not saying to ignore them, but it's like protesting a soldiers funeral. there's a time and a place, and the wake of a tragedy isn't the time nor the place.

Point is he shouldn't of had a gun.

Rafikiare you just... dumb? this wasn't a mass shooting. it was literally a fight that got out of hand and a freshman that was carrying pulled his gun and shot 4 guys.

mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. Only a small amount of mass shootings result in mass murder. Who's dumb?

LonelyPoint is he shouldn't of had a gun.

why's that? arizona is an open carry state at 18, and federal law states that at 18 you can legally own a handgun if it was a gift, heirloom, or a private sale.

nocturnalmass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. Only a small amount of mass shootings result in mass murder. Who's dumb?

fair, should have said this wasn't a "mass school shooting." the news has made it sound like someone went on campus and just started opening fire, which isn't true

There is so much hypocrisy going around in the gun debate. I don't think the debate should ever focus on whether or not gun control laws would reduce gun deaths, it's not up for debate. It's not a matter of opinion, there is statistical evidence from all around the world proving that gun control laws reduce gun deaths, period.

So, is it about freedom? I've lived in two different European countries before living in the States and I can tell you that I felt I had more freedom over there than I do here, pretty ironic for a country that considers itself to be the 'free-est' of the world, but that's another debate. If you think freedom is about being able to buy an assault rifle as easily as a snickers bar, then I might have a book or two to recommend.

About the constitution and what the founding fathers had in mind? It was written more than 2 centuries ago, and thankfully society has changed since then, so maybe a militia is not something we need today? I'm sure the founding fathers didn't have in mind a society that would permit 6 years old to be shot down at recess.

Limits on gun possession means freedom to go about your daily lives without fear of dying at the hands of shooters at school, stores or movie theaters. Your freedom ends where another person's begins.

Take France, Hunting is a popular sport, but a hunting license is required before a rifle can be purchased. Guns can be bought for use at firing ranges, but only after an application has been filed and approved by the police. All gun buyers must provide a medical certificate of mental and physical fitness to own a weapon, and all guns must be registered. I'm genuinely curious, what's so outrageous about that?

Seriously, making it just harder for people to buy a gun to save kids' lives seems like a no-brainer to me.

Rafikifair, should have said this wasn't a "mass school shooting." the news has made it sound like someone went on campus and just started opening fire, which isn't true

If he shot 4 people in public that sounds like the defanition of open firing a gun. So you are wrong and I take it you want less gun control so you can play with your toys more freely.

nocturnalIf he shot 4 people in public that sounds like the defanition of open firing a gun. So you are wrong and I take it you want less gun control so you can play with your toys more freely.

it was a fight in the parking lot of a fraternity house that escalated and resulted in the suspect pulling his gun. you seem to have this idea he just waltzed into somewhere random and just started taking pop shots at randoms

and i want less gun control because it's my constitutional right to own and carry weapons. you don't take away everyone's cars for drunk drivers killing people. also, prohibition didn't work in the past for alcohol, currently doesn't currently work for drugs, and in the future won't work for guns. since the UK banned handguns, use of handguns in violent crimes has doubled for them.

Humanity continues to love and obsess over violence. Nothing new here. Glorified in media. Glorified in real life. I grew up in Wyoming where everyone had guns. I never understood it. Why the need to kill? WHY? Destroy your guns and invest in something that betters humanity as a whole. Thousands of years of evolution and were still throwing sticks and rocks at each other and glorifying it all the way. Takes effort to have any pride in humanity anymore.

Rafikiit was a fight in the parking lot of a fraternity house that escalated and resulted in the suspect pulling his gun. you seem to have this idea he just waltzed into somewhere random and just started taking pop shots at randoms

and i want less gun control because it's my constitutional right to own and carry weapons. you don't take away everyone's cars for drunk drivers killing people. also, prohibition didn't work in the past for alcohol, currently doesn't currently work for drugs, and in the future won't work for guns. since the UK banned handguns, use of handguns in violent crimes has doubled for them.

So what I've gotten jumped and I got into fights at frat houses before I didn't need to pull out a gun and start shooting people. Thinking I punch you in the face a proper response is you can I pull out your gun and shoot me is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you either mentally retarded or 14. And yes actually we impound cars, and revoked driver's license for people who have been drinking and driving all the time.

And what does alcohol have to do with any of this that's like comparing apples to guns. I used to make beer with my dad every single year in our basement, it's so easy to make alcohol which is why everyone could do it during Prohibition me my dad and 99.9% of the population can't make guns in our cellar. Post up a real source for that UK statistic and not something from a gun magazine if it really became such an issue then there cops are actually carry guns but they don't need to.

Rafikiin the future won't work for guns. since the UK banned handguns, use of handguns in violent crimes has doubled for them.

The homicide ratio per 100,000 population in the US is 71 times higher than in the UK, 18 times higher than Germany, 24 times higher than Spain, etc. It's basically a buttload more than in any other developed country, and that rate goes even higher if you consider suicides and unintentional deaths. And here you are saying gun control laws don't work. That's why there is no point in debating this any further.

You must be one of those guys who also denies global warming. And the earth is the center of the universe and is also flat, right?

Monsieur_PatateThe homicide ratio per 100,000 population in the US is 71 times higher than in the UK, 18 times higher than Germany, 24 times higher than Spain, etc. It's basically a buttload more than in any other developed country, and that rate goes even higher if you consider suicides and unintentional deaths. And here you are saying gun control laws don't work. That's why there is no point in debating this any further.

You must be one of those guys who also denies global warming. And the earth is the center of the universe and is also flat, right?

The problem of gun violence lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the US and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables.

In short, yes the US has a higher murder rate than say the UK, however the UK has a higher violent crime rate. The UK also only counts unlawful killings as homicides where as the US counts all killings no matter how it happens. So the actual murder rate is much lower then the US statistics would have you think. Violent crime definitions are not the same for the US and UK, hence violent crime sits at between 900 and 1361 per 100,000 people.

The UK still has a violent crime rate higher than that of the US's 386.3 per. 100,000 per capita, just not the 5 1/2 claimed by some, but between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 times more.

Now the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why?

REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% REDUCTION in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than you are conditioned to believe.

In order to FIX these problems, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!

Monsieur_PatateThe homicide ratio per 100,000 population in the US is 71 times higher than in the UK, 18 times higher than Germany, 24 times higher than Spain, etc. It's basically a buttload more than in any other developed country, and that rate goes even higher if you consider suicides and unintentional deaths. And here you are saying gun control laws don't work. That's why there is no point in debating this any further.

You must be one of those guys who also denies global warming. And the earth is the center of the universe and is also flat, right?

I think there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. And its clear that over the past 20 years our violent crime rate in the US has decreased 50% while our murder rate has decreased 47%, these are statistics that no one seems to take credit for. We know where the crime is coming from; in metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000, we know where the shootings are happening, we know that the UK has a higher violent crime rate, we also know that we have six times more metropolitan areas than they do.

All of these factors have to be considered and the straight-shooting fact is that the media and the politicians do not constitute for said variables. The fact of the matter is that we have politicians already introducing legislation before they even understand what the problem is.

For example, why is Dianne Feinstein pinpointing the AR-15? In 2011 out of the homicides that were caused be firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles and the AR-15 is a ‘subset' of a rifle. Doesn’t make any sense.

We need to mandate the gun laws that are already in place. I would also like to point out that not only has violent crime decreased by 51% from 1991-2011 and murder rate 54% but nonfatal firearm related crime has decreased from 1993 to 2011, 69%!!

Furthermore, the anti-gun propaganda has worked marvelously. 55% of Americans think gun-related crime has increased, while only 12% of Americans think gun-related crimes has decreased. Reality tells us that crime is way down but the perception is that violence is up. There’s a disconnection here and this disconnect prevents us from having an honest dialogue about what causes violence and what we can do to fix it. This misperception is utilized to justify legislation without understanding the problem, which more often than not infringes on our individualistic rights. Stop choosing between two extremities and start piecing together the problems with logic and reality. It seems as if we have dehumanized gun violence and instead humanized guns. Violence most often than not follows a logic.

There’s a logic to violent crime. What drives violence?

We engage in violence to elevate and maintain a status quota. A social outcast, someone who doesn’t fit in; the mainstream media rewards violence, infamy and an almost immediate celebrity. Violence just might be an attractive choice. It simply follow a logic.

This is all about the perception of threat. The quest for survival is one of the key drives of state sponsored violence. Violence can rectify survival.

Moreover, protection is a rational for violence. People will rectify violence to protect their political status, obsessions, interests, loved ones, investments, property, domicile, offspring, etc. If one perceives a threat to any of these aforementioned things violence can be instigated.

Is violence justified, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t what I’m saying is that there is a logic to violence.

Maybe we ought to make policies that mitigate logical violence, if of course we understand that logic. Defining that logic can be utilized for policy making to bite back violence but instead we are focused on a tool; a gun, which is utilized to commit violence. You can not fix a problem from within that problem.

There’s a good chance 10 violent crimes have been committed in the time of me writing this. There’s also a good chance that none of those violent crimes involved a gun. However, theres a very good chance that all of these crimes followed a logic.

In addition, with current ITAR registration costs through the roof, small gun and ammo manufacturers do not stand a chance against the giant corporations that think $2,000 a year is chump change. Blue Bunny ammo was unilaterally shut down by the feds even though they had a license to manufacture ammunition with the ATF. Why? The oppressive nature of ITAR registration. Less competition to the big boys in the ammo industry means more money toward their sales.

"Assault Weapons Bans"

Remington, Smith and Wesson, Sig Saur, among the GIGANTIC weapons manufacturers don't give a crap if they sell you an AR15 with a collapsible stock, 30 round mag, flash hider, and a bayonet mount, or a watered down AR15 with a fixed stock, 10 round mag, welded muzzle brake, and remove the bayonet lug.

Last but not least, the government and government agencies will continue to promise HUGE contracts to gun and ammo suppliers, regardless of how eroded our individual liberties have become. In other words, gun control was never about guns!!

Instead, it is about control. It is about attaining some illusory safety in exchange for restricting liberties.

Bloomberg wants to see the incremental disarmament of the people. Might I be paranoid to think that politicians want to ban ALL guns.

Feinstein told the Associated Press, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them... ‘Mr and Mrs. American turn them all in,’ I would have done it”

Eric Holder in an interview stated, that we have to brainwash the American people into thinking about guns in a negative way.

I find it hypocritical that Eric Holder who is against guns and gun related violence let the ATF "purposely allow licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them, under code name Operation Fast and Furious/Operation Gunrunner."

This failed operation allowed 2000+ guns to cross the border, was not done with the knowledge and approval of Mexican authorities and led to 400+ people dead.

I also find it hypocritical that we have to be lectured by an individual who basically has a platoon of armed individuals that protect him and his family and rightfully so. While he expects us ordinary, law-abiding citizens to outsource their personal safety to the US government.

Now lets delve further into there agenda shall we.

Here’s a leaked wikileaks email sent to Michael Bloomberg from Sony pictures: http://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/

"Dear Michael Bloomberg,

Thanks so much for getting together this week, It was a total pleasure, and I look forward to working together. In the end this has to be about the safety of our kids and grandchildren, and not about the 2nd Amendment. Your offer to help means a lot to us."

That email was sent from Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group to the CEO of Sony pictures. These emails illustrate that powerful people in the anti-gun movement and powerful people in Hollywood want to enact their agenda. Just like the PDF document linked above, they want to make sure that the national conversation is not about the 2nd amendment but instead controlled by overly emotional rhetoric in regards to safety and children.

Furthermore, one could make the assumption that more equality=less guns overall. More unequal income inequality results in a high demand for guns for criminal purposes.

Where there is demand, there is someone to supply that demand regardless of the Laws in place.

Look at Jamaica for example, they have virtually banned civilian gun ownership but the fact that guns are in very high demand results in a lot of guns being smuggled into the country, hence a firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year of 39.74.

In conclusion, all of these massacres are conveniently exploited to breathe new life into a cause that would otherwise be obsolete. They attract supporters by inspiring fear and promoting knee-jerk reactions. The "Could you imagine if this were your child?" propaganda really hits home.

Rafikiwhy's that? arizona is an open carry state at 18, and federal law states that at 18 you can legally own a handgun if it was a gift, heirloom, or a private sale.

If you're going to get in a frat fight, and pull a gun on someone, you should not have the right to have one. The right to bear arms in that case starts to infringe on others rights, such as the right to life after you shoot and kill them in a fight. But I guess if you're for the wild west mentality of anyone pulling a gun over a dispute that's you're opinion and you're entitled to it.

nocturnalSo what I've gotten jumped and I got into fights at frat houses before I didn't need to pull out a gun and start shooting people. Thinking I punch you in the face a proper response is you can I pull out your gun and shoot me is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you either mentally retarded or 14. And yes actually we impound cars, and revoked driver's license for people who have been drinking and driving all the time.

And what does alcohol have to do with any of this that's like comparing apples to guns. I used to make beer with my dad every single year in our basement, it's so easy to make alcohol which is why everyone could do it during Prohibition me my dad and 99.9% of the population can't make guns in our cellar. Post up a real source for that UK statistic and not something from a gun magazine if it really became such an issue then there cops are actually carry guns but they don't need to.

Monsieur_PatateThe homicide ratio per 100,000 population in the US is 71 times higher than in the UK, 18 times higher than Germany, 24 times higher than Spain, etc. It's basically a buttload more than in any other developed country, and that rate goes even higher if you consider suicides and unintentional deaths. And here you are saying gun control laws don't work. That's why there is no point in debating this any further.

You must be one of those guys who also denies global warming. And the earth is the center of the universe and is also flat, right?

LonelyIf you're going to get in a frat fight, and pull a gun on someone, you should not have the right to have one. The right to bear arms in that case starts to infringe on others rights, such as the right to life after you shoot and kill them in a fight. But I guess if you're for the wild west mentality of anyone pulling a gun over a dispute that's you're opinion and you're entitled to it.

@nocturnal: that's not the point. stricter gun control typically means banning of ownership, in this case because of shootings. we don't ban cars from everyone for drunk driving. punish the individual, not the mass. about alcohol, it was about the idea of prohibition. no matter what the good is (guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.) there will always be a relatively easily accessible black market for such goods.

@Monsieur_Patate: reread the statistic i put out there

@Lonely: not condoning what he did. i'm sure he didn't wake up in the morning and think to himself "i'm gonna get in a fight tonight, then pull a gun and shoot 4 people." it just happened. not sure why that's so hard for you guys to comprehend

nocturnalPost up a real source for that UK statistic and not something from a gun magazine if it really became such an issue then there cops are actually carry guns but they don't need to.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Rafiki@nocturnal: that's not the point. stricter gun control typically means banning of ownership, in this case because of shootings. we don't ban cars from everyone for drunk driving. punish the individual, not the mass. about alcohol, it was about the idea of prohibition. no matter what the good is (guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.) there will always be a relatively easily accessible black market for such goods.

What are you talking about we make people buy car insurance wait until a certain age and then take a driving test. What do I have to do to get a gun oh nothing thank you for proving my point.

Rafikihttp://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

I sat an unbiased source and you posted gunfacts whose slogan is debunking gun control myth.

So why don't you explain to me what happened in Australia because their homicide rates by guns when down gun enthusiasts seem to be obsessed with the the country Britain when they talk about gun control http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

canadap

nocturnalWhat are you talking about we make people buy car insurance wait until a certain age and then take a driving test. What do I have to do to get a gun oh nothing thank you for proving my point.

and to buy a gun you have to wait a certain age and pass a criminal background check? nothing that you mentioned relates though. the fact is if someone commits a crime with a car, nobody asks for everyone's car use to be restricted, but when it happens with a firearm, suddenly everyone should give up guns they own



“the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

Rafiki@Monsieur_Patate: reread the statistic i put out there

Ok buddy, I looked at your sources, and on your first website that first graph says the homicide rate per million in the UK was at 18 in 2003-2004.

But those numbers are wrong, you can check yourself by looking up the link they put on that same graphic, or by checking the UK parliament's statistics (available on their website: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk).

You'll find a ratio of 1.24 per million, that is nowhere near 18. (68 non-air weapon injuries resulted in fatal injuries for a population of roughly 55 million for England and Wales), so either they suck at math like really bad, or they can't read a statistical table, or they are making up numbers to spread false information. But either way, your sources are not to be trusted.

Rafikiand to buy a gun you have to wait a certain age and pass a criminal background check? nothing that you mentioned relates though. the fact is if someone commits a crime with a car, nobody asks for everyone's car use to be restricted, but when it happens with a firearm, suddenly everyone should give up guns they own



“the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

Background checks are not needed through private sales and your statistics are wrong. Look them up, being that we just posted two articles with two very different statements. One of us is right the other is wrong.

Rafikiand to buy a gun you have to wait a certain age and pass a criminal background check? nothing that you mentioned relates though. the fact is if someone commits a crime with a car, nobody asks for everyone's car use to be restricted, but when it happens with a firearm, suddenly everyone should give up guns they own

There are a few issues with this argument. The first is that, why would you conclude that if someone drives drunk and kills someone, that the conclusion is to make driving illegal. Why not make alcohol illegal (with regards to this example)? And the government does make driving a car restricted because of it- there are many rules about owning a car, who can own a car, what substances can be in your body when you are operating said car.

Second, we cannot equate cars and guns. While they are both tools, they have vastly different purposes and these purposes are inherent in their design. Cars are made for transport, guns are made for weaponry. When cars are used and people die, it is usually an accident not intended within its inherent purpose. When guns are used and people die, it is completely foreseen given its inherent purpose as a weapon. If cars and guns would be considered equal tools of equal purpose, then people would be confused as to which they should use for transport and for self-defense, which is obviously not the case. And it is exactly the reason why we give the front line of the military a gun and not a Toyota.

Thirdly, more restrictions on guns does not suddenly equate to the government taking away the second amendment or taking away your guns. That's a slippery slope fallacy and the conclusion you arrive at doesn't follow at all. As many European countries prove- you can have better gun control laws and still own guns. For example, Austria requires all gun owners to:
1. Register their guns
2. Police come to their house once every year and ensure the owner knows how to operate, care for, and store the gun.
3. Yearly mental health checks need to be passed.
4. If any one of these conditions is not met, then the owner looses the right to own a gun.

This may seem stricter than that which happens to car owners, but guess what... a gun is not car. More checks on gun owners can and ought to be done post sale. When the government allows common citizens to own dangerous weapons, any reasonable government needs to ensure the safety of the gun owners and other citizens as well. If gun owners really do have a problem with this, then they really need to start questioning their sanity because they are not making any sense.

There is so much stupidity in this thread.

If you're not from America, your opinion doesn't matter.

If you really think we should ban guns or that guns are the problem here, your opinion is wrong.

If you ignore the fact that all of these shooters are on meds, you are ignorant.

And if you're skierman, you're fucking retarded.

MTPOWThere is so much stupidity in this thread.

If you're not from America, your opinion doesn't matter.

If you really think we should ban guns or that guns are the problem here, your opinion is wrong.

If you ignore the fact that all of these shooters are on meds, you are ignorant.

And if you're skierman, you're fucking retarded.

the first and second line of your comment made me laugh... the rest also made me laugh, but those first 2 lines are just great.

onenerdykidThirdly, more restrictions on guns does not suddenly equate to the government taking away the second amendment or taking away your guns. That's a slippery slope fallacy and the conclusion you arrive at doesn't follow at all. As many European countries prove- you can have better gun control laws and still own guns. For example, Austria requires all gun owners to:
1. Register their guns
2. Police come to their house once every year and ensure the owner knows how to operate, care for, and store the gun.
3. Yearly mental health checks need to be passed.
4. If any one of these conditions is not met, then the owner looses the right to own a gun.

This brought up some very interesting thoughts to mind. I was extremely ignorant about european gun laws before moving to Europe.

I'm American as fuck and in the military... so I just assumed every country was like Germany in a sense of "NO GUNS!!! BLAH BLAHHH KILL A FEW DEER BUT NO GUNS!!!"

I'm still fairly ignorant but the things i've learned since the move and i've thought of since this post:

-In Austria it's common for the shooting ranges (clay, target, pheasant) to have a bar. It's common to drink while shooting. It's considered a norm with every person i've met from there. They think it's silly that we have so many guns, so many ranges and no drinking at any of them.
-Their mental health checks are as shitty as ours are
-They have many guns for the amount of people they have
-Military service is no longer required
-They've had "mass shootings" and even most of the liberals in their land aren't blaming the guns

I have more but that's just food for thought