MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

You. Just. Love. To. Make. Sh*t. Up.

A little less than 20k homicides a year, Planned Parenthood last reported it performed 325k abortions in all circumstances.

You have your facts wrong. CDC counted less than 13k firearm related homicides in 2015.
30 times 13000 is 390k.

Jetero has an almost superhuman ability to overlook facts and reason in order to "win" an argument. He'll just pull things out of thin air and then dance away spouting some quip. Its pathetic.

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

You. Just. Love. To. Make. Sh*t. Up.

A little less than 20k homicides a year, Planned Parenthood last reported it performed 325k abortions in all circumstances.

You have your facts wrong. CDC counted less than 13k firearm related homicides in 2015.
30 times 13000 is 390k.

Mikey, buddy, why don’t you start by reading the original post?

CCGPV wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

You. Just. Love. To. Make. Sh*t. Up.

A little less than 20k homicides a year, Planned Parenthood last reported it performed 325k abortions in all circumstances.

You have your facts wrong. CDC counted less than 13k firearm related homicides in 2015.
30 times 13000 is 390k.

Jetero has an almost superhuman ability to overlook facts and reason in order to "win" an argument. He'll just pull things out of thin air and then dance away spouting some quip. Its pathetic.

YES! That’s why you’ll often find me acknowledging I make sh*t up to antagonize people, dismiss people with baseless equivalencies, or stir the pot in an attempt to sound holier-than-thou.

What facts were overlooked?

What reason was overlooked?

In what post in this thread have I even taken a position vis-a-vis the gun control argument (quite the contrary, numnutz).

It’s easy enough to respond to the intellectually inconsistent, absolutely mindless drivel you put out every day.

jetero wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

You. Just. Love. To. Make. Sh*t. Up.

A little less than 20k homicides a year, Planned Parenthood last reported it performed 325k abortions in all circumstances.

You have your facts wrong. CDC counted less than 13k firearm related homicides in 2015.
30 times 13000 is 390k.

Mikey, buddy, why don’t you start by reading the original post?

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

You have your facts wrong. CDC counted less than 13k firearm related homicides in 2015.
30 times 13000 is 390k.

Mikey, buddy, why don’t you start by reading the original post?

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

OK Mikey.

jetero wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

Mikey, buddy, why don’t you start by reading the original post?

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

OK Mikey.

I'm glad you agree with me. Now we can move on to a different subject.

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

You have your facts wrong. CDC counted less than 13k firearm related homicides in 2015.
30 times 13000 is 390k.

Jetero has an almost superhuman ability to overlook facts and reason in order to "win" an argument. He'll just pull things out of thin air and then dance away spouting some quip. Its pathetic.

YES! That’s why you’ll often find me acknowledging I make sh*t up to antagonize people, dismiss people with baseless equivalencies, or stir the pot in an attempt to sound holier-than-thou.

What facts were overlooked?

What reason was overlooked?

In what post in this thread have I even taken a position vis-a-vis the gun control argument (quite the contrary, numnutz).

It’s easy enough to respond to the intellectually inconsistent, absolutely mindless drivel you put out every day.

We're not talking about me we're talking about you. Stop trying to deflect. You were called out and now you're flailing.

I'm completely honest about who I am. Just because it baffles or frustrates you doesn't make it any of my business. You have over the years shown your poor attitude and snarky behavior towards people you disagree with. Just be honest.

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

YES! That’s why you’ll often find me acknowledging I make sh*t up to antagonize people, dismiss people with baseless equivalencies, or stir the pot in an attempt to sound holier-than-thou.

What facts were overlooked?

What reason was overlooked?

In what post in this thread have I even taken a position vis-a-vis the gun control argument (quite the contrary, numnutz).

It’s easy enough to respond to the intellectually inconsistent, absolutely mindless drivel you put out every day.

We're not talking about me we're talking about you. Stop trying to deflect. You were called out and now you're flailing.

I'm completely honest about who I am. Just because it baffles or frustrates you doesn't make it any of my business. You have over the years shown your poor attitude and snarky behavior towards people you disagree with. Just be honest.

What in the hell are you blathering about CC?

I was responding to your typical deflections when called out on your BS. And once again there you go...

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Jetero has an almost superhuman ability to overlook facts and reason in order to "win" an argument. He'll just pull things out of thin air and then dance away spouting some quip. Its pathetic.

YES! That’s why you’ll often find me acknowledging I make sh*t up to antagonize people, dismiss people with baseless equivalencies, or stir the pot in an attempt to sound holier-than-thou.

What facts were overlooked?

What reason was overlooked?

In what post in this thread have I even taken a position vis-a-vis the gun control argument (quite the contrary, numnutz).

It’s easy enough to respond to the intellectually inconsistent, absolutely mindless drivel you put out every day.

We're not talking about me we're talking about you. Stop trying to deflect. You were called out and now you're flailing.

I'm completely honest about who I am. Just because it baffles or frustrates you doesn't make it any of my business. You have over the years shown your poor attitude and snarky behavior towards people you disagree with. Just be honest.

What in the hell are you blathering about CC?

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

OK Mikey.

I'm glad you agree with me. Now we can move on to a different subject.

OK Mikey

jetero wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So why bother doing anything, right? I mean, people are going to get guns anyway and we live in a violent society so let's just throw our hands up and walk away but we better outlaw abortion because it is murder and every life is precious, right?

Last year, Planned Parenthood performed about 30 times as many abortions as there were homicides in the entire country. Case closed.

You. Just. Love. To. Make. Sh*t. Up.

A little less than 20k homicides a year, Planned Parenthood last reported it performed 325k abortions in all circumstances. But I’m sure you know exactly what you’re saying because you are an absolutely shameless ideologue and provocateur.

In any case, we better not outlaw abortion because, we, people are going to find a way to get one anyway.

Let's clear some things up:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 1dd6aa8699

People who support guns everywhere and cry about "don't take our guns!" when children are murdered are in the same political party, and very often the same people, who will cry about abortions because "we value life!" No. No, you can not. If you value life, you can not support mass murder and support life. No. No. No. No.

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

You have your facts wrong. CDC counted less than 13k firearm related homicides in 2015.
30 times 13000 is 390k.

Mikey, buddy, why don’t you start by reading the original post?

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

The CDC has not been allowed to study gun deaths because NRA does not want them out there.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-gover ... d=50300379

seb146 wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

Mikey, buddy, why don’t you start by reading the original post?

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

The CDC has not been allowed to study gun deaths because NRA does not want them out there.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-gover ... d=50300379

That's an outdated story. The last budget passed by the Republicans (and signed by cacapoopoopeepeeboy) a few months ago included funding for the CDC to study it. You can find the article with sources in my response above.

seb146 wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

jetero wrote:

Mikey, buddy, why don’t you start by reading the original post?

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

The CDC has not been allowed to study gun deaths because NRA does not want them out there.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-gover ... d=50300379

The CDC was not banned from documenting gun violence. You are making that up. And, as you know if you read this thread, President Trump has signed legislation to allow for the research... https://www.npr.org/2018/03/25/59680535 ... whats-next

Wrong again

seb146 wrote:

People who support guns everywhere and cry about "don't take our guns!" when children are murdered are in the same political party, and very often the same people, who will cry about abortions because "we value life!" No. No, you can not. If you value life, you can not support mass murder and support life. No. No. No. No.

Generally, those in favor of gun control (to potentially reduce the rate of deaths by firearms) are those who cry against any restriction in abortions (to potentially reduce the rate of terminated pregnancies). Logically one cannot "value life" in one area and also support the mass termination of life in the other.

So I agree, you cannot support mass murder and "support life". It's hypocritical.

MikeDrop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

The CDC has not been allowed to study gun deaths because NRA does not want them out there.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-gover ... d=50300379

The CDC was not banned from documenting gun violence. You are making that up. And, as you know if you read this thread, President Trump has signed legislation to allow for the research... https://www.npr.org/2018/03/25/59680535 ... whats-next

Wrong again

actually if you read your own link, it says "could change that" get back to us when they do.

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

People who support guns everywhere and cry about "don't take our guns!" when children are murdered are in the same political party, and very often the same people, who will cry about abortions because "we value life!" No. No, you can not. If you value life, you can not support mass murder and support life. No. No. No. No.

Generally, those in favor of gun control (to potentially reduce the rate of deaths by firearms) are those who cry against any restriction in abortions (to potentially reduce the rate of terminated pregnancies). Logically one cannot "value life" in one area and also support the mass termination of life in the other.

So I agree, you cannot support mass murder and "support life". It's hypocritical.

Kind of like saying, “What’s the use of enacting gun control laws? The bad people will still find a way to shoot people,” eh, MSP? I have no doubt you’re ideologically consistent on that one.

If you think abortion being illegal for the last 40 years would have led to anything but societal problems on steroids, you are a liar, to yourself and everyone else.

MikeDrop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

I don't need to. You are making false claims in order to justify whatever reason you have today to insult people. I've simply identified your dishonesty and corrected it.

The CDC has not been allowed to study gun deaths because NRA does not want them out there.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-gover ... d=50300379

The CDC was not banned from documenting gun violence. You are making that up. And, as you know if you read this thread, President Trump has signed legislation to allow for the research... https://www.npr.org/2018/03/25/59680535 ... whats-next

Wrong again

interesting.

Democrats have wanted this research for years and years and years and years. Suddenly, under the orange menace, it is accepted? huh.... who woulda thunk it....

aviationaware wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Huh? Do you have any data to back that up? Where are people going on mass stabbing rampages that kill thousands per year like guns in the USA?

Just over 1,000 people have died in mass shootings in the US in the last 50 years, so I don't know how you came up with the 'thousands per year' number. Also, a large number of the mass shootings that happen in the US are gang related and hence hardly count when we discuss school shootings. Around 1.6% of all homicide victims die in mass shootings.

You said if guns were banned, the murder rate would not change, which is ridiculous. That’s like saying if email were banned everyone would replace them all with snail mail.

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

People who support guns everywhere and cry about "don't take our guns!" when children are murdered are in the same political party, and very often the same people, who will cry about abortions because "we value life!" No. No, you can not. If you value life, you can not support mass murder and support life. No. No. No. No.

Generally, those in favor of gun control (to potentially reduce the rate of deaths by firearms) are those who cry against any restriction in abortions (to potentially reduce the rate of terminated pregnancies). Logically one cannot "value life" in one area and also support the mass termination of life in the other.

So I agree, you cannot support mass murder and "support life". It's hypocritical.

How many kids have you adopted?

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

People who support guns everywhere and cry about "don't take our guns!" when children are murdered are in the same political party, and very often the same people, who will cry about abortions because "we value life!" No. No, you can not. If you value life, you can not support mass murder and support life. No. No. No. No.

Generally, those in favor of gun control (to potentially reduce the rate of deaths by firearms) are those who cry against any restriction in abortions (to potentially reduce the rate of terminated pregnancies). Logically one cannot "value life" in one area and also support the mass termination of life in the other.

So I agree, you cannot support mass murder and "support life". It's hypocritical.

Life and life aren't equal and I bet you think those who committed 911 did nothing wrong?

c933103 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

People who support guns everywhere and cry about "don't take our guns!" when children are murdered are in the same political party, and very often the same people, who will cry about abortions because "we value life!" No. No, you can not. If you value life, you can not support mass murder and support life. No. No. No. No.

Generally, those in favor of gun control (to potentially reduce the rate of deaths by firearms) are those who cry against any restriction in abortions (to potentially reduce the rate of terminated pregnancies). Logically one cannot "value life" in one area and also support the mass termination of life in the other.

So I agree, you cannot support mass murder and "support life". It's hypocritical.

Life and life aren't equal and I bet you think those who committed 911 did nothing wrong?

That is quite a leap. How are life and life not equal? The unborn are infinitely more important than the children who have been gunned down because yay guns? Please help me understand this.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

A lot of angry people in this thread.

Look at it this way: School will be out for summer shortly, so there will be a lower chance of children being gunned down en masse, so fewer angry people for a few weeks.....

Honestly, I haven't heard about any school shootings in Chicago.

I guess in Chicagoland they take their hatred and angst to the streets, one child at a time...

Freakysh wrote:

Americans are inherently violent.

They are also loud and opinionated but are too lazy to take action against a societal direction they don't agree with.

I'm sorry.... where are you from ???

It took lots and lots violent Americans, to deliver defeat to Japan and Germany in the last world war.

But perhaps you're into Tyranny, or whatever "nice" name you have for what life would be like under The Rising Sun, or the 3rd Reich.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I'm sorry.... where are you from ???

It took lots and lots violent Americans, to deliver defeat to Japan and Germany in the last world war.

But perhaps you're into Tyranny, or whatever "nice" name you have for what life would be like under The Rising Sun, or the 3rd Reich.

Oh , so what did you in that? If you are the exemplary American, holy shit do we look like morons.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Americans are inherently violent.

They are also loud and opinionated but are too lazy to take action against a societal direction they don't agree with.

I'm sorry.... where are you from ???

It took lots and lots violent Americans, to deliver defeat to Japan and Germany in the last world war.

But perhaps you're into Tyranny, or whatever "nice" name you have for what life would be like under The Rising Sun, or the 3rd Reich.

Now see if you can exhibit some self control and limit that violence so that it's not directed at your fellow citizens cowboy.

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Generally, those in favor of gun control (to potentially reduce the rate of deaths by firearms) are those who cry against any restriction in abortions (to potentially reduce the rate of terminated pregnancies). Logically one cannot "value life" in one area and also support the mass termination of life in the other.

So I agree, you cannot support mass murder and "support life". It's hypocritical.

Life and life aren't equal and I bet you think those who committed 911 did nothing wrong?

That is quite a leap. How are life and life not equal? The unborn are infinitely more important than the children who have been gunned down because yay guns? Please help me understand this.

I meant to say unborn life are not to be equally treated as if same as life of children or adult, as the life still haven't been developed

MaverickM11 wrote:

You said if guns were banned, the murder rate would not change, which is ridiculous. That’s like saying if email were banned everyone would replace them all with snail mail.

And I have elaborated on how the data not only suggests that, but near enough proves it. What's ridiculous here is that you are declaring 1+1 to not equal 2. 2 instances where countries very similar to the US have banned guns. In both cases, the murder rate has not gone down, in one case it has even gone up significantly. Note that I am not attributing the rise to the gun ban. But the gun bans certainly did nothing to lower the murder rate, that much is crystal clear from the data the official sources in UK and OZ provide, no matter how much you dislike this truth.

It's funny how liberals always claim to be subscribed to the truth and facts but on the topic of guns, you guys totally space out and ignore all the evidence. Ludicrous.

aviationaware wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

You said if guns were banned, the murder rate would not change, which is ridiculous. That’s like saying if email were banned everyone would replace them all with snail mail.

And I have elaborated on how the data not only suggests that, but near enough proves it. What's ridiculous here is that you are declaring 1+1 to not equal 2. 2 instances where countries very similar to the US have banned guns. In both cases, the murder rate has not gone down, in one case it has even gone up significantly. Note that I am not attributing the rise to the gun ban. But the gun bans certainly did nothing to lower the murder rate, that much is crystal clear from the data the official sources in UK and OZ provide, no matter how much you dislike this truth.

It's funny how liberals always claim to be subscribed to the truth and facts but on the topic of guns, you guys totally space out and ignore all the evidence. Ludicrous.

That's just not true.

Gun deaths in Australia were in decline for the decade preceding the introduction of stricter gun laws in 97. After that they continued to decline where they have plateaud in the last decade.

I can accept the argument that gun laws may not have been solely responsible for the continued decline. I can't accept that gun deaths increased, or didn't drop after stricter gun laws were introduced. This is pure fantasy.

The US does have a cultural gun problem and it's no real use comparing to Australia or Britain anyway.

Will gun laws in the US improve the situation? Don't know. It's more complex than that in the US

How utterly absurd. The actual argument that the gun regulations in Australia were ineffective is that ... homicides were going down already, and they kept going down and down, but not by a larger rate. That is the actual argument. Seriously. Meanwhile their homicide rate has fallen below 1/100,000, 5 times less than the US. I'm sure they really regret this abject failure!

Freakysh wrote:

Gun deaths in Australia were in decline for the decade preceding the introduction of stricter gun laws in 97. After that they continued to decline where they have plateaud in the last decade.

You keep talking about GUN DEATHS when I am talking about OVERALL HOMICIDES. It's like you people don't even read.

aviationaware wrote:

In both cases, the murder rate has not gone down

In Australia... the homicide rate was around 1.7 when laws were enacted.

Most recently was .98.

What the hell would you call that?

You are a liar.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

In both cases, the murder rate has not gone down

In Australia... the homicide rate was around 1.7 when laws were enacted.

Most recently was .98.

What the hell would you call that?

You are a liar.

It did not go down for FIVE YEARS after the ban, even spiking twice. Are you honestly trying to tell me that a gun ban takes 5 years to show in the data? That's just absolutely absurd. As I mentioned earlier, the drop in homicide rate that Australia witnessed during the 2000s was mirroring a general trend that ALL developed countries experienced, even those that did not pass gun legislation (US) and those that never had lose gun laws to begin with (Germany). There is absolutely not even the semblance of evidence that this was a delayed effect of the gun ban legislation. None.

aviationaware wrote:

You keep talking about GUN DEATHS when I am talking about OVERALL HOMICIDES. It's like you people don't even read.

Then why the fuck are you talking about OVERALL HOMICIDES??? The population has grown massively there. Almost 40% over that period. Obviously it is the rate that is important. Stop with this slight of hand bullshit. You're only manipulating shit to suit your agenda, and the bad news is you're not that bright, so we're not going to be fooled by it. Obviously per capita rates are the baseline for these statistics. It's only fucking logical.

aviationaware wrote:

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

In both cases, the murder rate has not gone down

In Australia... the homicide rate was around 1.7 when laws were enacted.

Most recently was .98.

What the hell would you call that?

You are a liar.

It did not go down for FIVE YEARS after the ban, even spiking twice. Are you honestly trying to tell me that a gun ban takes 5 years to show in the data? That's just absolutely absurd. As I mentioned earlier, the drop in homicide rate that Australia witnessed during the 2000s was mirroring a general trend that ALL developed countries experienced, even those that did not pass gun legislation (US) and those that never had lose gun laws to begin with (Germany). There is absolutely not even the semblance of evidence that this was a delayed effect of the gun ban legislation. None.

Again not true. Show me the data you are looking at.

Overall homicides have been in decline also.

Again, I'm not sure you can attribute the decline to gun laws, but you saying they rose after laws were introduced is laughable

aviationaware wrote:

It did not go down for FIVE YEARS after the ban, even spiking twice. Are you honestly trying to tell me that a gun ban takes 5 years to show in the data? That's just absolutely absurd. .

Are you for real?

Do you think suddenly in 1996 all the guns in Australia just disappeared? Poof? It was a series of regulations and buy back that dropped number of guns by about 20%. More regulations were enacted in 2002. It's not like it was a blanket ban. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

You keep talking about GUN DEATHS when I am talking about OVERALL HOMICIDES. It's like you people don't even read.

Then why the fuck are you talking about OVERALL HOMICIDES??? The population has grown massively there. Almost 40% over that period. Obviously it is the rate that is important. Stop with this slight of hand bullshit. You're only manipulating shit to suit your agenda, and the bad news is you're not that bright, so we're not going to be fooled by it. Obviously per capita rates are the baseline for these statistics. It's only fucking logical.

I think you people just want me to facepalm and despair over all your stupidity.

1) A growing population has absolutely zero meaning to the homicide rate, you see, because it's a rate. Not absolutely numbers.
2) I have been talking about the homicide rate for several pages in the thread. Never once have I referred to absolute numbers. Don't pretend I did and call me a liar afterwards.
3) It's you who is bulshitting his way around this thread.
4) I am not manipulating a thing. I am citing official data points and interpreting them in the only way possible.
5) As for who's brighter, refer to points 1 & 2. It's a pretty clear picture.

For the slow people in the thread, here's the bottom line again:

a) The overall homicide rate DID NOT go down after gun bans were enacted
b) The gun homicide rate DID go down after the gun bans were enacted, and it did so significantly and immediately, year over year, not with a five year delay.
c) The only possible conclusion is that people were using other weapons to commit homicides, specifically knives and blunt objects, when they would otherwise have used guns.

Is that really too difficult to understand?

Freakysh wrote:

Show me the data you are looking at.

The Australian data is linked earlier in the thread, so I won't be doing you the favor of digging it out again. Go look for yourself.

The UK data: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... gmarch2017

Scroll down to figure 1.

aviationaware wrote:

I think you people just want me to facepalm and despair over all your stupidity.

1) A growing population has absolutely zero meaning to the homicide rate, you see, because it's a rate. Not absolutely numbers.
2) I have been talking about the homicide rate for several pages in the thread. Never once have I referred to absolute numbers. Don't pretend I did and call me a liar afterwards.

aviationaware wrote:

You keep talking about GUN DEATHS when I am talking about OVERALL HOMICIDES.

And when you were talking in rates you claimed the homicide rate did not go down in Australia with a straight face .

aviationaware wrote:

a) The overall homicide rate DID NOT go down after gun bans were enacted
b) The gun homicide rate DID go down after the gun bans were enacted, and it did so significantly and immediately, year over year, not with a five year delay.
c) The only possible conclusion is that people were using other weapons to commit homicides, specifically knives and blunt objects, when they would otherwise have used guns.

You really don't understand this at all. Do you think guns in Australia literally disappeared in 1996?

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

You really don't understand this at all. Do you think guns in Australia literally disappeared in 1996?

No.
I understand this a lot better than you, apparently.

Guns obviously did not vanish over night. But gun homicides moved down significantly:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compa ... gun_deaths

See that drop from 516 to 312? That's the law taking effect. Oh, this is also the first time I am citing absolute numbers, but since the population did not shrink and overall homicide rate did not go down, go figure.

aviationaware wrote:

For the slow people in the thread, here's the bottom line again:

a) The overall homicide rate DID NOT go down after gun bans were enacted.

Wrong.

At least in Australia, the homicide rate has been in decline since the early 90s, consistent either side of gun restriction laws

To me one of the big factors with guns is that it gives the person who possesses on them or uses them a belief they are in control or can take control. That is something deeply part of American culture. For those that do mass shootings in schools or public places, use them in crimes, to control drug sale 'turf', use them to bully and threaten others, in relationships, it is about control.

For the school and public space mass shooters, they are often persons who are not socially well adjusted, have been bullied, have issues with relationships, rejected by others - especially women, may have underlying mental and psychological health problems and access to guns. They turn to using guns to gain control over their situation, to target their killing upon those they believe prevent them from having control.

Your not going to do much about the access to guns due to underlying politics held by a plurality of Americans. What we can do is to work on the culture in our society including in schools. Starting in Kindergarden, to encourage good social behaviors. Near-zero tolerance of bullying and harassment. Make it so all students feel part of the school's society by limiting self-segregation and cliques by family income, appearance, faith, social clumsiness. Provide consulting and access to care for mental health problems. Encourage interaction by students to develop healthy attitudes. Be inclusive of all, to make sure all students are involved in their school communities. Some schools have mandated uniforms to reduce some of the social and financial segregation to encourage a community that all in are all part of. What I don't want to see are schools like jails that may make things worse.

This is not going to be easy, but schools must find ways to reduce the conditions that encourage the socially excluded to seek control by a gun.

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

You have your facts wrong. CDC counted less than 13k firearm related homicides in 2015.
30 times 13000 is 390k.

Jetero has an almost superhuman ability to overlook facts and reason in order to "win" an argument. He'll just pull things out of thin air and then dance away spouting some quip. Its pathetic.

YES! That’s why you’ll often find me acknowledging I make sh*t up to antagonize people, dismiss people with baseless equivalencies, or stir the pot in an attempt to sound holier-than-thou.

What facts were overlooked?

What reason was overlooked?

In what post in this thread have I even taken a position vis-a-vis the gun control argument (quite the contrary, numnutz).

It’s easy enough to respond to the intellectually inconsistent, absolutely mindless drivel you put out every day.

It’s only 25 times as many. Apologies for overstating.

Freakysh wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

For the slow people in the thread, here's the bottom line again:

a) The overall homicide rate DID NOT go down after gun bans were enacted.

Wrong.

At least in Australia, the homicide rate has been in decline since the early 90s, consistent either side of gun restriction laws

Untrue. It was rather stable in the early 90s, had a single noticable drop the year BEFORE gun reform, after which it was again rather stable. It only started dropping consistently in the early 2000s.

aviationaware wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

For the slow people in the thread, here's the bottom line again:

a) The overall homicide rate DID NOT go down after gun bans were enacted.

Wrong.

At least in Australia, the homicide rate has been in decline since the early 90s, consistent either side of gun restriction laws

Untrue. It was rather stable in the early 90s, had a single noticable drop the year BEFORE gun reform, after which it was again rather stable. It only started dropping consistently in the early 2000s.

Overall the trend since 90s is negative. Yes, there are spikes and you can read that as you have, but the band between the early 90s to now is very tight and what appears to be a positive spike around the late 90s to me is not significant.

All I am saying is that you cannot argue that gun law changes have improved homicide/gun death rates in Australia, but nor can you say that homicide rates haven't improved since gun laws were introduced because the long term trend has indeed remained negative.

For the record, I don't think tighter gun laws in America will prevent these mass shootings. Though, that's not too say that I think more responsible gun ownership isn't required in the US

ltbewr wrote:

To me one of the big factors with guns is that it gives the person who possesses on them or uses them a belief they are in control or can take control. That is something deeply part of American culture. For those that do mass shootings in schools or public places, use them in crimes, to control drug sale 'turf', use them to bully and threaten others, in relationships, it is about control.

For the school and public space mass shooters, they are often persons who are not socially well adjusted, have been bullied, have issues with relationships, rejected by others - especially women, may have underlying mental and psychological health problems and access to guns. They turn to using guns to gain control over their situation, to target their killing upon those they believe prevent them from having control.

Your not going to do much about the access to guns due to underlying politics held by a plurality of Americans. What we can do is to work on the culture in our society including in schools. Starting in Kindergarden, to encourage good social behaviors. Near-zero tolerance of bullying and harassment. Make it so all students feel part of the school's society by limiting self-segregation and cliques by family income, appearance, faith, social clumsiness. Provide consulting and access to care for mental health problems. Encourage interaction by students to develop healthy attitudes. Be inclusive of all, to make sure all students are involved in their school communities. Some schools have mandated uniforms to reduce some of the social and financial segregation to encourage a community that all in are all part of. What I don't want to see are schools like jails that may make things worse.

This is not going to be easy, but schools must find ways to reduce the conditions that encourage the socially excluded to seek control by a gun.

This is a well reasoned post and it's also well written. The problem though is that it just does more tap dancing around issue of a kid "snapping" (whether it's in a day or over a few months) and the ludicrous access just about anyone in this country has to weapons of mass death. In the league of "advanced and wealthy" nations we stand alone in this national trait and it is the single trait that explains why we stand alone in the regular drum beat of mass shootings. This shit simply doesn't happen anywhere else at anywhere near the frequency or body count. Ready access to guns is the ONLY reason for this. Kids the world over are bullied, tormented, rejected by girls, play Halo all day, are ignored by their parents yada yada yada. To point to values, culture, family, social behavior and think that this in any way will prevent or mitigate mass school shooting is worthy of a strong effort, but ultimately doomed to failure so long as any kid anywhere in this country can walk into any corner of their home or a Walmart and load up in 2-6 weapons and 100-1000 rounds of ammo. But only time will fix this problem. A day will come when our children or grandchildren will look back at all of us and wonder just how neanderthal stupid we really were. They'll fix this just like every other social ill gets fixed, with enlightenment , will power and votes. Until then the bodies will simply pile up, and up and up until the disgrace becomes too unbearable.

Freakysh wrote:

For the record, I don't think tighter gun laws in America will prevent these mass shootings. Though, that's not too say that I think more responsible gun ownership isn't required in the US

"Mass shootings" make the national news so that is when we as a nation get into the discussion of guns and the laws regarding their use and ownership. As I have said gun laws are about and for people, to make sure the use and any abuse can be addressed. I believe in responsible gun ownership, and I think that some only pay lip service to that.

Earlier in the thread I suggested laws whereby if a gun you own is used in a crime you are equally liable to be charged with equivalent consequences as the crime itself. I think that simple law would change a lot, it could impact straw purchases and encourage owners to keep their guns secured.

Also many say you can't require gun registration, but that is not true, of course you can, it does not impact your right and ability to own and use a firearm. I think we are too cowed by the vocal minority about tracking and gathering data about guns, their use and abuse.

No law alone solves a problem, crime still regularly occurs, people still speed when they drive, kids still skip school, but laws help and are the tools we have to use to enforce what society thinks is valued. So saying laws won't solve this or that is a wasted response, of course it won't but that has no bearing on whether a law or regulation is the proper thing to put in place.

I simply hope for effective discussion and sensible laws and regulation to be applied to firearm use and and ownership. The outliers in the conversation, the lunatic fringe are those that say "take away all the guns" and those that say "my right to guns is absolute and cannot be infringed".

Tugg

Casual viewers of this thread must be learning a lot about the issue. Thanks for all the really easy to understand statistics about the issue. It really does seem like a clear cut case for some pretty strict gun control measures as they do work in the long run.

Freakysh wrote:

Americans are inherently violent.

So are others.
The difference is a regression back beyond "an eye for an eye ..".

result: --> shooting somebody for potentially bending ones wiperblades is OK
( I felt "threatened", a perversion of "stand your ground" doctrine.)

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

A lot of angry people in this thread.

Look at it this way: School will be out for summer shortly, so there will be a lower chance of children being gunned down en masse, so fewer angry people for a few weeks.....

Honestly, I haven't heard about any school shootings in Chicago.

I guess in Chicagoland they take their hatred and angst to the streets, one child at a time...

And you bring up Illinois because......?

BTW, you use "violent Americans" and something about WWII but, you do realize that Germany and Japan were violent as well. Ask the Jews, gypsies, gays, political opponents, Russians, and Chinese.