Yet another mass shooting in the US

And what would have been the valid reason? Not liking Mondays?

(I suspect the people who do this stuff think they have some kind of reason, even if it’s a weird one and even if you/investigators don’t know what it is.)

Well, did it work or not?

Here’s a :spoon:, dig that rabbit hole.

:popcorn:

Guy has a good family, good job, basically absolutely no reason to go on a murder rampage.

I say as a false flag it worked because that law on suppressor they were voting on disappeared before the body cooled.

And you have basically absolutely no way to verify any of that.

Tell me more about the suppressors. :face_with_peeking_eye:

Silencers are harshly regulated in the us.

A bill is being voted on at the time, called the hearing protection act and later renamed sporting something act.

The act would have deregulated silencers as firearm accessories and not require registration or whatever. You’d also be able to make your own without needing a form 1.

Silencers are unregulated in the EU, and are required in many places, because of noise concerns.

That law died as soon as Las Vegas happened.

Stuff like that makes people think false flag.

You apparently didn’t read anything I wrote. I said:

As in nobody is advocating to ban all guns.

We did have mass shootings and gang violence in the 1920s and 30s which led to the National Firearms Act effectively banning fully automatic weapons.

What changed after that is the NRA in the 1970s turned from an organization focused on marksmanship to one focused on political activism preventing any common sense legislation from even being debated. Or even further preventing the CDC from investigating gun deaths as a health issue. Thankfully other studies have been conducted and proven a pretty universal concept. By making things more difficult less people will do them. By restricting access to guns less people will die.

1 Like

How is gun death a health issue, and what does the CDC have anything to do with it? Gun violence is a crime issue and therefore it should be the fbi studying it, not CDC.

And we know for sure less people will die by restricting access to guns? And what do we do with the millions of guns currently in circulation?

You go from saying not looking to ban guns to saying restricting guns will save lives.

What do you think the gun control laws in Latin American countries that have serious gang and crime problem is? Do you think they’re anywhere near as permissive as the us? Do less people die as a result?

Try not to obsess about events. I’m sure it’s difficult, but it’s really unhealthy. It wasn’t a false flag. It was a nut job who lost his shit. He was able to kill 60 people at a concert because he had something attached to his guns that enabled machine gun like fire.

1 Like

It shows American politics are influenced by knee jerk events like this. If something like this can turn a republican into favoring gun control, then how can any other countries even be assured that the US is a reliable ally? Like many EU countries, Japan, and such kinda depends on the US for their security, and we can see from this anything goes.

This makes america very unreliable.

Someone can also use an electric drill to pull a trigger on a gun very fast to simulate machine gun fire too. This is illegal by the way but if you’re going to go commit felonies with guns, what’s a misdemeanor violation going to do to stop them?

Someone can build a contraption to make a bolt action deer gun full auto as well.

It makes no sense putting people in jail for years on a misdemeanor violation.

You’re autistic, so you’ll obsess. It leads nowhere positive. You are wrong about a false flag operation and you need to let it go. I’ve told you, and I won’t tell you again.

1 Like

The CDC should have the freedom to conduct studies about the leading causes of death in American society. What is the point of restricting those studies?

That’s because restricting access to guns will save lives. Again I have never seen legislation nor a politician ever propose banning all guns.

70% of the guns in Mexico are manufactured in the US. The Mexican government does not maintain control over vast swaths of its own territory. Similar statistics can be found for Brazil. In places with less restrictions and higher rates of gun ownership, higher guns death per Capita are the result.

  1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

  1. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

  1. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

In higher income countries, even those with relatively higher rates of gun ownership (like Israel and Switzerland, but still nowhere near the US), there are more restrictions to gun ownership that include restrictions on ammunition, psychological evaluations, and needing prove a valid reason for owning certain types of firearms. Those countries have higher gun deaths per Capita but still nothing compared to the US.

As far as guns in circulation, it’s been done before. The US can do the same as Australia such as federally funded gun buyback programs, voluntarily surrender and gun amnesty.

1 Like

Given the number of cold dead hands types in the US, it may take a war to buy back the guns.

And guns making its way across mexico breaks numerous laws in both the us and Mexico to get the guns there. But again, criminals don’t care about misdemeanor violations when they’re looking to murder.

Tell me again how are we going to fully, and completely get rid of guns?

No proposals to ban all guns exist because it’s unconstitutional and impossible to do.

They can disarm minorities, but not when majority have guns.

It’s going to be tricky with the number of guns in circulation. Australia and the UK were very different situations. I think it was after Hungerford when my dad gave up his shotgun. Obviously, after Dunblane controls got tighter.

It’s blindingly obvious that the greater the gun control, the fewer people get shot. But, a lot of Americans like gun ownership and view spree shootings as an acceptable trade-off. That’s their choice, but I’d prefer it if they were honest about it and desisted with nonsense about mass shootings having nothing to do with gun ownership. At the very least respect my intelligence.

2 Likes

Fewer people getting shot sure, but probably more people getting stabbed or burned or whatever.

And this is assuming they successfully get guns out of people’s hands. That will likely take a war.

Number of Americans with guns is the largest standing army in the world.

Most of them can’t get off the sofa without rocking back and forth.

No again the underlying principle is that the harder you make something the less people will do it. This is common sense. It is not as easy to run up and stab someone or commit mass murder with a knife as it is to kill them from a distance with guns.

This has been studied extensively with suicides as well. What you are arguing is called means substitution, that the same number of people (or more) would commit murder just choosing a different way to do it.

That is not the case though. If someone is suicidal and has access to a gun, the chances of them being successful are far higher than if they only had a knife to slit their wrists or pills to poison themselves. Guns are the easiest and readily accessible way for a person to kill themselves or other people. Period.

A common concern about means restriction has been that individuals will simply switch to other methods of suicide—ie, so-called means substitution. Such concern could be a result of distressed individuals being considered by clinicians as equally at risk of suicide by any method when they are assessed as being very suicidal. However, studies5 have shown that restriction of one method of suicide does not inevitably lead to a compensating rise in the use of others (as shown in the UK in the 1970s), just as the emergence of a new method (eg, domestic gas in the UK in the first half of the 20th century, or the burning of charcoal in confined spaces to generate toxic amounts of carbon monoxide in Hong Kong in the late 1990s) does not result in a substantial decline in the use of long-available means.

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

So my question is, if it will take a war to get rid of the guns, would it be worth it.

Because maybe only a fraction of guns will be turned in, and everyone else would become criminals for keeping their own property.

If you want to take away guns, take it away from the police as well. It’s been shown you can’t trust them either.

Nobody’s arguing to take away all guns. If you reinstated an assault weapons ban that would be pretty limited. The first step would be to stop making new ones. And as with other gun buyback programs, there is no shortage of participants since cash is a big incentive.

Then after a certain period if owning them were to become illegal, then more than a few would turn them in. Despite paranoia and the cold dead hands trope around forced confiscation, you don’t need to do that. Maybe a few would hide them in their basement for decades but who cares if they aren’t being used.

Slowly phasing out weapons which serve no other purpose than mass murder wouldn’t happen overnight.

The alternative of doing nothing is much worse. We’ve seen that movie before.

After what happened to George Floyd, I imagine more than a few Americans will not want to turn their guns in.

You would have to assume Americans trust their government, and sadly they don’t.

So yes it will take a war. That is unless you do not allow cops to carry guns unless they are in a special weapons unit.

You live in a fantasy land.

1 Like