'Mass shooting' reported at Sutherland Springs church in Texas

[bcking 3,157]

16 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I am not picking your post for any particular reason other than to address what some of you are saying isn’t any proof, so please don’t take my shock as only being towards you.  It’s towards several of you.

 

Are you KIDDING me?  Talk about having your head in the sand as regards criminals and guns.  Do you think that all those thugs in Chicago that have used handguns this year to murder so many (Is it over 500 now?  Over 600?  IDK, but it’s A LOT) went down to their local Wal Mart and just filled out the forms and got a pistol???  The lot of you sit here and argue that there are SO MANY guns in the US, and THAT is the problem, then when I tell you there exists a criminal element that will steal guns or get them on the black market, I am told there is no proof of that.  *SMH*

 

How then, do you suppose the majority of criminals, many of which are repeat offenders with rap sheets longer than both your legs, obtain said weapons?  

 

We have always on the books now that keep guns out of bad guys’ hands.  Buying a gun legally is not easy, unless you have a clean record.  True, the “system” failed in the case of the Texas domestic violence dude turned mass murderer, but I present to you that it is a one-off situation.  Most actual felons CANNOT obtain a gun legally. 

 

I know most of you arguing for “more gun control” have probably never purchased a gun nor gotten a CC license.  But I encourage you to  go thru the process, even if you don’t intend to actually buy one.  Go to a gun show and try to buy a handgun without following the law (many here seem to think that gun “fairs” are an easy place to pick up an illegal purchase).

 

As for your last paragraph, BCKing, we DO have strict gun control laws already, and mass shooters have been getting them for years.  So while I didn’t provide you a link where you can READ what I said is true, I assure you, based on my knowledge of guns and some of the crime I have seen over the years, there really isn’t any other way for them to get guns.  The “evidence” that you seek is in front of your face; in spite of gun control laws, criminals get guns and kill people.  Thousands per year.  If you (Steel, BC, Mango, etc.) think I am wrong (because of lack of evidence), then what would you counter with as to the reason they keep getting guns and killing people?

Thanks for your little introduction. Don't worry I don't take it personally

 

I think the issue is you are just throwing all types of shootings into one giant "gun homicide" bucket, but I don't think that is fair. I think these mass shootings are very different from the "criminals and thugs" in Chicago. Now I may be mistaken, but from what I can recall the vast majority of these mass shootings are perpetrated by people who DID acquire guns legally. They are mentally ill people who somehow were still able to acquire guns through normal channels (or had access to guns via a parent etc...). I think the argument that they would just "get them illegally" if the legal channels were changed is flawed. Just like you seem to think we have a flawed view of buying a gun in a gun show (and I admit I've never done so), I think you may have a flawed view in terms of how thugs get guns illegally. There isn't just a well posted "illegal gun shoppe" that you stroll on in and say "Hey I'd like to buy an illegal gun please" and walk out. While yes illegal acquired firearms are rampant in our country, I would argue that a mentally ill "average Joe" who is just "angry at the world" may not have the means to connect themselves with those channels in order to acquire them. They go the "legal" route because it is easy in comparison.

 

As I said in the post you quoted, I get that focusing on these mass shootings wouldn't put a major dent in our overall homicide rate, and wouldn't keep guns out of the "criminals and thugs" that acquire them illegally. However, I do believe that stricter regulation, tighter enforcement of regulations that already exist and in particular better background checks and better mental health screenings could help prevent these "mass shooting" events that keep occurring from the mentally ill. It has worked in in other countries and I have yet to see a reasonable argument to explain why it wouldn't work here. The UK and Australia both have mentally ill, deranged people. They aren't walking into churches and gunning down 26 people.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

29 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I can PM you his address if it makes things easier for you.  (Last I heard, the gun was in his vehicle, not the driveway).

 

   Well I could actually buy one so I would go that way if necessary. My point was I wouldn't know how to get one via other channels. I wouldn't just assume that everyone would have a black market contact in waiting.

[CaliCat 3,957]

4 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

If you are going to compare the US to other countries vis a vis gun homicides, then you should not discriminate as to which countries.  That’s like only comparing the US to Korea and Japan because they all three sell soju and saki.

 

Why the desire to only include countries who are aligned with the US?  Do the lives and practices of the other 3/4 of the world not matter to you?  That seems like quite the xenophobic attitude to me.  Or is it just because when you hand-pick your countries for comparison, it makes the gun problem in the US look worse, and gives you greater perceived need for more gun control?

 

Because you have to compare countries with similar characteristics. In the first world no other country gets close to the US when it comes to gun violence numbers. 

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by CaliCat

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

If you are going to compare the US to other countries vis a vis gun homicides, then you should not discriminate as to which countries.  That’s like only comparing the US to Korea and Japan because they all three sell soju and saki.

 

Why the desire to only include countries who are aligned with the US?  Do the lives and practices of the other 3/4 of the world not matter to you?  That seems like quite the xenophobic attitude to me.  Or is it just because when you hand-pick your countries for comparison, it makes the gun problem in the US look worse, and gives you greater perceived need for more gun control?

Are you serious?

 

Of course you have to pick and choose what countries. You have to find relevant similar examples to compare to otherwise you are, excuse the overused phrase, comparing "apples to oranges". Of course we are better than Sudan in terms of gun homicide rates. It is more important to ask how we are doing against other economically advanced, stable countries.

 

That is a no brainer. It is like trying to compare rates of homelessness, or rates of hunger, or rates of poverty. It wouldn't make sense to compare us to extremely poor countries. I mean you could, but you wouldn't get much information out of it and it would be rather pointless. 

 

It's all about eliminating as many possible "confounders" as possible. If you compare us to a country that is at war, for example, obviously their rate will be high. But the cause is obvious. In order to eliminate confounders you look for the most similar places possible. It's applying fairly basic concepts in statistics.

[bcking 3,157]

A commonly used group to compare for many things (not just gun homicide rate, but healthcare for example) is the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

 

While it isn't perfect either, most of the countries are considered "developed", have a higher "quality of life" index etc... You still get 30 something countries to compare us to.

 

The graph I had posted is using those countries as a comparison. They aren't "hand picked" for gun homicide specifically. They are hand picked to compare us to other countries that are generally wealthier, and have a high human development index (HDI). 

[Boiler 43,506]

US compares badly on the Poverty front because of its lax family focussed immigration system and open borders, so if you were looking for a comparison then Countries without that would not be valid.

 

Ditto this situation.

[CaliCat 3,957]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

A commonly used group to compare for many things (not just gun homicide rate, but healthcare for example) is the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

 

While it isn't perfect either, most of the countries are considered "developed", have a higher "quality of life" index etc... You still get 30 something countries to compare us to.

 

The graph I had posted is using those countries as a comparison. They aren't "hand picked" for gun homicide specifically. They are hand picked to compare us to other countries that are generally wealthier, and have a high human development index (HDI). 

 

The graph you posted compared countries that are at the same socioeconomic level, and it provides an appropriate like-to-like comparison. 

[Boiler 43,506]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

The graph you posted compared countries that are at the same socioeconomic level, and it provides an appropriate like-to-like comparison. 

Those Countries do not have the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment.

[charmander 692]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Those Countries do not have the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment.

Switzerland?

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, charmander said:

Switzerland?

 

The US constitution has no bearing to other countries, but the sea is aflame with so many red herrings, isn't it?

[JimandChristy 1,689]

23 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Those Countries do not have the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment.

UK had similar, so did Australia but after a terrible mass shooting in both countries, Dunblane and Port Arthur respectively, both countries put restrictions on the availability of guns. Politicians/people in the UK/Australia didn't see that one incident as a left vs right issue, they saw it as a common sense issue because it was the RIGHT thing to do. No one was arguing, no one side vehemently defended their positions as to why having a gun in necessary/unnecessary. Whereas here in the USA mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting occurs and no one cares about the solving the problem. Red herrings and strawman arguments are thrown out there to deflect/distract from the REAL problem. 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

41 minutes ago, Boiler said:

US compares badly on the Poverty front because of its lax family focussed immigration system and open borders, so if you were looking for a comparison then Countries without that would not be valid.

 

Ditto this situation.

Maybe its because all of the other first world countries have universal health coverage whereas the USA does not. Once again something that the USA thinks it is better at when it is not.

[Sonea 138]

1 hour ago, JimandChristy said:

UK had similar, so did Australia but after a terrible mass shooting in both countries, Dunblane and Port Arthur respectively, both countries put restrictions on the availability of guns. Politicians/people in the UK/Australia didn't see that one incident as a left vs right issue, they saw it as a common sense issue because it was the RIGHT thing to do. No one was arguing, no one side vehemently defended their positions as to why having a gun in necessary/unnecessary. Whereas here in the USA mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting occurs and no one cares about the solving the problem. Red herrings and strawman arguments are thrown out there to deflect/distract from the REAL problem. 

One thing I don't get about Australia and the media is the claim Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur. Yet if you look it up, per the current definition they have had three, two of which are fairly recent. In fact it doesn't look like Australia's gun ban actually changed things much. Generally mass shooting were already rare there but they continue to this day.

 

Also the UK had the Cumbria attack post Dunblane.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Sonea

[Boiler 43,506]

14 minutes ago, Sonea said:

One thing I don't get about Australia and the media is the claim Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur. Yet if you look it up, per the current definition they have had three, two of which are fairly recent. In fact it doesn't look like Australia's gun ban actually changed things much. Generally mass shooting were already rare there but they continue to this day.

 

Also the UK had the Cumbria attack post Dunblane.

Hungerford is the one I remember.

 

It was different before but not US different.

[CaliCat 3,957]

39 minutes ago, Sonea said:

One thing I don't get about Australia and the media is the claim Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur. Yet if you look it up, per the current definition they have had three, two of which are fairly recent. In fact it doesn't look like Australia's gun ban actually changed things much. Generally mass shooting were already rare there but they continue to this day.

 

Also the UK had the Cumbria attack post Dunblane.

 

Could there be a relationship between less guns = less mass shootings? Just saying...