ltbewr wrote:

The terrorist's long manifesto and other info gathered so far suggests he planned to do more attacks on Black persons in other locations in the area. He apparently 'scouted' for locations to carry out his perverse plans driving to the area the day before. The NY Governor has pledged monies to the victims' families. The owners of the store (Tops) is making arrangements to transport persons in the neighborhood to another store in the area as well as distribute food for those in need as the only food supermarket in the neighborhood and will be closed indefinitely for investigaitons. President Biden to visit Buffalo on Tuesday to meet with victims and their families. He has already spoken about this tragedy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden ... uxbndlbing
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/us/buffa ... index.html

Why did Biden feel he needed to go to Buffalo and not when a black man ran down a bunch of people and killed 6 in Wisconsin? Because the suspect was not a white man with a gun? I just love how liberals pick and choose which hate filled stories they are going to promote and look the other way when it doesn't fit the white supremacy narrative. Plenty of gun killings in this country plenty of black on black gun death but it doesn't make the news but let it be a white guy shooting a black or better yet a white cop shooting an unarmed black man then you will see plenty of coverage. Al Sharpton and Ben Crump must have private jets on immediate standby cuz they sure get to these events fast.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarko ... a-n2607291

wingman wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Yet instances of defensive gun use still dramatically outnumber gun homicides in the US.

What's your source for this statement? Most of what I can find online says the exact opposite:
https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-o ... e-gun-use/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fire ... tfact.html (claims stats unknown and difficult to measure)

I agree with you in principle, we'll never outlaw guns in this country and we shouldn't. But we should regulate them the same way we do driving and insurance. Don't forget, blacks only used to be 2/3rds of a human being and women had to stay and home and STFU. We can change and we should when the goal is positive change. There's nothing positive about the status quo.

Here's one source:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com ... 94461.html

The problem with insurance is that it represents a financial barrier to a constitutional right the same way poll taxes did in the late 1800s. This makes it harder for low-income people to exercise these rights and one can argue that low income people are the most likely to need a firearm for self defense.

petertenthije wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

In other countries, where they don't do mass killings with guns, they make suicide vests. There's no guarantee that if the US gave up on gun ownership, that radical religious suicide killings would not move in... Plus, once they're 25, they can rent a truck, and drive into masses.

How is a gun going to help against a suicide vest?
You won’t know if someone is a suicide bomber, till the vest goes boom.
Or do you think suicide bombers wear name tags?

See, who needs name tags when you can just go with skin color and accent? (Sarcasm)

stratosphere wrote:

Why did Biden feel he needed to go to Buffalo and not when a black man ran down a bunch of people and killed 6 in Wisconsin? Because the suspect was not a white man with a gun? I just love how liberals pick and choose which hate filled stories they are going to promote and look the other way when it doesn't fit the white supremacy narrative. Plenty of gun killings in this country plenty of black on black gun death but it doesn't make the news but let it be a white guy shooting a black or better yet a white cop shooting an unarmed black man then you will see plenty of coverage. Al Sharpton and Ben Crump must have private jets on immediate standby cuz they sure get to these events fast.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarko ... a-n2607291

Yes, perhaps if we ignore the terrorists, they will simply go away on their own.

stratosphere wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

The terrorist's long manifesto and other info gathered so far suggests he planned to do more attacks on Black persons in other locations in the area. He apparently 'scouted' for locations to carry out his perverse plans driving to the area the day before. The NY Governor has pledged monies to the victims' families. The owners of the store (Tops) is making arrangements to transport persons in the neighborhood to another store in the area as well as distribute food for those in need as the only food supermarket in the neighborhood and will be closed indefinitely for investigaitons. President Biden to visit Buffalo on Tuesday to meet with victims and their families. He has already spoken about this tragedy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden ... uxbndlbing
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/us/buffa ... index.html

Why did Biden feel he needed to go to Buffalo and not when a black man ran down a bunch of people and killed 6 in Wisconsin? Because the suspect was not a white man with a gun? I just love how liberals pick and choose which hate filled stories they are going to promote and look the other way when it doesn't fit the white supremacy narrative. Plenty of gun killings in this country plenty of black on black gun death but it doesn't make the news but let it be a white guy shooting a black or better yet a white cop shooting an unarmed black man then you will see plenty of coverage. Al Sharpton and Ben Crump must have private jets on immediate standby cuz they sure get to these events fast.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarko ... a-n2607291

Because in this case, the 18year old took a clear racial attack out on a town due to misinformation. But I guess your whataboutism is relevant because Darrell Brooks arrest started more racist events in Wisconsin. and not the fact that Brooks was high as a kite when he was arrested?

https://www.wisn.com/article/group-hang ... /39495167#

Whether it is conspiratorial views about 'replacement theory' or QAnon theories that prompted the shooting at a pizza parlor in DC, I agree with the poster above that there is a large mental health aspect at play - there seems to be a growing population of, what appears to be, young/middle aged men who are easily captivated and manipulated by the darkest corners of the internet echo chamber into violent ideations based on white nationalism/supremacy and extreme antigovernmental views that manifest themselves into acts of domestic terrorism. Politicians that seem to willingly give credibility to such theories don't help the situation.

The mental health of someone is, dare I say, not well when they reject the world around them as a grand, manufactured, contrived illusion and replace it with grandiose and false theories they read on Facebook (the WEF secretly runs the world with a cabal of hidden Jewish billionaires while enabling left wing pedophiles.. or whatever garbage it is that is peddled).

As for the entire gun debate - we have been here before. While the rest of the developing world may not understand the American approach, the fact of the matter is the USA has a strong gun-rights culture that is in the constitution and fiercely defended and not going anywhere. The cost of that - whether the rest of us 'get it' or not, and that Americans seem willing to accept - is these types of events.

Lets call a spade a spade - if 20+ dead kids in Newtown doesn't provide a sustained cultural 'jolt' on this topic, then 10 dead adults in Buffalo isn't going to either.

seb146 wrote:

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why, then, are Democrats in committee introducing a bill to close the "gun show loophole"?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /1006/text

Only 14 states have any kind of back ground checks at gun shows

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-show-laws-by-state-721345

That's misleading. Gun shows will have typically two types of sellers: licensed dealers and private sellers. In the former, ALL sales require federal background checks in ALL states. Period, full stop. For the latter, most shows in the states that don't require it have enacted laws that require background checks for private sales (among them, NY, CA, IL).

Moreover, the issue in most firearms crimes isn't legally acquired guns, it's illegally procured arms. FBI's own crime stats bear this out and have for decades. The demagoguery here is shocking--no matter how many times the narrative is parroted, it doesn't change the facts.

This mass murderer in Buffalo managed to get his hands on all those weapons and no one said a thing. Not his parents, not friends, not FBI... no one. His parents should have known, if they were any kind of parent at all.

And you are still avoiding the FACT that only certain gun sales need background checks. Perhaps the Buffalo shooter did this to legally acquire his guns? But, again, it would be against the law, for some reason, to stop this.

Well, if his parents, friends, et al didn't speak up and had concerns, that's not something gun confiscation regulation is going to ever solve either.

Being hung up on background checks is a specious argument and one that doesn't hold water when you examine FBI crime stats and see how most gun homicides are conducted and how those guns are acquired. It's the biggest strawman in the anti-2A arsenal and just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

skyservice_330 wrote:

Whether it is conspiratorial views about 'replacement theory' or QAnon theories that prompted the shooting at a pizza parlor in DC, I agree with the poster above that there is a large mental health aspect at play - there seems to be a growing population of, what appears to be, young/middle aged men who are easily captivated and manipulated by the darkest corners of the internet echo chamber into violent ideations based on white nationalism/supremacy and extreme antigovernmental views that manifest themselves into acts of domestic terrorism. Politicians that seem to willingly give credibility to such theories don't help the situation.

The mental health of someone is, dare I say, not well when they reject the world around them as a grand, manufactured, contrived illusion and replace it with grandiose and false theories they read on Facebook (the WEF secretly runs the world with a cabal of hidden Jewish billionaires while enabling left wing pedophiles.. or whatever garbage it is that is peddled).

As for the entire gun debate - we have been here before. While the rest of the developing world may not understand the American approach, the fact of the matter is the USA has a strong gun-rights culture that is in the constitution and fiercely defended and not going anywhere. The cost of that - whether the rest of us 'get it' or not, and that Americans seem willing to accept - is these types of events.

Lets call a spade a spade - if 20+ dead kids in Newtown doesn't provide a sustained cultural 'jolt' on this topic, then 10 dead adults in Buffalo isn't going to either.

I hate to seem reductionist, but it also seems like these shooters never have a significant other and have very little intimacy in their lives. They also, very often, seem to be weird white guys.

Yes, I don't disagree - the so called incel culture does seem to be interwoven with some of this.

Never underestimate the power of f*cking and an orgasm to improve your mental health!

SL1200MK2 wrote:

I hate to seem reductionist, but it also seems like these shooters never have a significant other and have very little intimacy in their lives. They also, very often, seem to be weird white guys.

It's the great Incel conspiracy. What's creepy is that there's a weird sub-set of women who have a "thing" for murderers. So you have these guys who can't get laid, commit multiple murders and then the women are writing from everywhere loving them, when it's too late for them to do anything about it. Oh, the irony. The young kid in Oxford, MI who shot his schoolmates a few months ago was all concerned that he wasn't getting all of his "fan mail".

skyservice_330 wrote:

Yes, I don't disagree - the so called incel culture does seem to be interwoven with some of this.

Never underestimate the power of f*cking and an orgasm to improve your mental health!

That’s more what I was trying to imply. I wish incels had just stuck to karate and not gotten into guns.

johns624 wrote:

SL1200MK2 wrote:

I hate to seem reductionist, but it also seems like these shooters never have a significant other and have very little intimacy in their lives. They also, very often, seem to be weird white guys.

It's the great Incel conspiracy. What's creepy is that there's a weird sub-set of women who have a "thing" for murderers. So you have these guys who can't get laid, commit multiple murders and then the women are writing from everywhere loving them, when it's too late for them to do anything about it. Oh, the irony. The young kid in Oxford, MI who shot his schoolmates a few months ago was all concerned that he wasn't getting all of his "fan mail".

Indeed! In fact, I once volunteered with a prison pen pal service and quickly found that many women are attracted to really terrible people.

johns624 wrote:

SL1200MK2 wrote:

I hate to seem reductionist, but it also seems like these shooters never have a significant other and have very little intimacy in their lives. They also, very often, seem to be weird white guys.

It's the great Incel conspiracy. What's creepy is that there's a weird sub-set of women who have a "thing" for murderers. So you have these guys who can't get laid, commit multiple murders and then the women are writing from everywhere loving them, when it's too late for them to do anything about it. Oh, the irony. The young kid in Oxford, MI who shot his schoolmates a few months ago was all concerned that he wasn't getting all of his "fan mail".

I have seen videos on that! The women seem borderline.. delusional.. in terms of the relationships and connections they seem to concoct in their head with men who have been deemed violent sociopaths or psychopaths. A sort of savior syndrome.. 'I can change and help him!'

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Being hung up on background checks is a specious argument and one that doesn't hold water when you examine FBI crime stats...

Hung up on background checks? How about there being no reason for an 18 year old civilian (or anyone else for that matter) to own an assault rifle with copious amounts of ammunition?

Until you (them, you, whoever) get it in your heads that this need for weapons is totally fucked up you will never begin to form different opinions.

"The 2nd amendment says I can have one so end of discussion". - how utterly pathetic.

skyservice_330 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

SL1200MK2 wrote:

I hate to seem reductionist, but it also seems like these shooters never have a significant other and have very little intimacy in their lives. They also, very often, seem to be weird white guys.

It's the great Incel conspiracy. What's creepy is that there's a weird sub-set of women who have a "thing" for murderers. So you have these guys who can't get laid, commit multiple murders and then the women are writing from everywhere loving them, when it's too late for them to do anything about it. Oh, the irony. The young kid in Oxford, MI who shot his schoolmates a few months ago was all concerned that he wasn't getting all of his "fan mail".

I have seen videos on that! The women seem borderline.. delusional.. in terms of the relationships and connections they seem to concoct in their head with men who have been deemed violent sociopaths or psychopaths. A sort of savior syndrome.. 'I can change and help him!'

Killers are the ultimate "bad boy" that their mothers warned them about.

And, to conclude, open fire event is called 'lone wolf attack' - a one-off event by a troubled soul - and it is disconnected from the broader issue of stochastic terrorism.

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

seb146 wrote:

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

That's misleading. Gun shows will have typically two types of sellers: licensed dealers and private sellers. In the former, ALL sales require federal background checks in ALL states. Period, full stop. For the latter, most shows in the states that don't require it have enacted laws that require background checks for private sales (among them, NY, CA, IL).

Moreover, the issue in most firearms crimes isn't legally acquired guns, it's illegally procured arms. FBI's own crime stats bear this out and have for decades. The demagoguery here is shocking--no matter how many times the narrative is parroted, it doesn't change the facts.

This mass murderer in Buffalo managed to get his hands on all those weapons and no one said a thing. Not his parents, not friends, not FBI... no one. His parents should have known, if they were any kind of parent at all.

And you are still avoiding the FACT that only certain gun sales need background checks. Perhaps the Buffalo shooter did this to legally acquire his guns? But, again, it would be against the law, for some reason, to stop this.

Well, if his parents, friends, et al didn't speak up and had concerns, that's not something gun confiscation regulation is going to ever solve either.

Being hung up on background checks is a specious argument and one that doesn't hold water when you examine FBI crime stats and see how most gun homicides are conducted and how those guns are acquired. It's the biggest strawman in the anti-2A arsenal and just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

So the logical thing is to do nothing? We can't expand background checks because it won't work?

Where was the good guy with a gun in El Paso? Aurora? Orlando? Sandy Hook? Parkland? Buffalo? Pittsburgh? Charleston?

seb146 wrote:

So the logical thing is to do nothing? We can't expand background checks because it won't work?

A lot of expense for very little efficacy. The logical thing is to aggressively dismantle organized crime, the illegal gun trade, and the illicit drug trade that fuels it all. But America's an illogical place, and neither conservative or liberal politicians are prepared/willing to take the steps necessary to solve such large issues.

seb146 wrote:

Where was the good guy with a gun in El Paso? Aurora? Orlando? Sandy Hook? Parkland? Buffalo? Pittsburgh? Charleston?

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Where was the good guy with a gun in El Paso? Aurora? Orlando? Sandy Hook? Parkland? Buffalo? Pittsburgh? Charleston?

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Where was the good guy with a gun in El Paso? Aurora? Orlando? Sandy Hook? Parkland? Buffalo? Pittsburgh? Charleston?

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

True, but how do we get rid of the tens of millions of illegal guns in and out of circulation? Mass seizures would involve some inner city populations inevitably.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

True, but how do we get rid of the tens of millions of illegal guns in and out of circulation? Mass seizures would involve some inner city populations inevitably.

Cash for guns. Always cheaper than a medical bill or a coffin.

Speaking of incitement to racial violence, look who has turned up at the modern day cross burning event, a mate of Putin too, (as are many in there though they are rather quiet of that front recently;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... an-speaker

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

True, but how do we get rid of the tens of millions of illegal guns in and out of circulation? Mass seizures would involve some inner city populations inevitably.

Cash for guns. Always cheaper than a medical bill or a coffin.

Criminals normally don't participate in "cash for guns" buybacks unless they're trying to get rid of a crime gun with no questions asked, which is the way they are normally run.

stratosphere wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

The terrorist's long manifesto and other info gathered so far suggests he planned to do more attacks on Black persons in other locations in the area. He apparently 'scouted' for locations to carry out his perverse plans driving to the area the day before. The NY Governor has pledged monies to the victims' families. The owners of the store (Tops) is making arrangements to transport persons in the neighborhood to another store in the area as well as distribute food for those in need as the only food supermarket in the neighborhood and will be closed indefinitely for investigaitons. President Biden to visit Buffalo on Tuesday to meet with victims and their families. He has already spoken about this tragedy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden ... uxbndlbing
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/us/buffa ... index.html

Why did Biden feel he needed to go to Buffalo and not when a black man ran down a bunch of people and killed 6 in Wisconsin? Because the suspect was not a white man with a gun? I just love how liberals pick and choose which hate filled stories they are going to promote and look the other way when it doesn't fit the white supremacy narrative. Plenty of gun killings in this country plenty of black on black gun death but it doesn't make the news but let it be a white guy shooting a black or better yet a white cop shooting an unarmed black man then you will see plenty of coverage. Al Sharpton and Ben Crump must have private jets on immediate standby cuz they sure get to these events fast.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarko ... a-n2607291

Jill Biden visited Waukesha but congrats on the concern trolling I guess. If the President visited every mass casualty event in the USA he'd never be in office. But the vast majority of domestic terrorism is "very fine people" as y'all say. Even your messiah's acting DHS secretary stated conservatives were the nation's biggest threat, bigger than "left wing violence", islamist violence, and everything else, combined, doubled:

Acting DHS secretary: White supremacy is 'most persistent and lethal threat' internally to US

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 511913001/

I am not sure if has been mentioned in this case, but with other racial/political motivated mass murder events, there are concerns that the massive media attention to these tragic events, documents obtained in investigations, public trials, unfortunately motivates them as publicizes their cause - which is the last thing we need.

Then there is the 'whataboutism' of some on the political right that bring up '10 people were killed by guns in Chicago this weekend', the majority of which are connected to the non-White street gangs and drug trade.

Both the mass racist murders like in Buffalo and the criminal 'Black on Black' murders in Chicago do have a link of use of guns for control of others, of society, something far too strong in American culture and near impossible to change.

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

True, but how do we get rid of the tens of millions of illegal guns in and out of circulation? Mass seizures would involve some inner city populations inevitably.

Cash for guns. Always cheaper than a medical bill or a coffin.

Criminals normally don't participate in "cash for guns" buybacks unless they're trying to get rid of a crime gun with no questions asked, which is the way they are normally run.

No, but the people on the margins in the timeless march from lawful guns to illegal guns do care.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Where was the good guy with a gun in El Paso? Aurora? Orlando? Sandy Hook? Parkland? Buffalo? Pittsburgh? Charleston?

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

I hate to fall back on this trope, but, "When Guns are Outlawed... Only Outlaws will have Guns" -- in America.

The problem we have here in America, is, for whatever reasons, is that lots and lots of people, choose violence as a way to cope.
When is this going to be addressed???

We need to reverse course, and establish Mental Institutions to house and treat these miscreants.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I hate to fall back on this trope, but, "When Guns are Outlawed... Only Outlaws will have Guns" -- in America.

Serious question - who is calling for an outright ban on guns?

It seems to me, most sensible people would like to see more regulations and control around gun ownership. That is far from calling for guns to be banned.

Another serious question - who needs an AR-15 to go to Walmart?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

We need to reverse course, and establish Mental Institutions to house and treat these miscreants.

We did have those - but people didn't like paying for them, so they went private. Now there aren't enough. So now what? Who'll pay for that? There are likely tens of millions who would qualify for treatment.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

I hate to fall back on this trope, but, "When Guns are Outlawed... Only Outlaws will have Guns" -- in America.

The problem we have here in America, is, for whatever reasons, is that lots and lots of people, choose violence as a way to cope.
When is this going to be addressed???

We need to reverse course, and establish Mental Institutions to house and treat these miscreants.

We have mental illness issues ,and we have misinformation issues, and all of it tends to combine with too many guns. All of it needs to be reduced.

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So the logical thing is to do nothing? We can't expand background checks because it won't work?

A lot of expense for very little efficacy. The logical thing is to aggressively dismantle organized crime, the illegal gun trade, and the illicit drug trade that fuels it all. But America's an illogical place, and neither conservative or liberal politicians are prepared/willing to take the steps necessary to solve such large issues.

"Both sides do it" continues to be an invalid argument. Democrats want to do something to save American lives. Closing private sales would help. Fund the FBI and ATF to do that. But, we can't do that because Republicans demand smaller and smaller government so they can prove government does not work.

People are going to abuse drugs. That's just human nature. We need more health care funding, specifically mental health care funding, to give people a hand up to break the cycle of addiction. But, again, we can't fund anything like that.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

I hate to fall back on this trope, but, "When Guns are Outlawed... Only Outlaws will have Guns" -- in America.

The problem we have here in America, is, for whatever reasons, is that lots and lots of people, choose violence as a way to cope.
When is this going to be addressed???

We need to reverse course, and establish Mental Institutions to house and treat these miscreants.

As happened in Buffalo, it was constant feed of "replacement theory" and "CRT" that fueled this mass shooting. Racism. Just like what happened in El Paso and Pittsburgh. Throwing these people into an asylum will not help anything. There are better ways to deal with mental illness than throwing people away.

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Where was the good guy with a gun in El Paso? Aurora? Orlando? Sandy Hook? Parkland? Buffalo? Pittsburgh? Charleston?

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

More cars=more car accidents. More pools=more drownings. More cheeseburgers=more heart disease.

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Law of probability. Also, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Pittsburgh and Charleston happened in "no gun" zones where concealed carry is illegal.

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

More cars=more car accidents. More pools=more drownings. More cheeseburgers=more heart disease.

And yet they aren't tools designed to kill. Way to miss the subject.

casinterest wrote:

TriJets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

More guns = more deaths. Add Racism to the mix, and it just makes it worse.

More cars=more car accidents. More pools=more drownings. More cheeseburgers=more heart disease.

And yet they aren't tools designed to kill. Way to miss the subject.

That's a completely different argument than the one you laid out. The fact of the matter is that more of any object will mean more misuse of that object.

seb146 wrote:

Throwing these people into an asylum will not help anything. There are better ways to deal with mental illness than throwing people away.

What is your recommendation?

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So the logical thing is to do nothing? We can't expand background checks because it won't work?

A lot of expense for very little efficacy. The logical thing is to aggressively dismantle organized crime, the illegal gun trade, and the illicit drug trade that fuels it all. But America's an illogical place, and neither conservative or liberal politicians are prepared/willing to take the steps necessary to solve such large issues.

"Both sides do it" continues to be an invalid argument. Democrats want to do something to save American lives. Closing private sales would help. Fund the FBI and ATF to do that. But, we can't do that because Republicans demand smaller and smaller government so they can prove government does not work.

People are going to abuse drugs. That's just human nature. We need more health care funding, specifically mental health care funding, to give people a hand up to break the cycle of addiction. But, again, we can't fund anything like that.

Total nonsense. The ACLU would oppose the ATF conducting illegal gun seizures in inner cities and you know it.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Hey since what we (the US) is doing ain't working, I suggest we look at how one of the most advanced city/states deals with these issues - Singapore. Guess who doesn't have these problems like we do? Singapore.

From Google -

"First of all, Singapore has one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world — anyone caught using an illegal firearm faces the death penalty. Illegal possession of a gun or ammunition can lead to jail time of between 5 and 10 years and at least six strokes of the cane.

"The possession, consumption, manufacturing, import, export, or trafficking of these and other controlled drugs in any amount are illegal. Persons caught with less than the Mandatory Death Penalty amounts of these controlled substances face penalties ranging from caning (up to 24 strokes) to life in prison."

Not really possible for us due to the 8th amendment. Singapore is multicultural and multilingual at a major trade crossroads...with all the potential troubles that come with that, but they are able to manage the situation because they are a city-state with a history of authoritarian rule. Their public housing and other amenities for their low income population are also totally luxurious compared to anything you'd find in a US city.

Aaron747 wrote:

Not really possible for us due to the 8th amendment.

It's not the 8th or any other amendment that's stopping it.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Hey since what we (the US) is doing ain't working, I suggest we look at how one of the most advanced city/states deals with these issues - Singapore. Guess who doesn't have these problems like we do? Singapore.

From Google -

"First of all, Singapore has one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world — anyone caught using an illegal firearm faces the death penalty. Illegal possession of a gun or ammunition can lead to jail time of between 5 and 10 years and at least six strokes of the cane.

"The possession, consumption, manufacturing, import, export, or trafficking of these and other controlled drugs in any amount are illegal. Persons caught with less than the Mandatory Death Penalty amounts of these controlled substances face penalties ranging from caning (up to 24 strokes) to life in prison."

Pretty easy to elect laws in a country without democracy.

Singapore does some things well, but I'm not giving up the 2nd Amendment. Someone has to be the arsenal of Democracy in the world. We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Singapore does some things well, but I'm not giving up the 2nd Amendment. Someone has to be the arsenal of Democracy in the world. We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg?

You most definitely can't handle the truth.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Maybe having those draconian rules keeps a multi-cultural society in order. Do you still get caned if you vandalize something? I'm kinda for that too.

Perhaps so, but repealing the 8th amendment is a pretty tall order.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Throwing these people into an asylum will not help anything. There are better ways to deal with mental illness than throwing people away.

What is your recommendation?

Basic health care INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH CARE for all Americans. That will put a dent in some of these murders. I can't say anything about enforcing current gun laws or expanding background checks to include ALL sales because I am a gun grabbing liberal if I do....

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I think what Singapore hit on was if people know there are draconian punishments most people's behaviors change. What we are doing is not working. The other option is allowing unlimited legal drug use and guns for everyone - but isn't that what we pretty much have now?

Not even close to what we have now. In the inner cities gangs control the illicit drug trade and profit handsomely from it - incentivizing their endless little wars over controlling that business. That doesn't change until the legal environment does.

Also for people living in despair, draconian punishments are irrelevant. On top of that, people with a truly nihilist mindset are worried only about immediate needs, not whatever punishment may be in store later. As I mentioned before, the public housing in Singapore is excellent, and their healthcare and transport amenities are such that low income people never have to worry about getting taken care of or how to get to work. That also promotes stability in a place that basically doesn't practice functioning democracy.