pune wrote:

What I find funny and ironic is that at the same time if an American or multiple Americans are killed anywhere outside the U.S. it can become a diplomatic incident. While if is shot in the good old U.S. its an everyday occurence.

c933103 wrote:

Problem is what is the cause of these losses of life.
Like in this case, is removing gun from the element going to solve the issue? I don't think so, given there are tons of cases in China where gasoline, knife, trucks, chemicals, are being used independently or in combination, in order to carry out attack against a group of unspecific people, to express their hatred against things they don't like in the society, ranging from corrupt police to personal relationship affairs.
Given the level of preparedness in this specific attack, I doubt the attacker changing their weapon from gun to something else would result in less fatality or injury of victims.

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

You ignore the fact that most crime and most gun crime is concentrated in urban areas in the United States. Telling people who live in the areas at greatest risk for crime that they don't need a way to defend themselves is out of touch. Telling the single mom with a restraining order out against her violent boyfriend that she can't own a handgun to protect herself and her children is out of touch. Disarm the criminals first and then we can start talking about gun control.

Absolutely - they must be disarmed, but in order to do that, you need to legalize/regulate urban drug networks and dismantle transnational gun smuggling within and into/out of the US. That would require steps at the federal level conservatives are unlikely to ever support and many states will cry 10th amendment foul over. On the left the ACLU would probably oppose criminal gun seizures too.

And even if those measures were taken, it would still take generations for the effects to be truly felt. Unfortunately, I just don't see anyone having the political appetite for it. Politicians want instant gratification because they are up for reelection in a year or two, not twenty.

TriJets wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Thoughts and prayers... bla bla...

Right says you have laws enforce them. No changes whatsoever over my dead body to an AMENDMENT to the constitution. I have a right to keep any kind of weapon, stuff you.

Moderates / left say - well the laws don't work so they need changing. You won't spend extra money on mental health, you won't put in place more stringent background checks, you won't limit ammo clip sizes or reduce what guns people can own, where or what they can buy.

Rest of the world looks on in part disbelief part amusement that the self proclaimed "Greatest country in the world" can't / won't solve the issue. Meanwhile years go by, more and more dead and.... nothing. NOBODY in this day and age needs anything other than a single shotgun or whatever for hunting or home protection if you live in the middle of nowhere. If you live in a city in the US, then you don't need one for any reason, just like you don't in any other civilised country in the world. If you feel you do, then you have a serious issue with your policing and society. You wanna shoot and own guns for fun, fine no issue- go to a licensed range. Keep them locked up. But you don't need 10 and you don't need automatic rifles.

Drugs, poverty all play a part but you won't get anywhere unless you change the law. There is no other answer - if there was others would have found it. You would have found it.

So either accept this will happen regularly (in which case do we need a new thread every time?!) or do something.

You ignore the fact that most crime and most gun crime is concentrated in urban areas in the United States. Telling people who live in the areas at greatest risk for crime that they don't need a way to defend themselves is out of touch. Telling the single mom with a restraining order out against her violent boyfriend that she can't own a handgun to protect herself and her children is out of touch. Disarm the criminals first and then we can start talking about gun control.

c933103 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Gang shootings aren't typically included because they often involve other gang members being shot and are easy to avoid if you aren't involved in a gang. Additionally, when people picture a "mass shooting", they typically picture something like what happened in Buffalo rather than two gangs shooting each other at 3am outside an illegal nightclub.

The fact of the matter is that guns are here to stay and criminals are already well armed. When seconds count the police are minutes (or hours) away so normal people want to be able to protect themselves and their families.

These views synergize perfectly with 'all lives matter' and 'pro-life' viewpoints.

The fact of the matter is that more guns make America a more dangerous place with needless loss of life, and though we are sad about it, we implicitly accept that people like you don't want to do anything about it, and this is why there are so many awful attempts to justify it, deflect from it and not debate it. At the end of the day though, your people are dying by the thousands every year, not ours. If you really care about people's lives and wellbeing, then doing nothing about the huge losses of life every year seems incredibly out of touch to me.

The problem is what is the cause of these losses of life.
Like in this case, is removing the gun from the element going to solve the issue? I don't think so, given there are tons of cases in China where gasoline, knife, trucks, and chemicals, are being used independently or in combination, in order to carry out an attack against a group of unspecific people, to express their hatred against things they don't like in the society, ranging from corrupt police to personal relationship affairs.
Given the level of preparedness in this specific attack, I doubt the attacker changing their weapon from a gun to something else would result in less fatality or injury to victims.

JJJ wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

I agree that these rampages are a problem here but with 400 million guns and 350 million people there's really not much to be done about it.

400 million guns for 350 million people - and really not much can be done about it?

Right.

As the evergreen Onion article puts it:

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1526219331503284224

johns624 wrote:

India's murder rate isn't especially low, considering the lack of firearms.

Redd wrote:

There's an app for Rio called Fogo Cruzado, it tracks all the live shootings happening at the current time so you can avoid them on your way to work. So, not the only nation where this regularity happens, there are some places that are even worse.

scbriml wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Absolutely - they must be disarmed, but in order to do that, you need to legalize/regulate urban drug networks and dismantle transnational gun smuggling within and into/out of the US. That would require steps at the federal level conservatives are unlikely to ever support and many states will cry 10th amendment foul over. On the left the ACLU would probably oppose criminal gun seizures too.

And even if those measures were taken, it would still take generations for the effects to be truly felt. Unfortunately, I just don't see anyone having the political appetite for it. Politicians want instant gratification because they are up for reelection in a year or two, not twenty.

Just because a destination is difficult to get to, doesn't mean it isn't worth starting on the journey.

I've yet to hear any of the pro-gun posters here provide a cogent argument why gun ownership shouldn't be registered/licenced, trained, tested and insured (just like everyone is for driving a car).

SL1200MK2 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Thoughts and prayers... bla bla...

Right says you have laws enforce them. No changes whatsoever over my dead body to an AMENDMENT to the constitution. I have a right to keep any kind of weapon, stuff you.

Moderates / left say - well the laws don't work so they need changing. You won't spend extra money on mental health, you won't put in place more stringent background checks, you won't limit ammo clip sizes or reduce what guns people can own, where or what they can buy.

Rest of the world looks on in part disbelief part amusement that the self proclaimed "Greatest country in the world" can't / won't solve the issue. Meanwhile years go by, more and more dead and.... nothing. NOBODY in this day and age needs anything other than a single shotgun or whatever for hunting or home protection if you live in the middle of nowhere. If you live in a city in the US, then you don't need one for any reason, just like you don't in any other civilised country in the world. If you feel you do, then you have a serious issue with your policing and society. You wanna shoot and own guns for fun, fine no issue- go to a licensed range. Keep them locked up. But you don't need 10 and you don't need automatic rifles.

Drugs, poverty all play a part but you won't get anywhere unless you change the law. There is no other answer - if there was others would have found it. You would have found it.

So either accept this will happen regularly (in which case do we need a new thread every time?!) or do something.

You ignore the fact that most crime and most gun crime is concentrated in urban areas in the United States. Telling people who live in the areas at greatest risk for crime that they don't need a way to defend themselves is out of touch. Telling the single mom with a restraining order out against her violent boyfriend that she can't own a handgun to protect herself and her children is out of touch. Disarm the criminals first and then we can start talking about gun control.

And yet I’ve lived in downtown urban areas for the past 25 years and I’ve met one person who actually and none who have ever been victimized by one.

Redd wrote:

JJJ wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

400 million guns for 350 million people - and really not much can be done about it?

Right.

As the evergreen Onion article puts it:

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1526219331503284224

There's an app for Rio called Fogo Cruzado, it tracks all the live shootings happening at the current time so you can avoid them on your way to work. So, not the only nation where this regularity happens, there are some places that are even worse.

JJJ wrote:

Redd wrote:

JJJ wrote:

As the evergreen Onion article puts it:

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1526219331503284224

There's an app for Rio called Fogo Cruzado, it tracks all the live shootings happening at the current time so you can avoid them on your way to work. So, not the only nation where this regularity happens, there are some places that are even worse.

Brazil doesn't have mass shootings in the US sense.

They have a huge common criminality and gang problem but not the random guy shooting up a school/workplace/church/whatever.

johns624 wrote:

India's murder rate isn't especially low, considering the lack of firearms.

pune wrote:

Comparing murders to mass shootings is comparing apples to oranges.

johns624 wrote:

pune wrote:

Comparing murders to mass shootings is comparing apples to oranges.

No. A dead person is a dead person. Whether it's political or crime-related, it's a dead person. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

johns624 wrote:

pune wrote:

Comparing murders to mass shootings is comparing apples to oranges.

No. A dead person is a dead person. Whether it's political or crime related, it's a dead person. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

MrHMSH wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Problem is what is the cause of these losses of life.
Like in this case, is removing gun from the element going to solve the issue? I don't think so, given there are tons of cases in China where gasoline, knife, trucks, chemicals, are being used independently or in combination, in order to carry out attack against a group of unspecific people, to express their hatred against things they don't like in the society, ranging from corrupt police to personal relationship affairs.
Given the level of preparedness in this specific attack, I doubt the attacker changing their weapon from gun to something else would result in less fatality or injury of victims.

In the USA those options are all still available, but guns are the most efficient way to mass murder people (for the average citizen). Trucks are definitely very hazardous and lethal, but it's telling that there are so many mass shootings in the US with guns. Knives are a lot harder to carry out mass killings with, you just need 2-3 people to apprehend the killer, but gunmen can get through quite a few before being stopped or killing themselves.

Given that every other developed country has significantly lower deaths in all ways related to guns, I don't think it's an unfair or unjustified assessment that the guns play a huge role.

pune wrote:

I would say false equivalence. I would invite you to share China's crime stats. versus the U.S. and mind you, they are a billion-plus population versus the 350-400 million population of the States.

pune wrote:

I just shared crime stats of India in another thread viz-a-vis the U.S. even though we have thrice the population of the U.S. in less than half the area compared to the U.S.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in ... ates/Crime

Aaron747 wrote:

Ooookay but crime stats for India are not really relevant to the crime situation in the US, no? This thread is about a violent incident in the US.

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

I just shared crime stats of India in another thread viz-a-vis the U.S. even though we have thrice the population of the U.S. in less than half the area compared to the U.S.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in ... ates/Crime

Ooookay but crime stats for India are not really relevant to the crime situation in the US, no? This thread is about a violent incident in the US.

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

I just shared crime stats of India in another thread viz-a-vis the U.S. even though we have thrice the population of the U.S. in less than half the area compared to the U.S.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in ... ates/Crime

Ooookay but crime stats for India are not really relevant to the crime situation in the US, no? This thread is about a violent incident in the US.

This is on the response of viewtopic.php?p=23307347#p23306547 hence I had to share the relevant facts and figures. Even education-wise India is far lower down the order.

But if people wanna deflect from topics, what can I do ?

TriJets wrote:

The Constitution isn't a "stupid piece of paper"....it defines and protects our rights, and keeps us from becoming North Korea. You don't have to like it, but frankly I don't care if you don't. It is not going anywhere.

TriJets wrote:

I thought California had strict gun laws?

N1120A wrote:

TriJets wrote:

I thought California had strict gun laws?

And California has the 7th lowest gun death rate, despite being the most populous state by a factor of a third.

Data > Feelings.

SoCalPilot wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's one demographic that commits an extraordinary amount of gun crime in the US than any other demographic.

Unfortunately, the same ones who complain about gun violence will call you a bigot and racist for trying to discuss it.

Find a way to fix the violence from that demographic and the "mass shootings" and gun violence in the US drops substantially.

Newark727 wrote:

SoCalPilot wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's one demographic that commits an extraordinary amount of gun crime in the US than any other demographic.

Unfortunately, the same ones who complain about gun violence will call you a bigot and racist for trying to discuss it.

Find a way to fix the violence from that demographic and the "mass shootings" and gun violence in the US drops substantially.

Given the topic of this thread I assume you mean Asians?

SoCalPilot wrote:

Do you REALLY want to lower gun violence, or do you just want to use it to further your political agenda? If you truly want lower it then you'd address one of the biggest causes of it.

Newark727 wrote:

Please tell me how you intend to "address" this unspecified minority group (and don't flatter yourself. If I said that a minority I won't name controls the banking system and rules the world in secret while rubbing their hands maliciously, the fact that I didn't actually say anybody's name isn't going to save me from accusations of bigotry - nor should it.)

TriJets wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Please tell me how you intend to "address" this unspecified minority group (and don't flatter yourself. If I said that a minority I won't name controls the banking system and rules the world in secret while rubbing their hands maliciously, the fact that I didn't actually say anybody's name isn't going to save me from accusations of bigotry - nor should it.)

The thing is that your allegation is simply conjecture, while the poster you are quoting's allegation is backed up by actual stats that are published by law enforcement officials each year.

TriJets wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Please tell me how you intend to "address" this unspecified minority group (and don't flatter yourself. If I said that a minority I won't name controls the banking system and rules the world in secret while rubbing their hands maliciously, the fact that I didn't actually say anybody's name isn't going to save me from accusations of bigotry - nor should it.)

The thing is that your allegation is simply conjecture, while the poster you are quoting's allegation is backed up by actual stats that are published by law enforcement officials each year.

TriJets wrote:

The big problem with that is that since gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country, imposing financial or other undue hurdles on that right is likely unlawful. Same reason that they got rid of poll taxes and literacy tests to vote.

TriJets wrote:

N1120A wrote:

TriJets wrote:

I thought California had strict gun laws?

And California has the 7th lowest gun death rate, despite being the most populous state by a factor of a third.

Data > Feelings.

Population is irrelevant if you are using per capita statistics.

SoCalPilot wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

SoCalPilot wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's one demographic that commits an extraordinary amount of gun crime in the US than any other demographic.

Unfortunately, the same ones who complain about gun violence will call you a bigot and racist for trying to discuss it.

Find a way to fix the violence from that demographic and the "mass shootings" and gun violence in the US drops substantially.

Given the topic of this thread I assume you mean Asians?

You and I must be reading separate threads...sure the original post was about an Asian shooter, but it has since become a discussion about gun violence in America.

So instead of smart ass remarks, why don't you address why 13% of the population contributes to a majority of the gun violence in this country? You're proving my point.

Do you REALLY want to lower gun violence, or do you just want to use it to further your political agenda? If you truly want lower it then you'd address one of the biggest causes of it.