|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 19 2015 06:39 Acrofales wrote:I don't think it's fair to heap this shooting in with school shootings. They seem to stem from completely different societal and psychological factors. To clarify: the church shooting seems to be a hate crime stemming from racism, which does not fit the bill of most school shootings.
I am not really seeing why school shootings should be omitted when the argument is "we have more shootings than every other country." The fact that we categories for our shootings based on where they take place is kind of nuts unto itself.
|
On June 19 2015 06:39 Acrofales wrote:I don't think it's fair to heap this shooting in with school shootings. They seem to stem from completely different societal and psychological factors. To clarify: the church shooting seems to be a hate crime stemming from racism, which does not fit the bill of most school shootings.
Yeah, our mass shootings are more diverse than most countries.
|
On June 19 2015 06:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:39 Acrofales wrote:On June 19 2015 05:53 Nyxisto wrote:The frequency of these shootings is insane. Sure, they happen in other countries too, but maybe once in one or two decades. Here's a map of the number of schoolshootings around the world: http://www.mibazaar.com/schoolshootings/ I don't think it's fair to heap this shooting in with school shootings. They seem to stem from completely different societal and psychological factors. To clarify: the church shooting seems to be a hate crime stemming from racism, which does not fit the bill of most school shootings. I am not really seeing why school shootings should be omitted when the argument is "we have more shootings than every other country." The fact that we categories for our shootings based on where they take place is kind of nuts unto itself.
Well, then you don't need Obama's qualifier, do you? You can just say that the US has far more mass shootings than any other country (obviously true), without requiring to qualify what type of mass shooting you're talking about.
|
I think they're comparable to the degree that they're spontaneous amok shootings with huge destructive potential and hate as a primary motivator. To categorize this as political terrorism seems silly. The primary goal here was to kill as many people as possible.
|
On June 19 2015 06:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:18 farvacola wrote:
It isn't just guns, obviously, but yes, let's play hide the sausage yet again with a gun control argument. I'm sure Millitron will be by any minute now. I am sure if everyone in that church was armed, we would have all been fine. /s. Though I am pretty sure the NRA would be conflicted on the subject arming all black people.
You seriously pulling out the "people who disagree with my position are racists" argument?
I wonder if your policy prescription involves additional government regulation...
|
On June 19 2015 06:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:49 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2015 06:39 Acrofales wrote:On June 19 2015 05:53 Nyxisto wrote:The frequency of these shootings is insane. Sure, they happen in other countries too, but maybe once in one or two decades. Here's a map of the number of schoolshootings around the world: http://www.mibazaar.com/schoolshootings/ I don't think it's fair to heap this shooting in with school shootings. They seem to stem from completely different societal and psychological factors. To clarify: the church shooting seems to be a hate crime stemming from racism, which does not fit the bill of most school shootings. I am not really seeing why school shootings should be omitted when the argument is "we have more shootings than every other country." The fact that we categories for our shootings based on where they take place is kind of nuts unto itself. Well, then you don't need Obama's qualifier, do you? You can just say that the US has far more mass shootings than any other country (obviously true), without requiring to qualify what type of mass shooting you're talking about.
What? The type is mass shootings of unarmed people. Its not even violence between gangs or rival criminal groups. Its just someone shooting a bunch of unarmed people for reasons. And America has cornered the market on that specific type of violence.
On June 19 2015 06:54 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:31 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2015 06:18 farvacola wrote:
It isn't just guns, obviously, but yes, let's play hide the sausage yet again with a gun control argument. I'm sure Millitron will be by any minute now. I am sure if everyone in that church was armed, we would have all been fine. /s. Though I am pretty sure the NRA would be conflicted on the subject arming all black people. You seriously pulling out the "people who disagree with my position are racists" argument? I wonder if your policy prescription involves additional government regulation...
I was making a "haha funny joke" that a large part of the NRA might object to give all black people a lot of guns. Unlike the other mass shootings at schools where they advocated for the teachers being armed.
|
On June 19 2015 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I think they're comparable to the degree that they're spontaneous amok shootings with huge destructive potential and hate as a primary motivator. To categorize this as political terrorism seems silly. The primary goal here was to kill as many people as possible.
How do you know it was a spontaneous amok shooting? It might have been premeditated and carefully planned. Maybe even in a group with other white supremacists, in which case it would be equally fair to categorize it as political terrorism as it is to categorize an islamic suicide bomber as political terrorism.
|
On June 19 2015 06:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:49 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2015 06:39 Acrofales wrote:On June 19 2015 05:53 Nyxisto wrote:The frequency of these shootings is insane. Sure, they happen in other countries too, but maybe once in one or two decades. Here's a map of the number of schoolshootings around the world: http://www.mibazaar.com/schoolshootings/ I don't think it's fair to heap this shooting in with school shootings. They seem to stem from completely different societal and psychological factors. To clarify: the church shooting seems to be a hate crime stemming from racism, which does not fit the bill of most school shootings. I am not really seeing why school shootings should be omitted when the argument is "we have more shootings than every other country." The fact that we categories for our shootings based on where they take place is kind of nuts unto itself. Well, then you don't need Obama's qualifier, do you? You can just say that the US has far more mass shootings than any other country (obviously true), without requiring to qualify what type of mass shooting you're talking about.
The qualifier is because he said "it doesn't happen", whereas the full quote is that "it doesn't happen nearly as often".
It shouldn't be needed, but a lot of people would rather argue the semantics than accept that the US is ridiculous when it comes to guns.
|
On June 19 2015 06:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I think they're comparable to the degree that they're spontaneous amok shootings with huge destructive potential and hate as a primary motivator. To categorize this as political terrorism seems silly. The primary goal here was to kill as many people as possible. How do you know it was a spontaneous amok shooting? It might have been premeditated and carefully planned. Maybe even in a group with other white supremacists, in which case it would be equally fair to categorize it as political terrorism as it is to categorize an islamic suicide bomber as political terrorism.
He also killed a State Senator who recently pushed for a somewhat controversial legislation regarding mandatory police cameras.
I think it's too early to say what it wasn't but we certainly have enough to say it was definitely some serious racism that doesn't manifest overnight.
|
On June 19 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:55 Acrofales wrote:On June 19 2015 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I think they're comparable to the degree that they're spontaneous amok shootings with huge destructive potential and hate as a primary motivator. To categorize this as political terrorism seems silly. The primary goal here was to kill as many people as possible. How do you know it was a spontaneous amok shooting? It might have been premeditated and carefully planned. Maybe even in a group with other white supremacists, in which case it would be equally fair to categorize it as political terrorism as it is to categorize an islamic suicide bomber as political terrorism. He also killed a State Senator who recently pushed for a somewhat controversial legislation regarding mandatory police cameras. I think it's to early to say what it wasn't but we certainly have enough to say it was definitely some serious racism that doesn't manifest overnight.
The idea that he didn't learn this some place or America doesn't have a problem with racism at this exact time is just insane.
|
On June 19 2015 07:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2015 06:55 Acrofales wrote:On June 19 2015 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I think they're comparable to the degree that they're spontaneous amok shootings with huge destructive potential and hate as a primary motivator. To categorize this as political terrorism seems silly. The primary goal here was to kill as many people as possible. How do you know it was a spontaneous amok shooting? It might have been premeditated and carefully planned. Maybe even in a group with other white supremacists, in which case it would be equally fair to categorize it as political terrorism as it is to categorize an islamic suicide bomber as political terrorism. He also killed a State Senator who recently pushed for a somewhat controversial legislation regarding mandatory police cameras. I think it's to early to say what it wasn't but we certainly have enough to say it was definitely some serious racism that doesn't manifest overnight. The idea that he didn't learn this some place or America doesn't have a problem with racism at this exact time is just insane.
Yet it's a fairly popular opinion. At minimum that it is overblown. Certainly doesn't feel overblown when I look at the hair on fire attitude about 'Muslim terror' in the US.
Some idiots have a draw the prophet contest and troll bait 2 loons into getting executed by a waiting PD and people lose their minds about the first amendment. 9 people, including a state Senator are gunned down in a downtown historical church and not a word about their first amendment rights.
|
On June 19 2015 06:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:18 farvacola wrote:
It isn't just guns, obviously, but yes, let's play hide the sausage yet again with a gun control argument. I'm sure Millitron will be by any minute now. I am sure if everyone in that church was armed, we would have all been fine. /s. Though I am pretty sure the NRA would be conflicted on the subject arming all black people.
Jessica from The Daily Show had a good clip about that... if it's a white guy, then he's exercising his right to bear arms. But if it's a black guy, then HOLY SHIT HE'S GOT A GUN.
|
On June 19 2015 05:53 Nyxisto wrote:The frequency of these shootings is insane. Sure, they happen in other countries too, but maybe once in one or two decades. Here's a map of the number of schoolshootings around the world: http://www.mibazaar.com/schoolshootings/
This is only 1996-2012, right? I'm sure the past 2.5 years would be consistent with that, but it's always nice to have as recent data as possible. This is already really telling of America's problem though.
|
On June 19 2015 06:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I think they're comparable to the degree that they're spontaneous amok shootings with huge destructive potential and hate as a primary motivator. To categorize this as political terrorism seems silly. The primary goal here was to kill as many people as possible. How do you know it was a spontaneous amok shooting? It might have been premeditated and carefully planned. Maybe even in a group with other white supremacists, in which case it would be equally fair to categorize it as political terrorism as it is to categorize an islamic suicide bomber as political terrorism.
I don't know for sure, but most of these amok-shooters seem to be self radicalized and motivated by personal hate rather than terrorist groups. The shooters statement that "they are raping our white women" already sounds like something that gets perpetuated on hate forums on the internet a lot.
|
If I counted correctly from that link, from 1996-2012, 59 out of 78 school shootings worldwide were in the USA.
Over 75% of school shootings are in America. wtf.
I'd like to see the breakdown of socioeconomic status, race, age, and motivation of the killers too.
|
The Number Of People Who Use A Gun In Self-Defense Is Pretty Much Negligible
The day after 21-year-old Dylann Roof allegedly shot and killed nine members of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, Fox & Friends claimed congregants could have defended themselves if someone had a gun.
But a timely study from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) concluded that guns are rarely used for defensive purposes. According to the most recent data that’s available, there were 8,342 criminal firearm homicides by private citizens (non-law enforcement members) in 2012 — as opposed to 259 justifiable homicides. In other words, there were 32 criminal homicides for every killing of a felon who was in the process of committing a crime. And 13 states reported zero justifiable homicides that year.
As noted by VPC, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) observed a similar trend in previous years. Between 2007 and 2011, 29,618,300 people experienced a violent crime, but only 235,700 — 0.8 percent — of victims used or threatened to use a gun in self-defense. Findings from both the VPC and NCVS supplement studies verifying that more guns lead to more crimes.
Still, gun advocates keep arguing that guns are great for self-defense.
“The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings,” the study reads. “The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”
In response to the tragedy, President Obama discussed the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S. “We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” he said. “Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency."
~ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671392/study-people-use-guns-self-defense/
It sounds like gun owners need a better argument than "self-defense", as that possibility is apparently very, very unlikely.
|
In comparing to other first world countries, it must be noted that America has a much higher homicide rate in general (about 5x as much iirc, most other first world countries have homicide rates that are far below the world averages).
Also, in fairness; we shouldn't just look at justifiable homicides in self-defense, as a gun used in self-defense might not cause a death and still have been helpful.
|
On June 19 2015 05:53 Nyxisto wrote:The frequency of these shootings is insane. Sure, they happen in other countries too, but maybe once in one or two decades. Here's a map of the number of schoolshootings around the world: http://www.mibazaar.com/schoolshootings/
Wow. I'll be honest, I'm mostly just responding to this post because I think it's the most important thing that's been posted in this thread in maybe the last 100 pages or more.
|
On June 19 2015 08:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +The Number Of People Who Use A Gun In Self-Defense Is Pretty Much Negligible
The day after 21-year-old Dylann Roof allegedly shot and killed nine members of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, Fox & Friends claimed congregants could have defended themselves if someone had a gun.
But a timely study from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) concluded that guns are rarely used for defensive purposes. According to the most recent data that’s available, there were 8,342 criminal firearm homicides by private citizens (non-law enforcement members) in 2012 — as opposed to 259 justifiable homicides. In other words, there were 32 criminal homicides for every killing of a felon who was in the process of committing a crime. And 13 states reported zero justifiable homicides that year.
As noted by VPC, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) observed a similar trend in previous years. Between 2007 and 2011, 29,618,300 people experienced a violent crime, but only 235,700 — 0.8 percent — of victims used or threatened to use a gun in self-defense. Findings from both the VPC and NCVS supplement studies verifying that more guns lead to more crimes.
Still, gun advocates keep arguing that guns are great for self-defense.
“The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings,” the study reads. “The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”
In response to the tragedy, President Obama discussed the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S. “We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” he said. “Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency." ~ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671392/study-people-use-guns-self-defense/ It sounds like gun owners need a better argument than "self-defense", as that possibility is apparently very, very unlikely.
Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophesy though? Guns are almost impossible to legally obtain and carry in high-crime areas like Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, etc. Additionally, many public places where "random" violence would break out like a school, theater, bar, etc also do not allow guns via legislation. Thus, the data is systematically skewed against people having a gun available for self defense where they are most likely to need it.
Its like when you argue against the "militia" reasoning for personal weapons by saying, "what are you going to do with a handgun against an army" which is just using previous legislation (banning people from having military-grade weapons) to justify further legislation.
|
On June 19 2015 07:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 06:31 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2015 06:18 farvacola wrote:
It isn't just guns, obviously, but yes, let's play hide the sausage yet again with a gun control argument. I'm sure Millitron will be by any minute now. I am sure if everyone in that church was armed, we would have all been fine. /s. Though I am pretty sure the NRA would be conflicted on the subject arming all black people. Jessica from The Daily Show had a good clip about that... if it's a white guy, then he's exercising his right to bear arms. But if it's a black guy, then HOLY SHIT HE'S GOT A GUN.
Oh, the caricatures and acting so smug. All the pro-2A folks I hang around with (e.g. members of JPFO, GOA, etc.) use as part of our argument for repealing restrictions on weapon ownership is the fact that a lot of these restrictions were/are remnants of the likes of the KKK/Jim Crow/etc. era laws to prevent blacks from protecting themselves and their communities. Using the NRA as the benchmark of pro-gun folk is asinine - they do as much to fight against gun ownership as they do supposedly to 'fight for it'. Let's all remind people who was against Heller here...the NRA.
Do you people ever get tired of screaming racist about every single thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
