|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 02 2015 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 22:45 WaylanderSC2_ wrote:
How many people have died in Mass Shootings in the United States in the last decade?
100? 200?
In a country of 330,000,000 that averages 12,000 homicides or more each year? A country that possesses 50% of the worlds firearms? That doesn't seem like as much of a nationwide "crisis" as the media and forum goers lets on. lol? I just posted a source above. "In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 986 mass shootings, with shooters killing at least 1,234 people and wounding 3,565 more, as this map (click to view the interactive version) shows." ~ http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics That's within the past 3 years alone. So to answer your question: thousands and thousands of people. And that doesn't include individual homicides and suicides that are also concerning statistics about guns and gun-related violence. And scroll up to see the graph of gun homicides per million people in each country: U.S.A. has 30 while everyone else has under 8. That's a very concerning statistic.
"The tracker uses a fairly broad definition of "mass shooting": It includes not just shootings in which four or more people were murdered, but shootings in which four or more people were shot at all"
Convenient.
Also, the United States has a higher population than every country on this list combined, and also has a 12% minority population that commits over 50% of the nations murders. I don't think European countries have that particular problem.
|
The number of gun violence and or deaths from guns has actually been going down pretty steadily recently.
Over 30 people die every day in USA from drunk driving. 7 teens die every day between the ages of 16-19 from driving and about 9 die every day from stupid shit like texting and driving. I'm sorry if I don't see the logical argument about how america is unsafe because of the gun violence and mass shooting issue, The roads in america are much more dangerous.
|
On October 03 2015 00:07 Sermokala wrote:
The number of gun violence and or deaths from guns has actually been going down pretty steadily recently.
Over 30 people die every day in USA from drunk driving. 7 teens die every day between the ages of 16-19 from driving and about 9 die every day from stupid shit like texting and driving. I'm sorry if I don't see the logical argument about how america is unsafe because of the gun violence and mass shooting issue, The roads in america are much more dangerous.
So by that argument, if I find a reason people are dying that is higher than drunk driving, we should make no effort to correct the problems with drunk driving? That until cure the most lethal diseases, we can’t work on allergy medicine?
|
The statistic doesn't discriminate towards the US or other countries, so your comments are completely void.
Higher population doesn't fucking matter when you're working with percentages.
Your comment on minorities is just laughable. The only reason the minorities are committing these crimes is because they're in socially harsh situations along with their "right to bear arms" bullshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#Race_and_crime_in_London
In June 2010 The Sunday Telegraph, through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[n 2] The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black. Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; and for gun crimes, 67 percent.
So for the UK, the counrty does have that particular problem.
|
On October 03 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 00:07 Sermokala wrote:
The number of gun violence and or deaths from guns has actually been going down pretty steadily recently.
Over 30 people die every day in USA from drunk driving. 7 teens die every day between the ages of 16-19 from driving and about 9 die every day from stupid shit like texting and driving. I'm sorry if I don't see the logical argument about how america is unsafe because of the gun violence and mass shooting issue, The roads in america are much more dangerous. So by that argument, if I find a reason people are dying that is higher than drunk driving, we should make no effort to correct the problems with drunk driving? That until cure the most lethal diseases, we can’t work on allergy medicine?
You should give attention to things you can solve before things you can't solve. You know as much as everyone that theres no chance gun control laws get passed in this country, so why do you put all your anger into things you can't solve instead of things you can? Obama compared gun violence to terrorism because the only thing more misappropriated about the media coverage of gun violence is media coverage of terrorism.
|
On October 03 2015 00:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2015 00:07 Sermokala wrote:
The number of gun violence and or deaths from guns has actually been going down pretty steadily recently.
Over 30 people die every day in USA from drunk driving. 7 teens die every day between the ages of 16-19 from driving and about 9 die every day from stupid shit like texting and driving. I'm sorry if I don't see the logical argument about how america is unsafe because of the gun violence and mass shooting issue, The roads in america are much more dangerous. So by that argument, if I find a reason people are dying that is higher than drunk driving, we should make no effort to correct the problems with drunk driving? That until cure the most lethal diseases, we can’t work on allergy medicine? You should give attention to things you can solve before things you can't solve. You know as much as everyone that theres no chance gun control laws get passed in this country, so why do you put all your anger into things you can't solve instead of things you can? Obama compared gun violence to terrorism because the only thing more misappropriated about the media coverage of gun violence is media coverage of terrorism.
So because a thing is hard, we shouldn't try to change it or change the public's view? That all efforts to change mind are merit-less because we can't take immediate action? With this argument, no one should try to do anything unless it will result in instant gratification. No reason to have long term arguments and discussion because something else might be important. There are starving people in another country, so don't help that homeless guy in front of you because he might buy booze with the money.
|
On October 03 2015 00:04 WaylanderSC2_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2015 22:45 WaylanderSC2_ wrote:
How many people have died in Mass Shootings in the United States in the last decade?
100? 200?
In a country of 330,000,000 that averages 12,000 homicides or more each year? A country that possesses 50% of the worlds firearms? That doesn't seem like as much of a nationwide "crisis" as the media and forum goers lets on. lol? I just posted a source above. "In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 986 mass shootings, with shooters killing at least 1,234 people and wounding 3,565 more, as this map (click to view the interactive version) shows." ~ http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics That's within the past 3 years alone. So to answer your question: thousands and thousands of people. And that doesn't include individual homicides and suicides that are also concerning statistics about guns and gun-related violence. And scroll up to see the graph of gun homicides per million people in each country: U.S.A. has 30 while everyone else has under 8. That's a very concerning statistic. "The tracker uses a fairly broad definition of "mass shooting": It includes not just shootings in which four or more people were murdered, but shootings in which four or more people were shot at all" Convenient.
Um yeah? It's extremely convenient to define your terms. I'd imagine if you redefined "mass shooting" to mean "killing 20+ people", then you'd have very few, but that's not a meaningful conversation to have. They even explained a justification for their definition:
"The database's organizers explained their reasoning on their website: "For instance, in 2012 Travis Steed and others shot 18 people total. Miraculously, he only killed one. Under the incorrect definition of mass shooting, that event would not be considered a mass shooting! Arguing that 18 people shot during one event is not a mass shooting is absurd." "
But you didn't read through it all.
Convenient.
|
I would hope that the definition of a mass shooting would involve:
1) Mass
2) Shooting
Counting the number of dead as opposed to the number shot would be an absurd metric.
|
On October 02 2015 23:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 23:13 Korakys wrote:
I have observed that it is almost impossible to shoot people to death without using a gun (aka firearms).
Therefore reduce number of firearms = reduced number of shootings resulting in death.
Sometimes I really wish the US government would try to fight it's own people so that those people could see just how useless having guns to "protect" themselves would be. Do you mean "kill people" instead of "shoot people to death"? Because shooting implies using a gun afaik.
I think he meant what he wrote, i.e. a funny tautology.
|
United States43957 Posts
On October 02 2015 23:27 Faust852 wrote:
I always thought the second amendment was to protect the civils against a tyranic government, but I am yet to see some huge clash against their leaders who are monitoring them h24 and recording everything they do.
I guess it's just a pretext to feel powerful against an imaginary enemy.
Are we just ignoring that time a President raised a Federal army against the States exercizing their right to secede and, at the height of his power, was killed by a single man using a gun crying "Sic semper tyrannis"?
|
On October 03 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 23:27 Faust852 wrote:
I always thought the second amendment was to protect the civils against a tyranic government, but I am yet to see some huge clash against their leaders who are monitoring them h24 and recording everything they do.
I guess it's just a pretext to feel powerful against an imaginary enemy. Are we just ignoring that time a President raised a Federal army against the States exercizing their right to secede and, at the height of his power, was killed by a single man using a gun crying "Sic semper tyrannis"?
Are we also going to ignore that with a divided nation and backing from the British, there would be no America and that it was a necessary war in order to keep the strength and solidarity of the nation? Cherry picking moments in history that prove a point rather than focusing on the larger picture is a sad argument. And if you are implying that Lincoln was on the verge of becoming a Tyrant and (power) that was tempered by Congress was a valid reason for assassination, then you really need to go back and try to understand the history of this nation.
|
On October 03 2015 00:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 00:28 Sermokala wrote:On October 03 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2015 00:07 Sermokala wrote:
The number of gun violence and or deaths from guns has actually been going down pretty steadily recently.
Over 30 people die every day in USA from drunk driving. 7 teens die every day between the ages of 16-19 from driving and about 9 die every day from stupid shit like texting and driving. I'm sorry if I don't see the logical argument about how america is unsafe because of the gun violence and mass shooting issue, The roads in america are much more dangerous. So by that argument, if I find a reason people are dying that is higher than drunk driving, we should make no effort to correct the problems with drunk driving? That until cure the most lethal diseases, we can’t work on allergy medicine? You should give attention to things you can solve before things you can't solve. You know as much as everyone that theres no chance gun control laws get passed in this country, so why do you put all your anger into things you can't solve instead of things you can? Obama compared gun violence to terrorism because the only thing more misappropriated about the media coverage of gun violence is media coverage of terrorism. So because a thing is hard, we shouldn't try to change it or change the public's view? That all efforts to change mind are merit-less because we can't take immediate action? With this argument, no one should try to do anything unless it will result in instant gratification. No reason to have long term arguments and discussion because something else might be important. There are starving people in another country, so don't help that homeless guy in front of you because he might buy booze with the money.
You can't get instant results on a complex layered issue such as guns in america. Despite the euro's saying "oh lol the solution is simple just have gun control" or even worse democrats saying "90 percent of americans want background checks why not have them?". The reality is that its an incredibly complex issue filled with landmines and correct points on either side of the debate.
Avoiding logic and trying to get things done that you can't is literally doing nothing but help the very people you don't like in this country.
And to the above. States don't have the right to secede and Lincoln was doing some very tyrannical things even before the war started outright. Sending marines into one state legislature and arresting the people who don't agree with is bad no matter how you spin it.
|
United States43957 Posts
On October 03 2015 01:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:On October 02 2015 23:27 Faust852 wrote:
I always thought the second amendment was to protect the civils against a tyranic government, but I am yet to see some huge clash against their leaders who are monitoring them h24 and recording everything they do.
I guess it's just a pretext to feel powerful against an imaginary enemy. Are we just ignoring that time a President raised a Federal army against the States exercizing their right to secede and, at the height of his power, was killed by a single man using a gun crying "Sic semper tyrannis"? Are we also going to ignore that with a divided nation and backing from the British, there would be no America and that it was a necessary war in order to keep the strength and solidarity of the nation? Cherry picking moments in history that prove a point rather than focusing on the larger picture is a sad argument. And if you are implying that Lincoln was on the verge of becoming a Tyrant and (power) that was tempered by Congress was a valid reason for assassination, then you really need to go back and try to understand the history of this nation.
And yet States rights, as written in the constitution, have never recovered from the Civil War. What was once a voluntary association for the common good in a Federal system became a mandatory membership, enforced at gunpoint, in a quasi Unitary system.
I question your understanding of history if you think constitutional liberty for citizens came out of the Civil War stronger than before. And the idea that the British were coming in the late 19th Century is nonsense. There was no invasion waiting for an American moment of weakness, the only invasion was the constant immigration of British people into America which left America predominantly populated by the British. We'd no more invade you than we would Canada.
I question your understanding of the English language if you think that when one person says "I am yet to see" and another person provides an example that is somehow "cherry picking". If I claimed that it was always raining and provided three days on which it rained, out of a week in which it was sunny four days, as evidence I would be cherry picking. If I claimed that it never rained and you provided those three days as evidence then they would be appropriately picked because they disproved my claim.
The gentleman claimed that there were not examples of guns being used by citizens against leaders they deemed tyrannical. That is a very famously false claim with a very obvious example that disproves it, even going so far as to shout that he deemed the leader tyrannical as he shot him with a gun. It could not be a more perfect example.
|
On October 02 2015 18:24 Velr wrote:
But what will you do if a wild bear charges you?!
Report it to your local commissar.
|
I never said that the rights of the people came out stronger after the Civil War. Also, I'm willing to admit that it may not have been the British backing the Confederates during the War, but a divided nation was not going to last long if the war had gone the other way. Tyrannical or not, throughout the nation's history, the President is given a very broad range of powers which to use in order to ensure the nation's best interest. While I don't agree with the methods varying President's use, it was never a situation where they deemed the populace at large a threat and mobilized force (outside of the interment camps for Japanese-American citizens, Slavery, and the Civil War).
Getting back to gun control, the need for weapons in the country is stemmed from the large misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment. To carry arms in this day in age, when the threat of a government overtake is absurd, just means that we haven't progressed past the differences. In the countries in the above mentioned graphs and tables, those nations don't have the culturally diverse makeup as the US (save parts of Europe). If everyone looks and somewhat behaves the same, they don't see their neighbor as a potential threat. Americans have some unfounded fear that without a means to protect themselves, they open the door to invasion, forgetting the fact that we have the largest and most powerful military.
I really don't mean to offend and if I said something in error, I am glad to accept that and learn something new.
|
On October 02 2015 22:02 Swisslink wrote:
Whenever something like that happens, I'm wondering how there are still so many people left who actually think that:
A) The right to carry a gun had nothing to do with the mass shooting
B) The solution to the mass shootings is actually to distribute MORE guns among the people
i dont think any sane person who doesnt want to sell more guns says this.
but i dont quite get the gun control debate to be honest. to be fair, i dont get the purpose of many public debates about safety issues because most of them have no sound reason and are dumb in the first place, so yeah i might be the wrong person for such things.
yes, the more guns you have the more people get killed (by guns). that is because its much easier to kill with a gun than with anything else. i mean, there is a reason we invented the gun in the first place. its to kill people easily, reliably and with very little danger to your own health. its a real improvement over the knife.
but, and this one is an important but, the numbers killed dont have any measurable effect on the american public except for people being outraged because of guns. there isnt an economic downfall because so many people get killed that production goes down or that gunfights between civilians damage the infrastructure. what happens is that individuals die and while this is sad for friends and familiy, it doesnt affect the general public at all.
i dont want to say that everything that is incapable of damageing the society should be completly uncontrolled, but if and how much control is needed is a debate with a completely arbitrary result that every society has to do for themself.
americas gun culture will prevent any form of strict gun controls like we have in europe, period. thats just how it is. maybe there are slight adjustments here and there but in the end, there will always be more guns and as a result more people will be killed.
in germany we dont have a gun culture, thus less guns and less deaths and gun controls can be quite strict because no one cares about guns anyway. what we do have however is a drinking culture. we drink a shit ton of alcohol to any occasion and at any location. drinking on playgrounds is actually a thing here. to no ones surprise, we dont really have controls on alcohol. you can legally buy it at the age of 16 and everyone starts earlier, usually with a beer given to him by his dad at 14-ish.
i am pretty sure the number of alcohol related deaths, alcohol addictions and alcohol induced medical conditions are comperatively high. should we change it and try to enforce stricter alcohol control? no, because everything is working well. some people drink themself to death or run other people over with their cars but at the same time we draw enjoyment and identification from our missuse of alcohol. we trade the death and misery of a few for recreation and diversion of many.
the same is true for americans and their unhealthy love for guns. its really no big deal.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On October 03 2015 02:24 hfglgg wrote:
americas gun culture will prevent any form of strict gun controls like we have in europe, period. thats just how it is
"Christian culture will prevent any form of tolerance of homosexual relationships, period. thats just how it is"
No, it is not. That's not how social engineering works.
|
On October 03 2015 02:43 Ingvar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 02:24 hfglgg wrote:
americas gun culture will prevent any form of strict gun controls like we have in europe, period. thats just how it is
"Christian culture will prevent any form of tolerance of homosexual relationships, period. thats just how it is" No, it is not. That's not how social engineering works.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia" applies to the "Americans won't allow gun control" in so many ways.
|
I view every weapon and the mass production of them a pretty big deal actually.
It's too bad that deadly weapons are so easily made today with the engineering skills people have nowadays, so I guess it's completely impossible to abolish all of weaponry on a global scale, since people like to shoot things, whether it's for political or relaxing ways.
So when it's not possible to completely rule out all deadly weaponry, a control should be in place. It's absurd that you can give a killing tool to simply anyone and than brush it off as it being a right to wield this killing tool.
Alcohol is a fucked up substance that should be classified as a hard drug. It's equally absurd that there aren't any warning labels on it like on cigerette packs. It should not be sold under 18. It should not be promoted as much, because it is addicting, it can be toxic, it does have a hand in destroying lives. But I guess the culture, the lobby and the money behind it is just too strong.
To carry arms in this day in age, when the threat of a government overtake is absurd, just means that we haven't progressed past the differences. In the countries in the above mentioned graphs and tables, those nations don't have the culturally diverse makeup as the US (save parts of Europe).
Europe in its entirety is about as big as the USA and is alot more heterogenous than the USA. Even in some countries that heterogenity is very pronounced so I don't even understand on what you base that assumption.
Americans have some unfounded fear that without a means to protect themselves, they open the door to invasion, forgetting the fact that we have the largest and most powerful military.
Then the better question is: why are Americans so paranoid and do they feel so superior?
Instead of trying to justify why it's a-okay to go to Wall Mart to buy something that specifically designed for killing.
On October 03 2015 02:43 Ingvar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 02:24 hfglgg wrote:
americas gun culture will prevent any form of strict gun controls like we have in europe, period. thats just how it is
"Christian culture will prevent any form of tolerance of homosexual relationships, period. thats just how it is" No, it is not. That's not how social engineering works.
But Christian culture does prevent tolerance. If you think that USA has a Christian culture, that's only a veil they use to get those juicy conservative votes. I'm completely convinced Obama is an atheist, but that's not even the point.
You easily go on youtube and watch all the butthurt indoctrinated Christians whining about the same sex marriage decision by the supreme court.
People are even sentenced to jail or getting fines because they're refusing homosexuals into their church.
|
I don't think this debate is held on sane ground. Like, what was it, 90% of Americans wanted a better background check, but nothing can happen because of NRA pressure?
If you want change in America, don't target the people who like guns, target the people who ignore democracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
