Another Mass Shooting

1. 61

   CCgirlposted 8 years ago

   It's inevitable that the recent events in Newton  i'm going to once again bring to light with some consider a gun control issue. 15 people injured and for dead including the shooter.  The sheriffs  department is reporting that at this time they have obtained enough information to come to the conclusion that this is not a terroristic acts committed by Islamic extremists? Do we have a gun control issue? How do we fix this epidemic of mass shootings?

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      If I remember correctly. France/Paris has some of the strongest anti-gun laws on the books... 3 people walked into a concert and killed 89 people, wounded that many more... that is what stringent gun laws get you.
      Our nation needs to take the lead from Arizona, where every other law abiding citizen is walking around with a gun on their hip.  That is the only deterrent to such senseless slaughter... the ability to stop it dead in its tracks.
      How many times do we need to learn this?  Paris... Colorado where the murders inside the Theatre occurred in a totally gun free county?  Our schools where we have no one protecting our children?
      You don't stop terror and violence with kind words and laws that strip all means of protection from law abiding citizens.  You stop it by making sure the innocent are protected and the law abiding citizens can defend themselves.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Last I checked, in Arizona, you can also carry a GUN inside a Saloon or BAR ~ What a Brilliant IDEA that is wouldn't you say? ~
         
         According to Statistics, the United States is already SATURATED with Hundreds of MILLION's of GUNz and "Mass Shootings" are still out of control, a crisis ~ So I guess your Dubious Plan to "Militerize American Citizens" has already been proven to be a Massive Idealogical FAILURE ~ So what's your PLAN B ? ~
         
         Basic Fundamental Mathematics Prove the FACT that REDUCING the Number of GUNz in circulation will indeed REDUCE Gun Violence  ~

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry, but your funny math doesn't show anything of the kind.  Nor does it show that reducing GUN violence will reduce the death toll from violence.
            
            Experience, however, shows that both of those is false.  Does that tell you something about what we should be doing, or is the drive to limit peoples constitutional rights so strong that real life data will continue to be ignored in favor of pretending that taking guns away will do anything but take rights along with them?

            replyreport
   2. 90

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Take away all guns from all citizens and the shootings will promptly end.  Of course, the killing won't, but does that really matter if we get the guns out of society?
      
      It's amazing to see and hear so many people completely unconcerned with reducing the death toll from violence in our country.  Pretending that more gun laws can do anything at all but reduce (to a very small extent) the number of shootings.  Not when killers will kill with or without a gun and all the gun laws in the world aren't going to help the dead.
      
      How about we try to do something to protect people from violence rather than keep trying to do end runs around the constitution so that their death won't be from a bullet?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         CLEARLY wilderness, the correct answer to this Crisis is to simply "FLOOD the Streets" with even MORE Gunz because we all understand that this will inevitably result in a Reduction of GUN Violence ~
         
         P.S. the Constitution BANS Ownership of Arms while GRANTING the Right to "KEEP & Bear" Arms ONLY to those individuals who are Affiliated with the Armed Forces, Police Force etc ~ i.e. "A Well Regulated Militia" ~

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Never been tried, so your attempt at sarcasm fails as badly as your funny arithmetic does.  Don't you have some more to offer; something from the real world rather than your imagination?  Besides, who cares if GUN violence is reduced when the death toll doesn't change?  Just another attempt to limit rights to no effect.
            
            P.S.  No it doesn't.  Neither our court system nor the people (that are willing to actually think and reason) agree with that.  Only those so fear ridden that they will deny rights regardless of what the constitution says.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I would say an average of ONE Gun per American which is what the  current estimated firearm ownership in this country equates to would certainly be considered by many individuals as a "Saturation" so yes indeed, we have already tried your Failed EXPERIMENT to a devastating outcome ~
               
               So I guess your answer is to BUMP Up the anti even MORE to an average of 2 or 3 GUNz per person ? Frankly, I don't see the difference between one and 2 or 3 so I guess I'll concede the FLOOR for now ~

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  But, as you very well know but don't want to acknowledge, it is a minority of people that own guns.  A fairly small minority at that.
                  
                  So back to your sarcastic (and worthless) suggestion of flooding the streets with guns - it has never been tried and thus you haven't a clue if it would work.  You just like to scream and shout in an effort to scare people into denying rights to others.

                  replyreport
         2. 68

            Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong Alternative.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               If you read it in proper context without Omitting, Changing, Altering or PRETENDING Ghost WORDS exist within, which is exactly what most Republicans are guilty of, it Looks Pretty CLEAR & Unambiguous to me Ken ~
               
               "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
               
               But anyway, if you Reduce the Number of GUNz in circulation, it will automatically Reduce the Number of Gun Violence Incidents which includes fatalities ~ SIMPLE Math ~
               
               Or, you can simply continue to Flood the STREETs with even MORE Gunz to make sure every human on Planet EARTH walks through the park with a pea-shooter in each hand, one in each pocket, one hangin' out each ear and one in the rear and just see how that works out for a while ~ I'm confident this strategy will yield POSITIVE Results ~

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  "But anyway, if you Reduce the Number of GUNz in circulation, it will automatically Reduce the Number of Gun Violence Incidents which includes fatalities ~ SIMPLE Math ~"
                  
                  Very simple math.  Except you neglected to mention that you can't get the guns from criminals; that the only ones that will give up their guns are law abiding citizens that wouldn't hurt anyone.  Whereupon the gun violence doesn't budge at all.  Simple, isn't it?  Experience even bears it out; taking guns results in a very small reduction in gun violence (although of course the violence and death toll continues unabated).
                  
                  How is it that your "simple math", based on faulty premises, always takes precedence over actual experience?  Because you don't like guns and will say whatever you think will convince others that taking them away will save lives even when we know it doesn't?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     First of all, not all CRIMINALs have GUNz, and REDUCING the number of GUNz at the "FRONT End" combined with aggressive "Confiscation" as Criminals are continuously arrested will eventually begin to REDUCE the Total number in circulation thereby REDUCING Gun Violence & Related Fatalities ~ Once Again, Basic MATH ~
                     
                     "Flooding the Streets"  with GUNz, as we've successfully acheived throughout history, has proven to be an utter FAILURE of Policy, maybe it's long past time to REVERSE that TREND ~

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        For sure, "basic math".  Take a handful of guns from criminals and pretend they won't promptly replace them.  Good arithmetic as long as the reality of the situation is ignored.
                        
                        And how has gun ownership (as opposed to the gross exaggeration of "flooding the streets" been a failure?  Because killers use them as weapons to kill others?  Along with baseball bats, car bombs, lead pipes, knives, hands and feet, etc?  Still trying against all hope to tie guns to the cause of death, aren't you?  But it hasn't worked yet and won't work in the future.

                        replyreport
            2. 76

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               +1 ...  Tell it like it is...It gets even more hilarious around here. 

               replyreport
      2. 68

         Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         "Take away all guns from all citizens and the shootings will promptly end"
         As I said, make laws that take guns away from law abiding citizens, who will follow the law... and you allow all those that don't follow the law, to freely act out their insane desires to kill innocent people.
         You cannot take away all guns... we have a country where the borders are as incapable of keeping illegal immigrants from coming and going as they please, as they are stopping illegal weapons from coming and going... not to mention how many could be shipped in with boats.
         So taking away guns will not work, making them illegal will not work... the only way people can be protected is if they are allowed to protect themselves at all times, in all places.
         People will still attempt these awful massacres, but it would be unlikely that they could kill 20, 40, 80 innocent people if the people were able to fight back.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I know you can't take guns away from criminals (although many seem to think laws limiting law abiding citizens will accomplish just that), but do stand by my comment; that if you could then gun crime would cease.  An imaginary scenario, to be sure, but one with good results if it weren't just imaginary.
            
            You would also produce a nation of bombers, or poisoners, or something else worse than guns.  How many people will driving a truck bomb through the front doors kill?

            replyreport
2. 61

   Live to Learnposted 8 years ago

   Guns have been around for hundreds of years. Mass shootings haven't. Maybe we should identify the cause that firearms are being abused?

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Several actually, the increase in population... in 1940 there were only about 2 Billion people worldwide, were heading to half a billion here in America alone at this time.
      Increase in ability to purchase weapons... prior to 1940 purchasing weapons wasn't exactly cheap, and far fewer people had the disposable income to spend on them.
      Prior to 1940 we did have massacre type killings that occurred, but they were almost always related to criminal activity where the objective was power and control, not simply senseless slaughter.  Al Capone anyone?
      Which leads us to another matter, prior to 1940 society typically 'put away' 'undesirables' a person that had mental issues, or disabilities, was put into asylums and kept away from the general population, they weren't allowed to run free, buy guns, drive cars, etc.
      Chances of someone who was deemed mentally unstable going to a college prior to 1940, and then deciding to walk into a Theatre and start shooting everyone, was pretty nil... people who couldn't conform to societal norms back then without treatment or drugs weren't well tolerated or allowed access to such opportunity.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Good points, although I don't think I necessarily agree that these are the primary reasons.
         
         Increase in population, if that is the reason for mass shootings, would (I think) be evidenced by a gradual rise in mass shootings as the population rose. This isn't the case, so that theory may play some minor role, but it couldn't be a primary role.
         
         I don't know about the cost of weapons and how affordable they were to the average citizen. I do know that my family (both sides) have owned guns for generations. They were not particularly affluent so I don't see cost as a prohibitive factor prior to 1940.
         
         Yes, gang style violence has always been around and will stay around. Not just in this country but worldwide. That is not part of what I consider to be what we should be looking at when attempting to determine how mass shootings have become more and more prevalent and appears to be on the rise, not waning.
         
         As to your point about the insane not being admitted into college; that might be true. But, not having the opportunity to go to college may not have affected the outcome of James Holmes life. I don't think the fact that he was taking anti depressant drugs which have been increasingly linked to violent behavior should be overlooked casually.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Starting after the Civil War (late 1800s) anyone considered insane or inflicted persons were passed on to state mental hospitals and asylums.  Restraints and shock therapy were reintroduced, along with new drug treatments such as opium.
            Asylums began opening all over the country with funding from the state and Federal governments.  Their populations skyrocketed, It was common for homeless people, tramps and hobos to become ‘patients’ of the asylums seasonally for shelter and food, families would often submit their elderly relatives to asylums because they lacked the resources or time to deal with them appropriately.  Most of all, families with children who were 'problematic' often turned them in to these asylums and there was little recourse or rights for such a person, be they child or young adult, be they mentally-handicapped or just a rebellious personality.
            These facilities were HUGE, you can find them all over the place, especially in the North East, NY, CT have enormous complexes of multi-storied brick buildings, just sitting there rotting now.  But they housed tens of thousands of individuals at one point in time.
            Anyway, you are looking for reasons why these issues happen more now, I was simply giving reasons for it... we have access to instant news now that was not available back then, so everything gets magnified now, back then things occurred that were just as bad that barely made a bleep in the national news and no one remembers now.

            replyreport