WG's feelings on US Mass Shootings - What would you all like to see going forward?

[VapeRSRepeat]

33 minutes ago, Donatello said:

Although this is an open platform to discuss ideas and opinions, I do think its very important to know we are not each others enemies. Treat each other with respect, everyone yes is entitled to their own opinions of course, but if you dont have anything nice to say dont say it at all. Peace

 

That's my point, you never once saw me disagree with, or bash or throw names at anyone here with difference in opinions.

 

I simply stated my point, was talking to people that I agreed with. Just to get labeled a conspiracy theorist.

 

I'm not offended, but this mentality is exactly what governments and media want, is divide, blacks vs whites, jews vs muslims, etc. It's all a way for governments to gain power, if the people are divided.

[Just Scapin]

how can anyone have a wacky theory about mass shootings. They're mass shootings and the media doesn't sway that in any way to benefit a certain party. The fact you can even think about it like that is grim. @Ghost Sabre i get what you're saying but do other countries now have these home attacks too? We don't have guns in this country, so subsequently people committing attacks on homes are really bloody unlikely to even have a gun, which reduces the risk of your life by a long shot. Our armed forces are their to protect us, we don't need to shoot people ourselves. I know your amendments etc are important to every American, and i cant really comment on changing those things because i don't know how that all operates.

Just gotta think that its no coincidence that America suffers the worst by far from these kinds of attacks and shootings, and they're the only country with such open gun laws. 

[Doc Cassidy]

I think this is a topic well worth the discussion but let's please stay civil. My personal belief is that limiting gun ownership will do little to stop the mass shootings in the US. I am an American citizen and was raised with guns; I hunted, shot at targets, and just thoroughly enjoyed both my guns and the right to own them. 

 

That said, I also think we, as human beings, when faced with problems have a strong urge to find a solution. This is good and leads to our survival. But, with the issue of mass shootings, the problem is complex and the solution is not easily discovered. I think this forces us to have the desire to do ANYTHING rather than NOTHING and this is what leads to so many people believing that without guns the issue behind the mass shootings will go away. Take away the guns, do SOMETHING, and the problem is solved. But its not that easy. I am by no means well educated in this topic but I do know some statistics from word of mouth and quick google searches; by no means the best of sources. But, it appears that although the US is the country with the largest gun ownership, only a small percentage of its gun deaths are mass shootings. 71 out of around 39,000; the majority is suicide followed by homicide. So, to start, talking of gun deaths is not a good way to argue for limiting gun ownership because it is not a giant assumption that suicides and homicides will not greatly vary if anti-gun legislation is passed. 

 

Second, I am really unfamiliar with the statistics on the countries with the most mass shootings. Some articles talk of mass shooting deaths per population instead of the number of incidents and I have never really looked into it. I would be interested in knowing more; but, I have not seen the US at the top of any list so far given with mass shooting deaths per population, or per 100,000 ppl for example. Even though our gun ownership is far ahead of the other countries; the relationship is not linear or straightforward. 

 

This issue is complex and packed with emotion. As @Ghost Sabre mentioned, in the US the 2nd amendment was enacted to help the people protect themselves if needed. I forget who responded critically to Ghost Sabre, but I believe it was unfair. Of course a population armed with hunting rifles or assault rifles would be at a disadvantage against the American military; that is not the point. By having some sort of weapon to fight back with, that in itself discourages a corrupt government from physically invading/attacking the civilian base. The civilians need not have nuclear weapons to discourage a corrupt government; just the knowledge that the civilians have some hunting rifles would be enough to stop many forms of physical engagement aimed to better the corrupt government at the expense of the civilians. 

 

 

[Cronnie]

I just had to stop by and say what a well written and thought out post @WG Townsman.

Personally, I tend to usually stay well clear subjects like this, even though I have very good friends and even family that are Americans, and have visited several times myself and plan to continue to do so in the future. It is a very touchy subject and at the end of the day I'm not a citizen so despite how many links I have and how much data/statistics I can read, there's still elements I'll always be missing as someone who isn't a citizen.

 

We've all got to admin, as Townsman alluded to there's certainly no "easy fix", and banning weapons won't suddenly make them disappear, the types that are willing to go out and do such atrocities won't really have a problem trying to acquire a weapon on the black market either. It's a really tough situation but I think both sides can agree something definitely needs to be done, what needs to be done unfortunately I think will get bogged down in red tape and legislation for many years to come either way and it's unfortunate that innocent victims will have to bear the brunt of that.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Cronnie

[TheSleptKing]

8 hours ago, WG Townsman said:

I think this is a topic well worth the discussion but let's please stay civil. My personal belief is that limiting gun ownership will do little to stop the mass shootings in the US. I am an American citizen and was raised with guns; I hunted, shot at targets, and just thoroughly enjoyed both my guns and the right to own them. 

 

That said, I also think we, as human beings, when faced with problems have a strong urge to find a solution. This is good and leads to our survival. But, with the issue of mass shootings, the problem is complex and the solution is not easily discovered. I think this forces us to have the desire to do ANYTHING rather than NOTHING and this is what leads to so many people believing that without guns the issue behind the mass shootings will go away. Take away the guns, do SOMETHING, and the problem is solved. But its not that easy. I am by no means well educated in this topic but I do know some statistics from word of mouth and quick google searches; by no means the best of sources. But, it appears that although the US is the country with the largest gun ownership, only a small percentage of its gun deaths are mass shootings. 71 out of around 39,000; the majority is suicide followed by homicide. So, to start, talking of gun deaths is not a good way to argue for limiting gun ownership because it is not a giant assumption that suicides and homicides will not greatly vary if anti-gun legislation is passed. 

 

Second, I am really unfamiliar with the statistics on the countries with the most mass shootings. Some articles talk of mass shooting deaths per population instead of the number of incidents and I have never really looked into it. I would be interested in knowing more; but, I have not seen the US at the top of any list so far given with mass shooting deaths per population, or per 100,000 ppl for example. Even though our gun ownership is far ahead of the other countries; the relationship is not linear or straightforward. 

 

This issue is complex and packed with emotion. As @Ghost Sabre mentioned, in the US the 2nd amendment was enacted to help the people protect themselves if needed. I forget who responded critically to Ghost Sabre, but I believe it was unfair. Of course a population armed with hunting rifles or assault rifles would be at a disadvantage against the American military; that is not the point. By having some sort of weapon to fight back with, that in itself discourages a corrupt government from physically invading/attacking the civilian base. The civilians need not have nuclear weapons to discourage a corrupt government; just the knowledge that the civilians have some hunting rifles would be enough to stop many forms of physical engagement aimed to better the corrupt government at the expense of the civilians. 

 

 

If im not mistaken i heard there was 270 mass shootings in america this year. That is actually unbelievable. You can look it up, and I never said there was a quick fix, i said that yes it probably wouldnt fix things in the short term because there would be huge uproar and getting the guns off civilians would be a lengthy and trying process, but i also was pointing out the benefits for future generations more than now, because people only think of the quick fix and how it can benefit them now or over the next couple years. I get where youre coming from but that just is not a deterrant for the government, who by the way don't want to enact Martial Law and take over like that. They would just use drones and shit now anyway, their technology is so superior it wouldn't make a difference. From my view it's pretty much peace of mind at this point because people are so used to having it. Civilians need not have any weapons. Having a gun on you only makes the other guy with one think twice, not the military or government and that wouldnt be an issue if there was none. But you're right it's a sensitive conversation and i understand your side and where you're coming from. But when people start blaming it on media manufacturing is where i draw the line for debates like this.

[koala club]

From a Englishman:

 

 I live in a country where it is illegal for a civilian to buy or carry a gun around. I think for Agricultural workers and in some animal sports you can get an air rifle, and that's about it. Has there been mass shootings? So rarely, I don't even know. 

 

Geneuine question. What is so hard about looking statistically at countries with strict gun control and their gun crime rates? From a statistical standpoint, strict gun control would massively decrease gun crime. I understand that because there are SO many guns in the US, stricter gun control would not stop someone who really wanted one to get a gun. But giving someone the option to legally and seamlessly acquire something of that power, is ludicrous. A lot of recent mass shootings have been caused by young adults, if you cut out of ease of purchase, it would be an extra hurdle for someone with dark thoughts and major mental health trauma to jump through and be able to act on such hate and in turn, i think, WOULD reduce gun crime and mass shootings.

 

Now, if you really wanted to stop seeing mass shootings on the news, it would be a matter of seriously considering that the only way would be to have strict gun laws and have some kind of roll back on currently legal, automatic, human killing designed products of war. But of course that is ridiculously resource heavy and an unpopular opinion.

 

But just remember, if carrying a gun for you is for safety; that in turn is putting a gun in the hand of someone capable of such evil. 

 

 

 

 

[Doc Cassidy]

4 hours ago, TheSleptKing said:

If im not mistaken i heard there was 270 mass shootings in america this year. That is actually unbelievable. You can look it up, and I never said there was a quick fix, i said that yes it probably wouldnt fix things in the short term because there would be huge uproar and getting the guns off civilians would be a lengthy and trying process, but i also was pointing out the benefits for future generations more than now, because people only think of the quick fix and how it can benefit them now or over the next couple years. I get where youre coming from but that just is not a deterrant for the government, who by the way don't want to enact Martial Law and take over like that. They would just use drones and shit now anyway, their technology is so superior it wouldn't make a difference. From my view it's pretty much peace of mind at this point because people are so used to having it. Civilians need not have any weapons. Having a gun on you only makes the other guy with one think twice, not the military or government and that wouldnt be an issue if there was none. But you're right it's a sensitive conversation and i understand your side and where you're coming from. But when people start blaming it on media manufacturing is where i draw the line for debates like this.

I do not believe I was implying you personally were saying taking away guns would be a quick fix; but, if you believe that solely by taking away guns the long-term problem will be solved I think that is the same thing. The solution is not that simple as I does not get at the division currently in America or other underlying psychological causes, whether mental illness, anger, despair, or otherwise. 

 

But, to keep the emotion out of this issue as much as possible I think we should focus on statistics and proceed with caution when drawing conclusions from the data. I personally believe your '270 mass shootings in America this year' stat is misleading. I did a quick search and came across a Wikipedia article, again, not the best of sources and I invite anyone with better sources to link them below, and see your definition of mass shooting and the one commonly used are not the same. At the head of the article they provide 7 different definitions and say they only include those that use at least two of the provided definitions. But, with these definitions, gang related shootings are included, home invasions were more than 1 person were shot are included, and disputes at peoples homes/yards/parties where multiple individuals were injured or killed are included. These incidents are not the same as regards the stigma attached with the term 'mass shooting' we use commonly and you used when you said there were 270 mass shootings in America last year. Further, there are around 330 million human beings living in the United States. 270 incidents as listed above occurring among 330,000,000 people does not seem totally unexpected. I would be interested in comparing the ratio of incidents and Us population to the number of incidents and population of other countries around the world though. I have yet to come across that article. 

 

This is not to say we in the United States are not in the middle of an ongoing problem; we are. But, I caution everyone not to see data solely through your own pre-existing beliefs. This makes finding the true solution much more difficult. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by WG Townsman

[TheSleptKing]

No it's obvious alot more complicated than that and i'm not really qualified to give a solution further than on a very basic level, I was mainly just trying to express my opinion againsnt them.

I heard it on the radio but thats why i said if im not mistaken as i wasnt 100%, I didn't realise it included smaller incidents they are still all gun related incidents and by that it makes it very similar, just because one or two people died because someone who shouldn't have have access to a gun did it doesn't call for less action.  I understand when it comes to gang crime their guns may have been obtained differently and can be got through the black market so it's a different situation to for example some crazy school kid from a middle class or better background who got it from their parents gun cabinet or someon buying it at a supermarkt without any prior checks or somthing of that manner and has to be dealt with differently (this isnt always the case just an example). The only first world country where people can say its not unexpected to have 270 incidents of 2 or more people dying a year to being shot by people who shouldnt have guns is America afaik. Whilst the recent mass shootings were a catalyst for this debate again it isnt the only reason why they should be taken away imo, theres very likely alot of smaller gun crime which happens on a daily basis that isn't included in that stat and it adds up and isnt being talked about and nothing has been done as of yet to effectively tackle the problem even though it seems more common every year to have mass shootings  with numerous people die or be injured. Just seems like some tweets are sent saying how sorry they are about it then move on with their day.

Edited August 8, 2019 by TheSleptKing

[Doc Cassidy]

14 minutes ago, TheSleptKing said:

The only first world country where people can say its not unexpected to have 270 incidents of 2 or more people dying a year to being shot by people who shouldn't have guns is America afaik.

Its not 2 or more people dying, its 3 or more shot in a given context where a gun went off. But, I think I said something similar to you in my post above as well; just wanted to correct us both. 

 

17 minutes ago, TheSleptKing said:

No it's obvious alot more complicated than that and i'm not really qualified to give a solution further than on a very basic level, I was mainly just trying to express my opinion againsnt them.

We are both in over our heads in this debate; the statistics get misused so often, on both sides, that it is hard to have a solid ground to stand on. But I do think if we proceed as we are now it is worthwhile to share our thoughts and try to sift through the data. 

 

19 minutes ago, TheSleptKing said:

just because one or two people died because someone who shouldn't have have access to a gun did it doesn't call for less action.

Again, its not two people dying but 3 shot; and I am not arguing for less action; I am warning that the statistic was being used inappropriately and, therefore, the conclusions that followed from it were flawed. But, we do need to do something. I am arguing against taking all guns, or severe restrictions on the guns allowed. I am pro magazine limits; pro automatic weapons ban; pro most explosives ban. I am against assault rifle (semi-automatic, accurate, well-designed rifle), bans for the reason given above against corrupt government. Yes, the government greatly overpowers the general population. Yes, technology is now to the point where drones could be used to take out citizens. But, given a population armed with assault rifles I think you are being dishonest if you don't see that as being a deterrent for many forms of physical oppression by the government. This would mean that should a government decided to use drones, or greater means against the citizens, it would show to the world just how corrupt it is. And perhaps the UK or other powerful nations would step up to help an oppressed population. 

 

These measure do not get at the psychological problems listed in an earlier post: mental illness, anger, division, despair, and most likely others. I am really unsure of what we can do; I do think, to move away a little, that the division between right and left in this country is more than a little to blame. Our population is becoming extreme on both sides of the aisle. We then isolate ourselves to groups who are like minded, with the aid of the internet, within the larger groups traditionally known as Democrats and Republicans. Within both these groups are extremists caught up in emotion and hate. I would venture to guess that a good percentage of mass shooters are in extreme sub-groups such as these and are not good representatives of the larger traditional political parties; take these thoughts with care as this is pure armchair philosophy and hard to prove. Just my opinion.  The fix would be to make an honest effort to come together and give opposing group's ideas charity and try to understand the causes for those ideas. I think we will always have extremists, but we can try to limit that number through reason and understanding.  

 

 

 

 

[WG BeefKweef]

I'm not a fan of gun control. I think we should have a bit better background checks but that's never going to stop anyone. It only slows down those who are law abiding. If a criminal wants a gun, the majority arent obtaining them legally.