• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

I'm saying why does a city with extremely lax gun laws have a murder rate twice that of a city nearly 10 times it's size with a ban on new handgun sales (Chicago)? Using your logic it shouldn't be that way, people don't mess with people who are carrying remember?
 
My point was that there are a number of variables when it comes to homicide rate and that gun laws do not have a direct causation.
 
Did you or did you not state that armed individuals deter gun violence?

St. Louis is a well armed city, and murder central, which goes to say that statement doesn't hold much weight.
 
You've picked a sample size of 300,000. I've chosen one of 24 million. Maybe this is a complicated issue and you're attempting to strawman my argument.

A shocking revelation emerged from court documents in the obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism trial of Noor Salman, the widow of Pulse nightclub gunman Omar Mateen. According to a motion filed in the case, the gunman?s father Seddique Mateen was an FBI informant in the years leading up to the shooting and his relationship with agents reportedly influenced their decision not to act after investigating threats made by his son prior to his June 12, 2016 attack on the Orlando, Fla. LGBT nightclub that left 49 dead and 58 wounded.
Click to expand...
http://truthinmedia.com/father-pulse-nightclub-shooter-fbi-informant/

Why are all these people who commit massacres known to the FBI?
 
Maybe the murder rate for the entire country of Australia is 1 per 100k people, whereas the U.S. hovers between 4 and 5 per 100k every year. That 24 million people compared to 325 million, extremely strict gun laws compared to relatively lax gun laws. What does that say?

Nice to see you evading and trying to avoid the questions asked of you though.
 
Last edited:
bptubbs said:
Maybe the murder rate for the entire country of Australia is 1 per 100k people, whereas the U.S. hovers between 4 and 5 per 100k every year. That 24 million people compared to 325 million, extremely strict gun laws compared to relatively lax gun laws. What does that say?

Nice to see you evading and trying to avoid the questions asked of you though.
Click to expand...

There are also parts of the US where the murder rate is pretty much the same as parts of Australia. Despite the enormously more relaxed gun laws. You can't just compare it like that and make those sorts of judgements there are too many variables. For all you know it's because or something entirely different and if the US had stronger gun control there would be more murders and the reverse of Australia.

I don't actually believe that's the case, my point is this is all just unsupported assumptions based on bad data. You're better off comparing the before and after states for one particular region rather than trying to compare two totally different places.

And in that subject, ive said this God only knows how many times but people still don't grasp it. But stats on gun crime in isolation is meaningless too. Because for all you know knife crime has more than made up the difference making the overall situation worse.

Lies damn lies and statistics. You gotta know what you're doing when you work with numbers.

Also speaking for myself, as I said a couple days ago. I never read websites who's name is a statement and that goes double if one of the words in that statement is "truth". The more someone talks about truth the more likely its lies.
 
Oh i agree, I was just playing the same beat around the bush game he was. He tried to use those numbers to state that guns deterred these sorts of shootings, so I used those same numbers to show that it obviously isn't the case, then he cited that I used a small group so I compared two entire countries, with the same result.

I'm actually very pro gun, I just don't really care for evasion tactics in a debate.
 
Fair enough, honestly I hadn't paid a lot of attention to the wider context until after I wrote the post.

I don't think gun control that focuses on banning guns works but I don't believe that doing so makes anything worse in a deterrence sense either. It takes away people's freedom for a goal that is never reached but other than that it doesn't make anything worse either.

I've never seen any compelling evidence that any firm of gun control causes a net increase in crime. It usually does nothing either good nor bad. Gun focused gun control anyway.
 
I think you just completely misunderstood what I was saying.
Australia is often paraded as an amazing example of gun control working. Australia has uniform gun laws but the US does not.
But we can do a comparison by taking the 8 states in the US with the most gun freedom adding up to the population of Australia and comparing homicide rates:
Australia = 1 per 100,000
Gun-friendly US = 1.6 per 100,000
Neglible difference.
If you take the 6 US states with the tightest gun control then the homicide rate = 3.78 per 100,000.

1% of US counties with 19% of the population are responsible for 37% of the murders.
50% of the murders are from 2 counties with some of the strictest gun laws.
It seems as if you cluster a large number of people into a small area and limit their access to firearms then homicide rate tends to rise.
Or there could be a thousand other reasons why a homicide rate is so high in a given area. Clubs, hammers and body parts are used more often in murders than rifles.

You're actually proving my point. I've shown you statistics of high gun ownership with low homicide rates and you've shown the opposite. Which means that gun laws are not directly related to homicide rates. If you want to understand why a small city is blowing each other up maybe we should look at the local government? Education system? Culture?
 
Well I agree to the extent that there are parts of the US with very relaxed gun control laws that have the same crime rates as Australia. And I agree that shows that such rates are achievable without such gun control. I just don't agree with the other assumptions. I don't think it shows anything regarding gun control actually causing crime.

The stats for Australia's crime rate from the many years before and after its major gun control policy shows no significant change good or bad. And that's much more reliable than comparing internationally where you have different demographics cultures population densities and countless other variables making it useless as a statistical comparison. Within a culture you don't have anything like those problems.
 
Half of the states on your list there have an extremely low population density, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, and Idaho are on there right? They're also in the top 10 of the lowest population density. Kansas is in there too isn't it? Obviously the murder rate is going to be higher in an area with higher population density, it's a given.

Mississippi is on that list too, isn't it? They're 2nd on the list of highest murder rates in the country at 7.4 per 100k, behind only Louisiana, which also only requires a driver's license to purchase a gun, at a whopping 10.8 per 100k.
 
JGrimez said:
I get why people want to follow or defend them. I'm not attacking them personally they might be really nice kids and no doubt they experienced something traumatic. Critics are really going after their handlers, the ones using them to push a political agenda. We're attacking what they stand for which is manipulating the good intentions of people in order to guilt them into supporting something which has not been proven to be a solution for the problem. Unfortunately the kids are the faces of this movement so they cop the brunt of it. I also am not viciously attacking them just pointing out that they are pawns. I see through what they're doing and I feel sorry for them.



Not from me, criticize away. And when I say they don't both have a voice I'm saying that it's obvious that the liberal media is greatly showcasing one side of the debate and not the other. They'd like to have us believe that all school children are pleading with adults to fix this problem by introducing gun control, having a survivor of the incident that is pro-2A doesn't fit with what they're trying to convey so they don't give them time on the air.


Woudln't call that guy a good guy with a gun. That was a useless coward with a gun, and the 3 cops that arrived later were told not to enter (according to police radio). The reasons why have not been explained yet. I don't understand why there isn't mass public outrage about this. Cops waiting outside while there's a shooter in a school? You all realize that banning all guns will not remove guns from society? Criminals will still have guns and schoolkids will still be able to get guns if they want to. So let's say we ban guns and a school shooting happens, are the cops still going to wait outside? How do we fix that problem?


When you hire a cop or a security officer to guard a school you're doing so under the impression that they are going to attempt to stop a shooter. This is an issue of training and competence, not an issue of 'is a good guy with a gun a deterrent?' (they are)


Yes it will! How many people go shoot up police stations? Why don't they? Very simple concept.
Click to expand...

Are you really this blind to human psychology? How people feel? If you think teenage school shooters pick schools just because they're soft targets then you clearly just suck at understanding how other people feel. They pick schools because that's where they feel their pain most comes from. It's not just randomly picked as the softest target. There are lots of equally soft or even softer targets than schools, like shopping malls. But they don't usually pick those because they aren't what they associate with pain. Young male school spree shooters do it because they're in pain and they blame the school environment and everyone in it. It's obvious if you learn about them and read what stuff they said when such details have been left behind.

Seriously I can't be the only person who thinks this is obvious? It's just understanding people and how they feel. Seems obvious to me. Seems to me people like you just have very poor understanding of how other people feel. Very low empathy.
 
So a place at higher risk than most places should remain a soft target? If malls became a favorite target there would be increasing amounts of armed security place at them. Guns aren’t going anywhere so logically the best option is to do what we do at all other soft targets that are ‘at risk’, and place guns there. For good reason No Vegas shooting survivors are paraded around by the media as props, it’s bc they dont tout their anti gun agenda. I’m of the understanding that the true motivation behind not appropriating more armed guards to schools is bc these shooting are too useful to the political agenda. We should use our military budget to place at least one trained armed guard in every school in the country as a matter of national security. The fact that we haven’t is simply mind boggling to me. Also the clear backpack thing is a no brainer, that’s one good response to parkland. It was interesting to see the heavy irony with the parkland students taking to twitter to complain about them all being punished for the actions of one. Also Florida passed a law that gives police the ability to red flag an individual, that’s something that should be federally passed imo.
 
bptubbs said:
Half of the states on your list there have an extremely low population density, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, and Idaho are on there right? They're also in the top 10 of the lowest population density. Kansas is in there too isn't it? Obviously the murder rate is going to be higher in an area with higher population density, it's a given.
Click to expand...

NH, VT, ND, MN, UT, ME, OR, AZ vs NY NJ MA IL CA RI
So you're saying that population density is more of a factor with homicide rates than gun control? Could there be any other variables?
Is the goal here to reduce homicide rates or just push gun legislation?

Droppersneck said:
I?m of the understanding that the true motivation behind not appropriating more armed guards to schools is bc these shooting are too useful to the political agenda.
Click to expand...
You're not allowed to say that

JessFR said:
Are you really this blind to human psychology? How people feel? If you think teenage school shooters pick schools just because they're soft targets then you clearly just suck at understanding how other people feel
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone sane can really know what would bring someone to murder a bunch of children on a suicide mission. I could never do something like that so I cannot find the justification why anyone would, and I don't trust anyone who claims to know why or have it all worked out. No answers have satisfied me apart from a combination of extreme bullying coupled with side effects of psychotropic drugs.

We were discussing gun crime in general but if you want to focus on school shootings then we need to again bring up the failures of law enforcement. The FBI could have prevented Parkland, and broward county police could have reduced the number of casualties. With all the recent kneeling I thought this would have turned into another anti-police protest?
 
I'm saying they both play a big role, easy access to guns and high population density will inevitably lead to a higher rate of shootings/gun-related homicides. There are dozens of factors at work, I never stated there weren't, and as I said I am heavily pro gun. However, I do believe that regulations are needed. I'm not saying guns should be banned by any means, I'm saying that the policies that are in place should be reviewed and discussed to help fight a growing problem.
 
alasdairm said:
of course he is.

can we (i.e. you) find a way to drop this tiresome oppressed martyr act? there's nothing in the guidelines or the blua that would suggest that opinion is problematic.

alasdair
Click to expand...

I meant it is a very politically unpopular opinion in general. Do you agree with it at all?

It's like the interview I posted where they said "the tears of white mothers are ratings gold"
 
Some women are bizarrely attracted to killers because evolutionarily-speaking having a mate capable of killing increased ones chances of survival.
 
Charles mansion was like 5’ 1” and he still had like tons of womening lusting after him all the way up till his death! I’m sure Nick Cruz has crazies into the occult wanting to contact him, it’s not right, but it is what it is. Looks like Cruzes brother was just arrested for violating his probation, why that’s news I couldn’t tell you. I hope Cruz gets the death penalty, but sits on death row for twenty years. What a waste of human life!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top