How does making it harder for me to legally purchase a gun reduce the number of incidents like the one in Virginia yesterday? If I want a gun bad enough, I am going to get one. I can leave my desk right now, walk a few blocks and return within the hour with a gun I bought off of the street illegally. I live in BFE-Alabama in a town with a population of about 20,000. How in the hell are you going to keep a gun out of my hands in a place with a population in the millions?
[quote]Iron Condor wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Guns may very well not be THE issue, but it ain’t exactly helping matters either.[/quote]
But, realistically, how would you get rid of them? Many (most?) people won’t hand them in, or will only hand in relatively few (or just sell off shitty hi points/zip guns for $100 a pop at buybacks). Gang members and thugs will get them the same way they always have - illegally. And even with all the mental health screenings and background checks in the world, could you really foresee this guy going full batshit psycho:
[/quote]
Assuming gun control works, it would realistically take some time, maybe a generation to see any significant results. Both political sides will be quick to judge results without waiting. There is also other factors, gun crime might change for better or worse in 30 years if we do nothing. If guns were banned that change can still occur except it will be attributed to the gun ban.
[quote]Iron Condor wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Guns may very well not be THE issue, but it ain’t exactly helping matters either.[/quote]
But, realistically, how would you get rid of them? Many (most?) people won’t hand them in, or will only hand in relatively few (or just sell off shitty hi points/zip guns for $100 a pop at buybacks). Gang members and thugs will get them the same way they always have - illegally. [/quote]
Great question, I wouldn’t have the first clue. And that’s where the nuance of it all comes in, and where my earlier opinions of possible gun bans changed. Bad guys gon’ be bad guys, and they’re gonna get their guns one way or another.
[quote]Iron Condor wrote:
And even with all the mental health screenings and background checks in the world, could you really foresee this guy going full batshit psycho: [/quote]
And that’s part of the mental health challenge: a lot of people are extremely good at putting on those masks to cover their true intentions/feelings. That being said, his difficulty to work with was well known and documented, according to reports.
Additionally, they even vacated the premises of the studio when he was fired and had LEO’s present to escort him because of it. His manifesto documented his feelings of being discriminated due to him being a black gay man. Whatever it was, this guy still had some of the more obvious signs of needing, at least, someone to talk to.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
There’s a very simple yet exquisitely accurate reason why America’s gun crime dwarfs that of Australia: America’s black ghettos dwarf Australia’s, on a per capita basis or any other basis you wish to choose. If you remove black on black crime in the inner cities Americas gun crime matches that of small European countries even with the relative plethora of guns we have here.
[/quote]
Where did you get this info at?
Another similar question I’d like to find an answer for, what is our murder rate not counting victims who are criminals, and compared to other countries. I’ve seen numbers mentioned like 90% of inner city murder victims are criminals themselves. Not that they deserve to die or anything, but if your a law abiding citizen a murder rate of 1 in X people doesn’t really apply to you.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
Also, would this guy have made the attack anyways if he couldn’t get a gun. And how successful would he have been? The video shows that he is able to get very close and draw the gun without them noticing. At that range, a knife is probably just as effective (although filming might be more difficult). It’s speculative, but bears consideration. [/quote]
I thought of that too, since it was done on air probably for dramatic purposes a knife might have been more effective.[/quote]
Using a gun to kill someone/something is a lot different than using a knife. The psychology behind using a knife is a lot more demanding than a gun. It’s very possible the attacker may never have been able to kill them without a gun.
Side note: It’s such a sad story, as are all deaths. We’re really missing the bigger picture here by focusing on the guns.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
Also, would this guy have made the attack anyways if he couldn’t get a gun. And how successful would he have been? The video shows that he is able to get very close and draw the gun without them noticing. At that range, a knife is probably just as effective (although filming might be more difficult). It’s speculative, but bears consideration. [/quote]
I thought of that too, since it was done on air probably for dramatic purposes a knife might have been more effective.[/quote]
The video also shows an important lesson in being aware of your surroundings. The man approaches the interview clearly in the peripheral vision area of the woman being interviewed. Has his gun extended then pulls it back and doesnt fire his first shot until multiple seconds later.
I am not trying to place any blame on one of the victims, just want to point out how being aware of surroundings could have helped impacted the situation.[/quote]
Yes, and some people might say that you can run away from a knife like the woman, but I say: what about special little army throwing knives? Regular people not in the army can’t understand that. Me and my army mates are always aware of our surroundings and know if someone is ready to draw, that’s why we are always ready to draw.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
I think the coverage had more to do with the fact that it was a news crew filming a live TV spot when it happened. I don’t think the fact that the victims were white had a damned thing to do with it. [/quote]
I know, and I agree…I was talking more in stream of consciousness earlier. Race didn’t have anything to do with the style of media coverage yesterday. Yesterday was an absolute game changer for three reasons: (1) People witnessed murder happen LIVE, (2) the killer provided video of his first-person perspective, (3) the victims were the media. Truly a twisted turn of events in society on all accounts.[/quote]
It had a lot to do that they were white. He knew his victims. He worked with them. He accused the girl of being racist toward him. When he was fired he refused to leave the newsroom and had to be escorted off the property by the police. And the camera man he killed filmed the incident. After he was fired, he sued the station for racial discrimination. He lost. In his manifesto he claimed the killings of the 9 in Charleston was what set him off and was the tipping point to make him finally do what he did. He had a long history of being combative toward co-workers and blaming racism for his bad attitude.
Using the Chicago Police Department’s own numbers, %90 of murder suspects and %80 of victims have criminal records.
There’s no “gun violence” problem in either Chicago or the US, it’s a gang violence problem.
The truth is, gun violence has been halved since 1993 and if you eliminate suicides and gang violence, gun violence is a non-issue.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Using the Chicago Police Department’s own numbers, %90 of murder suspects and %80 of victims have criminal records.
There’s no “gun violence” problem in either Chicago or the US, it’s a gang violence problem.
The truth is, gun violence has been halved since 1993 and if you eliminate suicides and gang violence, gun violence is a non-issue.
[/quote]
These graphs are highly correlated to the number of households that own a gun too. Is it just a coincidence or something to consider?
just a little side note
rt.com has a report that bbc reporter arrived at end site were the shooter died reporter took video police ordered him to delete video or they would seize his camera and car as evidence wonder why, because what happened to the shooter i dont think anyone would care
[quote]cavemansam wrote:
just a little side note
rt.com has a report that bbc reporter arrived at end site were the shooter died reporter took video police ordered him to delete video or they would seize his camera and car as evidence wonder why, because what happened to the shooter i dont think anyone would care
[/quote]
Link?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
I think the coverage had more to do with the fact that it was a news crew filming a live TV spot when it happened. I don’t think the fact that the victims were white had a damned thing to do with it. [/quote]
I know, and I agree…I was talking more in stream of consciousness earlier. Race didn’t have anything to do with the style of media coverage yesterday. Yesterday was an absolute game changer for three reasons: (1) People witnessed murder happen LIVE, (2) the killer provided video of his first-person perspective, (3) the victims were the media. Truly a twisted turn of events in society on all accounts.[/quote]
It had a lot to do that they were white. He knew his victims. He worked with them. He accused the girl of being racist toward him. When he was fired he refused to leave the newsroom and had to be escorted off the property by the police. And the camera man he killed filmed the incident. After he was fired, he sued the station for racial discrimination. He lost. In his manifesto he claimed the killings of the 9 in Charleston was what set him off and was the tipping point to make him finally do what he did. He had a long history of being combative toward co-workers and blaming racism for his bad attitude.
[/quote]
I wasn’t questioning the shooters motives. I was addressing the insinuation that the immediate media saturation was due to the fact that the victims were white. The extent of coverage was entirely due to the fact that this was a murder on live TV. The shooter was, no doubt, a racist and a nut case.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
I’m not aware of the details of how the gun was obtained in this case, but often the shooters in mass shootings obtain their guns illegally. So simply making it illegal for them to own guns would not have changed anything. [/quote]
Reports yesterday stated he purchased it legally, right after the Charleston, SC church massacre. So, for argument’s sake, maybe tighter background check legislation would have prevented him from obtaining it as easily, in a rage of haste. But, it looks like this guy was hellbent anyway and would have gotten a gun either way. So I guess that shoots down (no pun intended) my argument right there. /shrugs/
[/quote]
Do you think that this guy would have failed a background check? I don’t think he had a criminal record or a mental health diagnosis. Unless your background check means refusing the right to bear arms to anyone who has had the police called on them, this guy probably would have a passed a background check. Yes, there are things that are troubling in retrospect in this guy’s history. But without a crystal ball it’s impossible to tell the difference between ticking time-bomb and harmless, disgruntled cynic. And purely from a rights perspective it’s tenuous to deny a right based on something other than a criminal conviction or a medical diagnosis.
Just like some have already said, the problem isn’t the guns, its the 1% of the population. I could bet that 99% of the users on here who are gun owners are responsible with their firearms. However, that 1% of the population are nuts. They are the ones going out and doing this kind of violence and sadly, that’s why we feel the need to make changes to the gun laws.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of individuals who own guns don’t do it for protection but for the fact that they f*cking love guns. And why wouldn’t you? They’re awesome. I would be pissed too if I was a responsible owner and people wanted me to give up my firearms. Be that as it may, that doesn’t mean amendments can be made to the constitution. Hell, it’s not like amendments weren’t made on slavery and alcohol. Why are guns so damn different (it’s not like you would ever have a chance of defending yourself from the government now anyways)?
I respect the fact that you have the right to own a gun in America, and I support it. However, making changes to how it’s carried and how it’s stored can be looked into (not that it will solve the problem completely, but I’m positive it would stop SOME (that’s a push in the right direction) mass shootings/accidental deaths). The excess background checks I don’t really buy into because anyone can get a gun if they put the effort into it.
[quote]Rico Suave wrote:
(it’s not like you would ever have a chance of defending yourself from the government now anyways)?[/quote]
This tripe has been said every single time there has been a revolution in every single country, throughout the history of mankind.
Guess what happened?
You think 100% of the service members that took an Oath to defend the Constitution are going to drone strike their own families and neighbors? Lmao, fuck and no.
Will some? Sure. Will most? I highly doubt it. Americans aren’t Aussies. We’re not big fans of letting big daddy government come in and rule our lives.
[quote]I respect the fact that you have the right to own a gun in America, and I support it. However,
[/quote]
I respect the fact that people have the right to be free, but I’ve a field of cotton that needs to be picked, so…