Quantcast
Florida Pulse gay club attacked.

Forums - General Discussion - Florida Pulse gay club attacked.

This is very sad. One of my sister's best friend was killed in the shootings.



Around the Network
Aeolus451 said:
Looks like another ISIS attack or an attack by a ISIS wannabe. It's tragic and I hope that ISIS eventually is stomped out. I find it odd that so many news sites/channels and the president are trying to deflect blame back onto americans for this happening or something else other than a terrorist attack.

it was a terrorist attack against the LGBT community and one mans hatrid towards LGBT people.

ISIS said it was them but it wasn't at all.  



maverick40 said:
Aeolus451 said:
Looks like another ISIS attack or an attack by a ISIS wannabe. It's tragic and I hope that ISIS eventually is stomped out. I find it odd that so many news sites/channels and the president are trying to deflect blame back onto americans for this happening or something else other than a terrorist attack.

it was a terrorist attack against the LGBT community and one mans hatrid towards LGBT people.

ISIS said it was them but it wasn't at all.  

uh huh. No reason to deflect the blame from them when they clearly want it. Their ideology is the cause of it more or less. A ISIS wannabe or ISIS member carried out that attack against a certain group of americans because of their sexuality and that they're americans.



Sounds like the shooter was perhaps gay himself. Went to this club for several years and was on gay dating sites.



Slimebeast said:
Mummelmann said:

What does that mean?

In case anyone missed it, I was being heavily sarcastic...

It means that Breivik was able to shoot a lot of people in a country with strict gun laws. And so did the terrorists in France and Belgium.

This is true, but these incident are extremely rare in these countries/regions, and even a one-off in Norway, while they're becoming increasingly common in the US. It doesn't take a genius to figure that more guns in general circulation and ownership, legal or otherwise, increases the chances of gun-related incidents. Same as increased traffic causing more accidents, it's one step below 101 as far as cause and effect go.

The way things are now are clearly not working; time to change the playing field.



End of 2016 hardware sales:

Wii U: 15 million. PS4: 54 million. One: 30 million. 3DS: 64.8 million. PSVita: 15.2 million.

Around the Network
Mummelmann said:
Slimebeast said:

It means that Breivik was able to shoot a lot of people in a country with strict gun laws. And so did the terrorists in France and Belgium.

This is true, but these incident are extremely rare in these countries/regions, and even a one-off in Norway, while they're becoming increasingly common in the US. It doesn't take a genius to figure that more guns in general circulation and ownership, legal or otherwise, increases the chances of gun-related incidents. Same as increased traffic causing more accidents, it's one step below 101 as far as cause and effect go.

Except there isn't even correlation.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/



sc94597 said:

You specifically said, "The frequency of massacres in the US shows that it mainly is a gun law problem" 

The U.S is about 65 times the size of Norway in population, with many more city centers. Obviously there are going to be many more mass shootings just because of the law of large numbers.

The biggest cause of the high homicide rates in the U.S is a more diverse population in all ways (economically, racially, ethnically) and the long-standing and aggressive drug prohibition. Mostly what I was getting at though was that there was only a few million guns in Australia before they were effectively banned, while there are over 300 million guns in the U.S. How do you think Australia's solution (a mandatory buyback program) would work in the U.S? 

Probably the easiest, and most effective way to bring the U.S homicide rate to that of other first world countries is to decriminalize all drugs, removing the power of drug cartels and organized gangs from American urban centers. The majority of homocides are drug related. 

Why should we try to impose more strict gun laws? It hasn't worked in the cities that have done it, and we have better alternative solutions (as I just noted in the sentence above.) But mostly because gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals. And to make an obstacle for law-abiding citizens because of the activities of criminals is silly. 

I did say that, so the focus of your reply makes sense. But I wasn't trying to suggest that mass shootings is the only problem associated with US gun laws. And the list you provided topped Norway at #5. A country that has had one mass shooting in 1144 years. Over USA that has had 16 just in the past 8 years.

The question is why you should not impose more strict gun laws? What is the argument? Because the gun laws do affect criminals as well. The weapon that was use in the Sandy Hook sooting in the US for example costs $1000, can be ordered online and delievered to your doorstep. That same gun costs $32.000 dollars on the black market in Australia. If that discourages even one person to opt for a deadlier weapon for a crime, then that's reason enough for the laws to be implemented. USA's gun laws are not strict enough, when civilians can gain easy access to these things with no concept of gun safety, and no reason to own them. They've only gone in half heartedly with these laws in the US so far, and that won't always yield the results you want. Even Bill O'riley suggested this week that USA should learn from Australia and their gun law reform.

How I think USA would fair under Australia's gun laws? Well guns are not completely illegal in Australia. They just have much more strict regulations on them. So I think it would have a very positive effect, with the only problem being an inconvenience to gun-lovers. A small price to pay fort the trade off. If someone wants to own a handgun in Australia for example, they can. But there's a probation period of 6 months, and you have to be a member of a target club and do a minimum of 8 target competitions per year. Basically, you need a valid reason to own a firearm.

During the 10 years before Australia implemented the new gun laws, they had 10 massacres. Since then, which is 20 years ago, they've had 0. And gun deaths, homocides and suicides have dropped significantly. (And while the latter numbers have dropped in the US as well, they're still absurdly high.) There is no doubt that Australia's gun laws had a very positive impact. Though like you said, there were way fewer guns in circulation in Australia. I wouldn't expect similar results in the US in the same amount of time. But I see no harm in implementing these laws in the US to begin a longer journey towards the same goal. Australia is also a multi cultural country with mass immigration. They also have a big drug problem with violent gangs and organized crime, but from south east asia instead of south america. Although they are still vastly different cultures with different people, I don't think their differences validates not trying this gun reform, just because some people want to have more easy access to practice their recrational hobbies of firing guns. I really don't.



Problem with a well functioning society is that the pssy gene/trait gets bred back into the population. They are scared to guns and hurting people's feelings. They look for any reason to justify imposing the rights of others, or forcing people to bake cakes. They are usually the sign (and reason) of a collapsing society. I hope we get knocked back to the dark ages so these progressive pssys get weeded out. 



Hiku said:

I did say that, so the focus of your reply makes sense. But I wasn't trying to suggest that mass shootings is the only problem associated with US gun laws. And the list you provided topped Norway at #5. A country that has had one mass shooting in 1144 years. Over USA that has had 16 just in the past 8 years.

The question is why you should not impose more strict gun laws? What is the argument? Because the gun laws do affect criminals as well. The weapon that was use in the Sandy Hook sooting in the US for example costs $1000, can be ordered online and delievered to your doorstep. That same gun costs $32.000 dollars on the black market in Australia. If that discourages even one person to opt for a deadlier weapon for a crime, then that's reason enough for the laws to be implemented. USA's gun laws are not strict enough, when civilians can gain easy access to these things with no concept of gun safety, and no reason to own them. They've only gone in half heartedly with these laws in the US so far, and that won't always yield the results you want. Even Bill O'riley suggested this week that USA should learn from Australia and their gun law reform.

How I think USA would fair under Australia's gun laws? Well guns are not completely illegal in Australia. They just have much more strict regulations on them. So I think it would have a very positive effect, with the only problem being an inconvenience to gun-lovers. A small price to pay fort the trade off. If someone wants to own a handgun in Australia for example, they can. But there's a probation period of 6 months, and you have to be a member of a target club and do a minimum of 8 target competitions per year. Basically, you need a valid reason to own a firearm.

During the 10 years before Australia implemented the new gun laws, they had 10 massacres. Since then, which is 20 years ago, they've had 0. And gun deaths, homocides and suicides have dropped significantly. (And while the latter numbers have dropped in the US as well, they're still absurdly high.) There is no doubt that Australia's gun laws had a very positive impact. Though like you said, there were way fewer guns in circulation in Australia. I wouldn't expect similar results in the US in the same amount of time. But I see no harm in implementing these laws in the US to begin a longer journey towards the same goal. Australia is also a multi cultural country with mass immigration. They also have a big drug problem with violent gangs and organized crime, but from south east asia instead of south america. Although they are still vastly different cultures with different people, I don't think their differences validates not trying this gun reform, just because some people want to have more easy access to practice their recrational hobbies of firing guns. I really don't.

There are plenty of U.S states that have never had a mass-shooting in the hundreds of years they existed as well. They have populations similar to Norway. I don't see the point. In fact, this goes to show that it can happen anywhere, even the least likely places. 

Well inaction doesn't require an argument or proof. It is the natural state to buy and sell guns. And there is a natural demand for them. People want guns for various reasons. Action is what requires evidence and an argument. It is like, if you said "why shouldn't we ban certain speech? What is the argument?" When there are 300 million guns in the country, the prohibition is not going to drastically affect the supply of guns to criminals. In fact, most law-abiding gun owners likely wouldn't give up their guns regardless. You don't understand the mentality of gun-owners. There are people with entire bunkers filled with arsenals. Do you think they are going to listen to a mandatory buyback? In fact, Canada had a buyback program that has mostly failed. http://thebelltowers.com/2014/07/21/gun-buyback-programs-a-lesson-in-futility/ If Canada can't do it right, with a much more lenient gun culture, more restrictions, and fewer weapons, how can the U.S?  I don't know why you mentioned Bill O'reilly like he is some authority on anything: he's an idiot. 

Australia is really only one data point, and not even a good one to look at for the U.S. It has no bordering countries, it has a low population, it has a low gun ownership rate, it doesn't have the same gun culture the U.S had, it is less diverse, etc, etc. It is not technically, economically, or logistically feasible to reduce the over 300 million guns in the U.S to a small enough supply that the prices on the black market would rise substantially. Rifles in general (including "Assault Rifles" or "Assault-style Rifles") make up about 5% of all gun homicides, so just banning them would do practically nothing. 

Again, I say, you know nothing about the gun politics here in the U.S if you think Australia's solution is applicable. Mandatory buybacks just will not go well with anyone, and they won't work because the supply of weapons is way too large. 



Mummelmann said:
Slimebeast said:

It means that Breivik was able to shoot a lot of people in a country with strict gun laws. And so did the terrorists in France and Belgium.

This is true, but these incident are extremely rare in these countries/regions, and even a one-off in Norway, while they're becoming increasingly common in the US. It doesn't take a genius to figure that more guns in general circulation and ownership, legal or otherwise, increases the chances of gun-related incidents. Same as increased traffic causing more accidents, it's one step below 101 as far as cause and effect go.

The way things are now are clearly not working; time to change the playing field.

Unfortunately, the statistics disagree with you. In US alone, the gun ownership has increased quite a lot, whereas crime, including gun related, has decreased significaly as well. Furthermore, in the areas of the US where the gun control is quite strict, such as Detroit and Chicago, the homicide rate is insanley high, whereas places with liberal gun laws have considerably smaller crime rate.

Even if we take the US out of equation, there are other countries as well who have lot of guns among civilan populations, such as Serbia and Switzerland and yet have nowhere near the same amount of mass shootings the US or even Norway have, so guns are  certanly not the problem