Quantcast
Mass shooting Las Vegas

Forums - Politics Discussion - Mass shooting Las Vegas

The amount of shit people are posting on Twitter... *sigh*



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pemalite said:
When will you Americans learn about Gun Control? It does work.

The problem is beyond gun control. There are too many souls living here and in  In a semi-free market there also comes a black market (obviously because its not completely free). You cannot stop people in America from getting guns, no less than you can stop illegal drug trade. Take away the guns too and no one will be able to defend themselves. American has been entrenched in gun culture since its inception.

The same arguments were used in Australia before gun control was brought in.
We can obviously see that those arguments are false.

Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:
When will you Americans learn about Gun Control? It does work.

Is THIS really a gun issue though?

Somebody wanted to kill a large number of people, that's the real problem. That can be achieved with a large vehicle, bomb, etc.

I don't think I need to give examples.

Partially it is a gun issue.
And you are correct, that if someone wanted to kill a large number of people there are multiple avenues to achieving that goal.

However... The entire point of Gun Control is to make mass killings more difficult, not impossible, more difficult.
Those other avenues you describe are certainly more difficult than merely picking up a gun, they require significantly more resources and planning, meaning that your law enforcement has more chances to counter those plans.

Gun control doesn't mean that guns are actually banned either, just that it is less likely that some redneck meth-addict sitting on a porch is going to cock a shotgun when a kid runs across his lawn... Or that a toddler will walk over to their parents bed and find a gun under a pillow and having a brutal accident follow through.

Gun control *does* work. Take note of the countrys that have brought it in.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
America needs less gun control. More people need guns to prevent attacks like this from occurring. If only the innocent people had guns to shoot back, lives may have been saved.

Citation needed.

Lawlight said:

There is no way you can control guns in a country of such size. It's not even entirely possible in Australia.

Bullshit.
Australia is geographically equivalent in size to mainland USA.

Population wise you have a point, but gun Control wasn't a switch that was turned on overnight in Australia, it's still an on-going process.
The USA spends hundreds of billions on military, security and so on, if anything they have more resources than Australia to achieve gun control.

Besides. It's the country that landed man on the moon, surely gun control is within it's grasp.

think-man said:
Remove guns, just look at Australia before strict gun laws, mass shootings lead to bans there. I believe Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since the law was changed.

Correct.
With that, guns aren't illegal... You just need a damn good reason to own one.

And then you need to keep them stored in an alarmed, steel, locked cabinet that is bolted to the ground, have a ton of checks and so on.

Nymeria said:

What are the gun laws in Australia? Were they altered in the past? Did they result in different results?

Back when I was a kid Australia's gun laws were very similar to the current USA.
After a massacre, legistlation was brought in to implement strict gun control. (By a right-wing conservative government no less!)
And it started with people giving up theirs guns voluntary, then new laws introduced for stricter management, penalties and so on.

And it worked.

rolltide101x said:

Statistically it does not. 

 

Criminals will find means to get weapons. May as well have armed citizens to protect themselves

Generally doesn't happen here. So statistically you are incorrect.

The majority of Australians support and continue to support the removal of guns from our society, because it has worked.
I mean hell. I haven't seen a gun in real life in like 20-25 years.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

sc94597 said:

Not going to argue with the rest of this, out of time and lack of motivation, but this is a very skewed statistic. The statistic used by The Guardian uses a very generous definition of mass shootings, which includes things like a kid shooting a bunch of other kids with a bb gun.  It is intentionally deceptive propaganda. We also must look at the per capita rate rather than absolute numbers. 

 

The chances of one dieing from a mass shooting in the United States are comparable to other countries. 

Ignore Norway's number, it is a skewed outlier caused by the Breivik massacre. 

The frequency of mass shootings is similarly comparable. 

Here's the source data. 


Now gang warfare is a problem in the United States, whereas it is much less of a problem in Europe. That is where a lot of the regular shootings come from. There are quite a few things we can do to solve gang warfare and further hasten the decrease in the already decreasing homicide rate. Improving the well-being of the poor and ending the war on drugs are probably the most effective solutions. Most young adults who obtain guns and murder other people obtain them for the issues surrounding poverty and the gangs which developed from rigid drug criminalization. As with most things in the U.S, the homicide rate is a consequence of inequality. 

Still much progress is being made. 

I figured the major difference was made up by police shootings in USA, because that seems to occur much more frequently in the US than other countries I've compared to. But if they really count a bb gun shooting in the data, I'd be very interested in that. Do you have a link to that by any chance? I couldn't find it.

As for the chance of dying from a mass shooting, I wouldn't be surprised if that's similar to USA numbers in other countries. It's more the occurance of those shootings that seem a lot lower. And keep in mind I was talking about developed nations. And among them, those where guns are essentially 'banned'. Many countries on those list don't fall under those categories.
Also, taking sample data from only 2009 - now is going to change things since we started seeing a large spike in islamic terror in the last couple of years. In France for example, which I compared earlier, they only had 4 mass shootings in the past century (that were not related to war) up until 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_France
But after 2012 they had 5 additional massacres, all related to islamic terror, and 4 of them involved mass shootings. So if you only look back to 2009, it paints a very different picture than if you look back several decades, in particular because of the islamic terror. But I'm more focused on how gun laws affect the culture. Not so much about terror organisations that are specifically aiming to carry out these types of attacks.



Hiku said:

I figured the major difference was made up by police shootings in USA, because that seems to occur much more frequently in the US than other countries I've compared to. But if they really count a bb gun shooting in the data, I'd be very interested in that. Do you have a link to that by any chance? I couldn't find it.

As for the chance of dying from a mass shooting, I wouldn't be surprised if that's similar to USA numbers in other countries. It's more the occurance of those shootings that seem a lot lower. And keep in mind I was talking about developed nations. And among them, those where guns are essentially 'banned'. Many countries on those list don't fall under those categories.
Also, taking sample data from only 2009 - now is going to change things since we started seeing a large spike in islamic terror in the last couple of years. In France for example, which I compared earlier, they only had 4-6 (two of them I'm not sure if they were shootings) mass shootings in the past century (that were not related to war) up until 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_France
But after 2012 they had 5 additional massacres, all related to islamic terror, and 4 of them involved mass shootings. So if you only look back to 2009, it paints a very different picture than if you look back a decade, in particular because of the islamic terror. But I'm more focused on how gun laws affect the culture. Not so much about terror organisations that are specificxally aimed to carry out these types of attacks.

It's been a few years since I last visited the site, but there was one which said "A twelve year old boy shot and injured five other boys with an airsoft gun." It was ridiculous. 

They mention it on their website, but they don't include it in their numbers, so that is my bad, but still the website is framed to make things look a lot worse than they are. 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology

"We collect incidents where Airsoft or BB guns are used AS weapons, not where they are used in general vandalism or delinquency. Those collected ARE NOT included in our Incident Totals on the Daily Summary Ledger"


The definition used by the FBI and liberal Mother Jones is "four or more people killed in a publicly indiscriminate shooting." According to that definition there is something like 7 mass shootings in the U.S per year rather than the hundreds or thousands found using other definitions like "four or more people injured by guns." 




sc94597 said:
Hiku said:

1.) I know some suppressors don't make guns completely silent. I don't know the range of suppressors this bill encompases. But at the distance this shooter shot from (several hundred meters if I recall correctly), you'd imagine it would be more difficult to detect and understand the sound with a suppressor on during an ongoing concert.
I don't know how neccesary these items would be in applicable situations though. You may be right about that. What about ear plugs + those ear cup thingies that construction workers use?

Practically no suppressor silences a gun. It just isn't going to happen. 

Here are some videos which should give you an idea what suppressors do. You'll still hear a gun shot from several hundred meters (although maybe not kilometers like would be normal for an unsuppressed gun.) As it is, most people were confused even with (assuming) an unsuppressed gun. It isn't often that one hears a constant flow of bullets here, so that is why people thought it was fireworks. Pretty much only veterans would know the sound. 



^ Watch the beginning and then watch at 7:11, after he put the suppresor on. It is still very deafening even with the suppressor. 

I mentioned the sound protection that is usually used, they help prevent a lot of sound, but even then many guns are super loud. Ear protection brings the gun from like 150+ decibels (for the loudest rifles) down to something like 90 decibels, which is still dangerous if you shoot a lot. 

Tbh it's difficult to estimate how loud things sound from far away when you only hear it up close and in a video. But I checked out another video that tested the sound from different ranges, and the rifle shot was till noticable at 600 yards.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36sZgNPlVM4

So what's up with those shots that barely sound like a birds chipper in James Bond movies, etc? Is that completely made up, or are there different level of suppressors capable of similar feats?



Around the Network
Hiku said:

So what's up with those shots that barely sound like a birds chipper in James Bond movies, etc? Is that completely made up, or are there different level of suppressors capable of similar feats?

As far as I can tell, it is a hollywood invention. Unless the British government has some secret technology up their sleeves.  

http://science.howstuffworks.com/5-surprising-facts-gun-silencers.htm

"Gunshots are loud because superheated gases expand rapidly and produce shockwaves as they escape the gun's chamber. Silencers contain a series of expansion chambers that cool and dissipate the gases before they leave the barrel.

A silencer is a lot like the muffler on your car (in fact, both were invented by the same guy). Screwing a silencer onto the barrel of a gun doesn't "silence" the explosive bang, it just muffles the noise. That's why folks in the gun industry call them suppressors instead of silencers.

The decibel level of an un-suppressed 12-gauge shotgun is 160 decibels, louder than standing on the runway when a jet is taking off (150 decibels). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets 140 decibels as the threshold of pain, although it takes far less than 140 decibels to inflict long-term hearing damage with repeated exposure.

According to a fact sheet from SilencerCo, a Utah-based silencer manufacturer, a 12-gauge shotgun equipped with a silencer registers 137 decibels and a silenced .22 rifle is muffled to 116 decibels, slightly louder than an ambulance siren. Still loud, just not eardrum-busting loud. "




People comparing Gun violence in USA to less population dense countries like Australia and Canada is ridiculous.

It be like me taking a single state and comparing it with them. In fact lets do just that.

Iowa- 90,000 guns /100,000 people, .71 murder/ 100,000 = 126,760 guns per murder
Canada- 30,800 guns/ 100,000, .38/ 100,000= 81,052 guns per murder
Australia - 21,000 guns/ 100,000, .16/100,000= 131,250 guns per murder

Looks like more guns don't always equal more violence, and this is with proximity to more dangerous states unlike Australia. Still we could take it a step further since Iowa is a lot more population dense then these ridiculously small population densities of Canada and Australia.

Iowa- 55person/Sqmi
Australia - 8.3
Canada- 10.2

But I don't feel like doing more calculations, it would be too easy.
In short, pretty uncomparable, we can skew stats all we like to paint a better narrative.

Also I feel like this only gets talked about so often is because everything in USA gets on the media, but a lot of things in other countries are simply ignored.

Disclaimer: Stats may not be perfect or completely correct, and could be outdated, but you get the point.



sc94597 said:
Hiku said:

I figured the major difference was made up by police shootings in USA, because that seems to occur much more frequently in the US than other countries I've compared to. But if they really count a bb gun shooting in the data, I'd be very interested in that. Do you have a link to that by any chance? I couldn't find it.

As for the chance of dying from a mass shooting, I wouldn't be surprised if that's similar to USA numbers in other countries. It's more the occurance of those shootings that seem a lot lower. And keep in mind I was talking about developed nations. And among them, those where guns are essentially 'banned'. Many countries on those list don't fall under those categories.
Also, taking sample data from only 2009 - now is going to change things since we started seeing a large spike in islamic terror in the last couple of years. In France for example, which I compared earlier, they only had 4-6 (two of them I'm not sure if they were shootings) mass shootings in the past century (that were not related to war) up until 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_France
But after 2012 they had 5 additional massacres, all related to islamic terror, and 4 of them involved mass shootings. So if you only look back to 2009, it paints a very different picture than if you look back a decade, in particular because of the islamic terror. But I'm more focused on how gun laws affect the culture. Not so much about terror organisations that are specificxally aimed to carry out these types of attacks.

It's been a few years since I last visited the site, but there was one which said "A twelve year old boy shot and injured five other boys with an airsoft gun." It was ridiculous. 

They mention it on their website, but they don't include it in their numbers, so that is my bad, but still the website is framed to make things look a lot worse than they are. 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology

"We collect incidents where Airsoft or BB guns are used AS weapons, not where they are used in general vandalism or delinquency. Those collected ARE NOT included in our Incident Totals on the Daily Summary Ledger"


The definition used by the FBI and liberal Mother Jones is "four or more people killed in a publicly indiscriminate shooting." According to that definition there is something like 7 mass shootings in the U.S per year rather than the hundreds or thousands found using other definitions like "four or more people injured by guns." 


I'm counting on them making things appear worse. Just not sure exactly what metric they are using, but I planned to look into that later and compare.
Though the incidents I've been comparing with so far are listing situations where as few as 0 or 1 people have been killed, so perhaps "injured by guns" is more appropriate for my comparisons after all.



Farsala said:
People comparing Gun violence in USA to less population dense countries like Australia and Canada is ridiculous.

~Snip~

Not if you account for population, which I do.
For example, police killed a total of two people in Norway between 2002 - 2015. (That's when the article was published.) https://mic.com/articles/123947/here-s-the-shocking-number-of-people-norway-s-police-have-killed-since-2002#.WeZEqjMRc
And in 2015 they fired their guns a tiotal of 2 times and 0 people were killed.
In the US, there have been 737 reported police killings so far just this year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

2 killings in 13 years in Norway.
737 just this year so far in the US. (It will probably reach around 1000 by the end of the year, like it did last year and the year before that.)

Needless to say, the population difference between Norway and USA is not 7000 times larger. It's 62 times larger.



Hiku said:
Farsala said:
People comparing Gun violence in USA to less population dense countries like Australia and Canada is ridiculous.

~Snip~

Not if you account for population, which I do.
For example, police killed a total of two people in Norway between 2002 - 2015. (That's when the article was published.)
And in 2015 they fired their guns a tiotal of 2 times and 0 people were killed.
In the US, there have been 737 reported police killings so far just this year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

2 killings in 13 years in Norway.
737 just this year so far in the US. (It will probably reach around 1000 by the end of the year, like it did last year and the year before that.)

Needless to say, the population difference between Norway and USA is not 7000 times larger. It's 62 times larger.

Don't think you got the point. That is using skewed statistics to paint a narrative. When I could easily do the same thing in the opposite way.

The question is why only police? Why not blame poverty instead of guns? Why not take into account density (which also contributes to poverty)? etc. etc.

FYI I don't even really support guns, its just the arguments seem weak.