P
phil3
Guest
The reality is nothing that has been suggested would have or will have stopped these events. There is nothing 100% nothing you or anyone else you can do to stop them.
Uh uh - even if you go PER CAPITA the US, according to wikipedia, still has roughly DOUBLE the rate of civilian gun ownership of any other country. Nothing to do with population size.The USA is by far the most populous country in the developed western world, so it should not be surprising that it has more crimes of every kind. And possibly its population is 10% larger than the “official” number due to the influx of illegal immigrants. It also has a younger population. Most violent crimes are committed by young men. Look at Mexico which has a younger population and far tougher gun laws, but has a much higher murder rate than the U.S.
But it isn’t as if there have been no mass murders in Europe.
And killing is killing, no matter how many perps are responsible for how many murders. Unless they catch all of the perps, and I’m sure they don’t, they don’t know how many actual perps there are. Maybe one person has killed 20 so far this year.
LInks? Sure. The problem is that there are no national statistics, and (common sense!) it depends on how close the target is. For example this story https://www.metro.us/news/the-big-stories/it-gun-control-argument-police-shot-accuracy-true says a 2008 Rand study showed that during gunfights, police hit their target 23% of the time from 7 yards (a big room…) or more; 30% if the shooter didn’t shoot back; and 37% of the time if the shooter was 21 feet or closer (hard to miss, right? But 2/3 of the time, they did!). A study in 2016 showed NY police hit 38% of the time; in 2017 it was 44%. In a 2018 study of the Dallas police Police research: Shooting accuracy in Dallas PD they found the “hit rate” was 35%. A study of studies since the 1970s showed the hit rate for police departments all over the country almost never went above 50%. Rates ranged from 22% to 52%.Studies show trained police miss their target (stationary, mind you) about 80% of the time.
There are tons of other statistics–just do a search on “police+shooting+accuracy”.
The point is, police are generally trained on practice ranges with stationary targets. Generally, shooters are not polite enough to stand still so police can shoot them. And of course these incidents in any given police force aren’t common enough so that police can gain experience. And if police have trouble shooting their target, is Joe Schmo going to do better? I suspect some Joe Schmos out there are going to say “Yeah, man, I always hit my target!” Really? in a high stress situation where masses of people are running around screaming and the shooter has a AK-15 and you’ve got a .38? And let’s assume Joe Schmo has his wife and/or kids with him. What’s he gunna do? Use his wife and kids as human shields? I don’t think so.
And of course the other huge factor is response time. In both El Paso and Dayton the police ended the situation in about a minute–that’s probably as good as it gets. But the difference between those police and Joe Schmo in the Walmart is that the police got the call on the radio; they had a pretty good idea of what they were getting into before they arrived. Meanwhile, Joe Schmo in Walmart is more like the policeman at Parkland: “Where are the shots coming from? What should I do–try to find the shooter or stay here? Should I …” etc. In other words, even trained police who are surprised by a situation take a while to react. Why should we believe Joe Schmo is going to react faster? And, again, what if Joe Schmo has his wife/kids with him? Is he going to go all Rambo, or is he going to try and get his wife/kids out of there? So the idea that the “good guy with a gun” is somehow going to save these situations is ludicrous. At best.
Or, the right to bear arms is natural, inherent, inalienable, fundamental, inviolable. And it exists whether or not our law justly recognizes, affirms, protects, and defends it.vz71:![]()
Not need. Want.casslean:![]()
It is when people discuss the actual process to do this that they realize just how unpopular this particular route is.I always think “Stop making gun ownership a right.” But no one wants to actually do that.
More people understand they need the 2nd amendment in place then those that want it removed.
Almost none have the right to bear arms in their laws.Loads of countries don’t have a 2nd amendment style right to bear arms
Also, there are very many more countries who don’t defend the right to bear arms, and who suffer from murder rates exceeding the US’s by factors of 2, 3, 4, and more. Many of them are south of our border, and are so dangerous that refugees flock here to the land of the Second Amendment and guns, because it’s so much safer. There are so many, that we’re considering building a wall to manage their entrance better.and frankly do.much better than the US without it.
No they aren’t. It seems that in all of the shooting incidents of late, the shooters had bought from licensed dealers and had passed the background checks. If I sell one of my guns to my brother or neighbor I don’t see any reason why a background check should be required.Private sales are a major issue…
Good.Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions.
So what? That is something the state needs to address.(Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state firearms licenses if the state fails to remove these licenses in a timely fashion.)
Oh there’s that “common sense” claim again. Who get’s to decide what is “common sense” legislation? I think we already have enough “common sense” gun laws on the books and there should be no further infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.appropriateness of common sense litigation
Reality is we have a philosophical dispute. Classical liberalism on one side, which holds human rights and their defense as the highest good No Matter What, and something on the marxism spectrum on the other side.phil3:![]()
Is this a discussion? Someone suggests a solution, and the gun enthusiasts become feral about their “gun rights”? Moscow Mitchell has two bipartisan legislative proposals on his desk since February, and he (single handedly) prevented them to be put it up to vote!What do you mean we cant even discuss the problem? It is being discussed right here and in millions of other places. Just on google a search for dayton shooting had a return of 260 million hits/ El paso at 510 million hits. What you wrote is inaccurate.
Of course, right now, after these two massacres there is some “discussion”. But there was some after Sandy Hook, after the Las Vegas massacre, after all sorts of high school shootings… and what came out of it? Nothing! The parents of the victims were accused of “staging” the whole massacre!
It is time to face reality.
Title X of the U.S. Code defines the militia. According to it, there is a “regulated” militia and an “un-regulated” militia made up of the citizenry between certain ages. Don’t believe me, go look it up for yourself.No other constitutional right contains the words " well-regulated."
Actually you are underestimating. The 2018 murder rates (# per 100,000) are approx.:Also, there are very many more countries who don’t defend the right to bear arms, and who suffer from murder rates exceeding the US’s by factors of 2, 3, 4, and more. Many of them are south of our border, and are so dangerous that refugees flock here to the land of the Second Amendment and guns, because it’s so much safer.
I remember being a substitute teacher at a semi-rural school 20 years ago. This one boy (grade 10) came to class every day dressed in a camouflage outfit. He would sit there and read gun magazines all class. Creepy? You bet. But what do you do about it? Tell the police he’s dressed funny and reads gun magazines? Neither of those is a crime. I certainly wouldn’t turn my back on him if I met him outside school, but multiply that by a million or so. Do we expect the police to follow all these people around 24/7? The point is you can’t do anything about these people until they actually commit a crime, and then it’s too late.We need to spot the misfits early & help them onto a happier path.
Who cares about the opinions of outsiders?which looks from the outside
So what is the history of the mass murders by gun per capita metric? How is it changing over time? And how does its history in the US compare with other countries?Nihilo:![]()
Actually you are underestimating. The 2018 murder rates (# per 100,000) are approx.:…murder rates exceeding the US’s by factors of 2, 3, 4, and more…
USA 5
Guatamala 22
Honduras 38
El Salvador 50
But of course this isn’t about murder rates. It’s about mass shootings. Let’s look at those!
US 323 in 2018 (defined as 4+ deaths, not counting the shooter, at one time)
If their criminal organizations /enterprises /businesses are targeted by a good enough police /military force, they would be destroyed, and then murder rates in their country would plummet, no matter what.Guatamala ?
Honduras 39
El Salvador ?
Statistics from other countries might be out there, but they’re hard to find. My guess is that there are mass shootings in Guatamala and El Salvador, but they’re probably gang related, not some random shooting of random people.
And of course once you look at the murder statistics, it doesn’t take a genius to understand why the decent people are heading north.
Gang murders make up the vast majority of mass shooting incidents in the US. Is the problem in the inner city that Joe Smith owns a rifle and a pistol? Does Joe Smith need to be treated like a criminal and have his property confiscated because other people don’t know how to get along in a civilized manner?Yes, but Thorolfr’s original question was why there were so many mass shootings in the USA compared to other places.
That’s not the question I was askingWe are actively trying to deny N. Korea and Iran nuclear weapons. Why not France, or England, or India? We don’t trust N. Korea and Iran.
Illegal how? If the law restricts it, it’s legal no? How is it evil?Because the current restrictions are illegal, Unconstitutional, and evil, all at the same time.