Dayton, Ohio Mass Shooting

[Toukairin]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Finally, my multi-part question to you. Who's going to surrender their firearms(not I, nor anyone I know)?

You would be baffled by how many people are against owning guns, which is a waste of money in the grand scheme of life when that money would better be spent on food and clothes. They would be returning weapons with a paycheque in return if they could. People swallowed up the wole Patriot Act for the sake of improving security and safety at the expense of some "liberties", and I don't think many people want to revert back at this time.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

And who is going to accept the job of confiscating 300 million firearms from tens of millions of their neighbors, and family, where the loss of life maybe in the many thousands to do so.

You just showed that certain people are just pathetic for throwing away lives over guns. Perhaps those people just don't deserve to live in a civilized society. I, for one, would be happy if the disarming process in any country is going well enough that normal police officers wouldn't need to carry any gun on the job anymore.

Guns that are active service material deserve to be used in training by the armed forces, but only within the limits of their bases. If those are not, those firearms belong in museums at best.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

America, is not Britain, or Australia. We do things a bit differently here, and we're very protective of our Rights. If you come after my firearms, you better come with superior firepower. Because I will not comply.

In bold: Personally, I think you have serious issues to address. If you think it's worth throwing away your life over guns, then we're done. I'm sorry, but that's it.

I don't care about how things are different from a country or another. Most no-nonsense people would be happy to make sure that means to kill are far out of reach from hate groups, terrorists, criminals, and other sickos out there. And Australia used to be a prison colony with a lot of dangerous criminals and society rejects, and yet it's almost safe to say that they have grown to be more mature than America.

And to finish my part in this thread on the record, the final public message from the late John Paul Stevens, a former Supreme Court Justice who was a Republican, was that the Second Amendment must be repealed.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Additionally how about we properly fund gun violence research and create a national gun data base?

Absolutely. The CDC needs to be provided funds to support research on gun violence.

The main problem is that we have Moscow Mitch being more inactive on the issue than a turtle and corrupt AF with the amount of NRA money he got. His nickname of "Grim Reaper" makes him now responsible for the death of thousands of Americans through his inaction.

[justinstrife]

The people who would give away their guns so freely are not the majority of Americans who own them. You have a very ignorant opinion of people on the right in America and it is completely false. In Connecticut when they passed a law banning the sale of AR-15s and requiring the registration of all AR-15s in private hands, something like 3% complied.

Your whole argument shows exactly how little you know of gun owners in America.

[monir]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

If you think police have had 'alot' of training with guns... I have a bridge to sell you...

I won't buy anything from you. I just know too much about your line of thinking and how you reach a conclusion.

A police officer's training isn't limited to how to shoot a gun. There are plenty of civilians who are way better shot than an average cop. No, what make a police officer better than average layman like you with a gun is how they are mentally prepared to handle variety of situation through months and months of training which encompasses effective communication skills, assessing situation accordingly, tactics. An average cop can sit in a rollcall room knowing he might die that day.

The point is they are way more mentally prepared to handle a situation like mass shooting. And on top of being prepared, they're organized and heavily armed. And they know that they still might fail. You are, on the other hand, a typical gun-owner in the US with a few hours of range time with high possibility of shooting yourself accidentally than shoot the ceiling fan when you were aiming for that rabbit outside near your porch. That's only the mild cases of people with guns. There are plenty of self inflicted tragedies that don't need mentioning. Oh and, those gun enthusiast are solo most of the time even if they're part of their local militia hill-billies who are daydreaming of stopping an active shooter with their pistol in front of a mirror wearing tighty-whiteys while they wait for the end of the world to come. Depending one their cranium capacity, they may or may not be wearing a cape with that tighty-whitey as they admire the bishie-beast in them which they project themselves in the internet regularly.

My solution is, everyone is allowed to carry a firearm. In return, the government brings back the draft. And also mandatory service for everyone as seen in many developed nations. And then we start invading countries like China and Russia to engage in an eternal perpetual war so we can send our gun-loving folks to the front line. They can exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights to their hearts-content with unlimited free supply of ammo.

[justinstrife]

So much lunacy in that long post. If anything it just reinforces something I've been saying for almost 20 years. Modern liberalism is a sign of mental illness.

[monir]

Speaking of lunacy, dude, I just read all of your posts in the thread. I mean, my gosh... I know ignorance is a bliss which I regularly adhere to, but there has to be a limit, especially discussing matters over the internet where information are readily available.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Either way, they are not going to happen here.

Originally Posted by justistrife

Also, I'm old enough to remember when these shootings didn't happen. It's only started up in the last 20 or so years.

Mass shooting in the US is a common phenomenon that goes back in history. The age of internet has sped up the frequency as exchange of information flows freely than ever. A like minded group of people no longer need to huddle together in a secret room to execute an idea. You hate kikes and spics and cows...? There are other like minded folks eagerly waiting to partake in your conversation. You want to know how to do a cool mass shooting? Why, just follow the guy who has done it before you which he left enough copies of with his fellow like minded who don't want to kill people themselves but will cheer you from the sideline if you're willing and will do creative memes of the atrocity committed. You hate the libtards who are infested in vile degeneracy, conspiring to take your guns from your cold dead hands... oh look, there are more of your fellow sympathizers who think just like you and wanna converse with you. And so on and on and on.

Mass shooting is just more frequent for various obvious factors including instant notoriety the fluid media can give.

You haven't seen lunacy yet. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Ithekro]

There is no insentive for law enforcement, retailors, traders, or owners to enforce or follow many of the gun laws that come and go from the books. There are plenty of things that are illegal to own. But there is also the subset of the anti-gun officials that only go for extremely ineffectial legislation on scary looking guns, instead of the more deadly ones. All because they want to sell a concept for votes rather than do anything effective.

Its not entirely out of the imagination that they could have ties to individual gun manufactures and target others under the cover of "helping. The people". Lobbyist style politics.

[mangamuscle]

Act 1. Deranged mind goes on a killing spree using their second amendment rights.

Act 2. There is a lot of talk and best wishes flooding social media copy pasted from the last time it happened.

Act 3. Republicans block any legislation that would stop this tragedies, pundits applaud.

But there are now variations to this theater.

1. Deranged minds no longer wants to die in a flare of glory, they are apprehended to stand trail. How long until one runs away? How long until like minded individuals give them shelter and make a home grown terrorist organization, lone wolf no more.

2. Trump tries to connect any legislation on firearms to immigration, the message he wants to send is "we are having this massacres because we have too many immigrants". The USA starts to sound like pre-WWII germany.

3. 8chan closed because three wackos that committed massacres posted there, if any of the the resident members of the church of gun in here ever go in a killing spree, this forum will also become history faster then you think.

[SeijiSensei]

I was just starting with the obvious stuff. Most people, including most Republicans, favor bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Support is even stronger for gun show background checks and a Federal database that records gun sales.

https://www.people-press.org/2018/10...tisan-support/

Originally Posted by monir

Mass shooting in the US is a common phenomenon that goes back in history.

I'm old enough to remember the Texas Tower shooting in 1966 and how shocking that seemed at the time.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

So much lunacy in that long post. If anything it just reinforces something I've been saying for almost 20 years. Modern liberalism is a sign of mental illness.

I can't remember the exact wording so I will have to quote it but I belive Chomsky said something like ''liberalism was the most wrongly-used word of the century'', your reply pretty much demonstrate it .

As for your arguments, not using fact (or at best personal opinion) and going with name calling do much harm to your position. You could probably defend with ease the position of cops being ''non ready'' for such situation.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I was just starting with the obvious stuff. Most people, including most Republicans, favor bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Support is even stronger for gun show background checks and a Federal database that records gun sales.

https://www.people-press.org/2018/10...tisan-support/

This is false. The majority of Republicans do not support a ban on 'assault weapons' (which isnt even the right terminology for them in the first place), nor of 'high-capacity' magazines.

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Gun shows already have background checks for firearms purchases. Ever been to a gun show before?

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I was just starting with the obvious stuff. Most people, including most Republicans, favor bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

This was tried in the 90s and seemingly failed horribly. (Its also one of the albatrosses hanging around Hillary Clintons neck for Handgun Inc.)

There was never a clear definition of a "Assault weapon" beyond "it looks scary" or its a popular weapon look for Hollywood. There were plenty of firearms that were not covered in the 90s era laws that were far more effective than any of those "assault weapons", but were not covered because they didn't "look scary".

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Gun shows already have background checks for firearms purchases. Ever been to a gun show before?

There is no federal law requiring background checks for private sales, including but not limited to gun shows, in the US. According to wikipedia, as of this year 13 states have mandatory background checks for them with two more requiring state-issued permits. Two states require background checks for handguns only, plus four that ask for state-issued permits.

Even if you count all of these together, that still leaves 28 states with absolutely no background check at all.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

we're very protective of our Rights

Protective of guns, not rights.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

So much lunacy in that long post. If anything it just reinforces something I've been saying for almost 20 years. Modern liberalism is a sign of mental illness.

Clearly the mental illness is from people trying to solve the problem, and totally not the people saying "Kill sticks don't cause violence! And if you try to take mine, I'll prove it by killing you!"

Originally Posted by Ithekro

There is no insentive for law enforcement, retailors, traders, or owners to enforce or follow many of the gun laws that come and go from the books. There are plenty of things that are illegal to own. But there is also the subset of the anti-gun officials that only go for extremely ineffectial legislation on scary looking guns, instead of the more deadly ones. All because they want to sell a concept for votes rather than do anything effective.

Its not entirely out of the imagination that they could have ties to individual gun manufactures and target others under the cover of "helping. The people". Lobbyist style politics.

This is a big part of the problem. The other big part is mental health. It's a known issue, and a vast majority of these mass shootings come from those suffering from mental health. The right wing constantly harps on how it's not a gun issue, but a mental health issue. And yet, nothing is being done about mental health.

The government needs to pass mandatory mental health screenings for all, every 6 months or so, paid for by the government. Can't claim that it's a mental health issue if you refuse to institute mental health reform.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Gun shows already have background checks for firearms purchases. Ever been to a gun show before?

Have you? A quick google search shows that, as of 3 years ago at least, only about 19 states required background checks. Otherwise any non-federally licensed dealer appears to be able to sell without background checks in the other 31 states.

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This was tried in the 90s and seemingly failed horribly. (Its also one of the albatrosses hanging around Hillary Clintons neck for Handgun Inc.)

There was never a clear definition of a "Assault weapon" beyond "it looks scary" or its a popular weapon look for Hollywood. There were plenty of firearms that were not covered in the 90s era laws that were far more effective than any of those "assault weapons", but were not covered because they didn't "look scary".

That's a fat load of BS. The assault weapons ban resulted in a significant drop in gun deaths until the Bush congress let it expire.

[Ithekro]

What few gun people (the more reasonable ones) I know have been advocating required courses for gun ownership. The idea (like the ones used in the Boy Scouts of America) is to make sure the gun user has a healthy respect for the weapon in their hands. Its not just about how to handle it properly, but also about how to carry it respectfully of others. How to carry it safely and to drill into the youths head that this thing is not to be pointed at people. Military training would fill in the "how to aim at a human" later when it was required of a soldier.

From what I'm told, things like this were far more common for men who were born before or just after World War II. Partly because many of them were getting BB guns and the like in their youths, and also to make sure they had at least somewhat competent people ready to draft for the Army.

But mental health is definitely an issue. Not only violence, but theft seems to be up in more places than it use to be. Though that might be an issue of their being less and less retail businesses being open as box stores shut down in favor of online sales. Less places to steal from forcing the criminals to hit places farther from their old routes. That or perhaps a shift to a more hands off approach to theft prevention which lessens violence and the chance of lawsuits being filed against a company's loss protection groups, but seems to embolden thieves, since they know no one (usually) is going to stop them before they leave a building.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Not only violence, but theft seems to be up in more places than it use to be.

The FBI data shows a steady decline in robberies and larcenies over the past decade. Auto theft ticked up a bit in 2017.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...tables/table-1

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

That's a fat load of BS. The assault weapons ban resulted in a significant drop in gun deaths until the Bush congress let it expire.

There has been a steady drop in violent crime since its peak in the early/mid nineties. Restricted 'assault weapons' made up a tiny fraction of guns used to murder before, during and after the AWB.

[Guardian Enzo]

I can add "steaming" that pile of BS argument.

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data.
DiMaggio C1, Avraham J, Berry C, Bukur M, Feldman J, Klein M, Shah N, Tandon M, Frangos S.
Author information
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
A federal assault weapons ban has been proposed as a way to reduce mass shootings in the United States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 made the manufacture and civilian use of a defined set of automatic and semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines illegal. The ban expired in 2004. The period from 1994 to 2004 serves as a single-arm pre-post observational study to assess the effectiveness of this policy intervention.

METHODS:
Mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 were obtained from three well-documented, referenced, and open-source sets of data, based on media reports. We calculated the yearly rates of mass shooting fatalities as a proportion of total firearm homicide deaths and per US population. We compared the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period to non-ban periods, using simple linear regression models for rates and a Poison model for counts with a year variable to control for trend. The relative effects of the ban period were estimated with odds ratios.

RESULTS:
Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents. Mass shootings in the United States accounted for an increasing proportion of all firearm-related homicides (coefficient for year, 0.7; p = 0.0003), with increment in year alone capturing over a third of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R = 0.3). In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.39).

CONCLUSION:
Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.

[Ithekro]

I do wish these reports would keep their terms straight. Assault Rifles is an actual defined weapon type and has been illegal for some time now. Since before the 90s era "Assault Weapons" ban (a term that is still nebulous and ill defined in legal circles, and remains, primarily, a media and political buzz word.

[DracoS]

Mass shootings are tragic, but America seems to get way more than comparable states like Canada, the UK and South Korea. How many more mass shootings will it be before something is actually done about the very clear and serous problem you got?