Gun Violence and how to address it

Manic Moran · 04-06-2022 2:37pm

Well, if the definition of “well regulated” means that there are lots of regulations, every state has a military code (I.e. legislation) which more or less matches the federal military code. It’s required for the operation of the National Guard, but applies to state militias as well.

Back to the matter of legislation, if you want to pass something, this is an old-fashioned idea, but how about “give and take”? Pick something which may be passed and with some good chance of legality. Maybe a red flag law, but one which requires a couple of checks and balances (so not California’s, for example). If you want that, offer in trade something that the pro-gun sides wants, like concealed carry reciprocity or remove the 1986 import ban. More chance of passing something that way than just trying to repeatedly slam one’s head into a brick wall.

Leroy42 · 04-06-2022 3:00pm

Or the pro gun crowd need to accept their wants are not more valuable that people's lives.

Stop the fake concern, stop the thoughts and prayers. The NRA and gun owners should at least be honest and admit that their right and desire to own guns is worth the price of slain school children.

Because that is what it boils down to. Their is a choice. And consistently the pro gun crowd hide behind A2 and state laws, as if they are some immovable eternal item written into the laws of the universe.

They could be changed, if the will existed. But pro gun advocates don't want to see their enjoyment and fun taken away just to save a few hundred school kids a year.

AbusesToilets · 04-06-2022 3:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157704#Comment_119157704

I'd be quite happy if they changed the classification of suppressors from the NFA.

Christy42 · 04-06-2022 4:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157704#Comment_119157704

Honest to F this opinion is mindblowing. Absolutely off the wall that this can be the opinion. The point of the gun laws isn't that people hate the concept of guns. The point is that guns get into the wrong hands and people get killed. However if the reaction to thoughts on not to have more peopled killed is what do I get out of it then it really shows how broken the gun culture in the US has become. It isn't give and take, have they not realised it is their kids attending school as well, their friends and families in hospitals, cemetaries, parties and shopping centers?

If the NRA and those representing the gun lobby had any, and I mean any, sense of shame they would be out in front making "common sense" gun laws for everyone years ago. Instead it is just absolute silence until someone else suggests something gets suggested and they just complain about that. At this point the NRA shouldn't get listened to about gun laws. They should have been the perfect ones to help craft these laws years ago but all they do is wall up and protect their cash when mass shootings happen and keep happening.

Manic Moran · 04-06-2022 6:03pm

Well, what's your objection to Abuses's position that suppressors should be removed from the NFA? It was added due to a total misconception of what the things do. If the answer is 'let's pass laws because it's the right thing to do', why not hold both sides to the concept?

In any case, it's the reality of passing legislation that if one thinks a compromise is "Only some of what I want vs none of what you want", the legislation probably isn't going to pass.

Igotadose · 04-06-2022 6:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119152308#Comment_119152308

But he lives in a state controlled by the GOP. None of the things he suggests - the university studies, the investigations into the causes, will be funded. It's only recently the CDC could fund gun violence research. This is a systemic problem in the US, it's a public health crisis, and progress is made at a snails pace.

There is some progress. This blog (good for debunking anti-vax) talks about recent accomplishments in this space, and how gun availability is indeed the public health problem:

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gun-control-laws-and-firearms-mortality-a-public-health-imperative/

The blogger also addresses issues I don't see in this discussion - gun-relating injuries (an issue especially for children,) suicide by gun (20,000 per year in the US.) Changing the debate from 'pro-gun' vs. 'anti-gun' to one about reducing injury and death from guns would go a huge distance to helping reduce injury and death. This I think is what that officer is after and, in Alabama, he's doing the smart thing and divorcing the issue from black vs. white, something that is inimical to thinking in the South, to 'why the heck is this happening and what can be done about it.'

But again, as long as carefully engineered domination of the issue by a minority of voters wins, nothing will change.

Christy42 · 04-06-2022 7:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119158471#Comment_119158471

I am still confused as to why this is an US vs them thing? Do responsible gun owners not want a reduction in deaths by shooting? Are they not willing to trade some extra hoops in buying a gun to save lives?

I mean you can argue some laws are written by those with little knowledge of guns but that should simply encourage gun owners and their representatives to push forward their own ideas for laws instead of simply saying no all the time.

I am confused as to how you can say some of what we want vs none of what they want when surely everyone wants less dead people so it is something of what everyone wants.

If gun owners want to add in some non gun protections vs shootings then go ahead. Add in money for mental health services, put in money to reduce doors in schools or whatever the latest talking point is. However nothing that isn't aimed at reducing the number of shootings should be included. Anyone looking at measures designed to reduce the number of shootings and wonder well what do I get out of it should be ostracised from society. They are heartless scum who don't deserve the time of day.(note this is not all gun owners, just those that look at legislation designed to protect and wonder what they can get out of it instead of wondering how it can improved)

Manic Moran · 04-06-2022 10:07pm

I think the difference is that the pro-gun control side comes up with an idea, and sees it as an overall positive, not so much for the opposition.

For example, look at "Must be 21 to buy a firearm". There is little net downside seen to this by the gun control side. It's inherently an overall good thing. The opposition doesn't view it as inherently an overall good thing. It will have some good effects that the gun-control side focuses on, yes, but it will equally have some poor effects, notably making it more difficult for a 21-year-old to carry out certain activities such as self defense. There is bad to counteract the good, there is no net positive, there's no incentive to go along with it. Same with "must have a waiting period". Little discussion on the downsides in the gun control camp, the pro-gun camp are going "Umm.. What if someone decides they need a gun right now because they feel threatened?"

Such is the reverse as well. Why should the gun control crowd allow the legalisation of suppressors? What's in it for them to allow CCW reciprocity? For the pro-gun side, there are no notable downsides and plenty of good sides, the perspective of the gun control side, however, may not be the same. So why not use these things as bargaining counters to get legislation passed?

It's not as if solutions aren't being proposed for things by the pro-gun side, but the opposition is just as entrenched. Brady says that there nearly 3,000 under-18s shot accidentally by the family firearm every year. A proposed solution is basic firearm safety training, age-appropriate, in schools, just like one would find sex ed or driver's ed. It's a simple win, such training is freely provided, costs the school district nothing. Haven't exactly seen many school districts in California or New Jersey leaping at this. The attitude seems to be sortof the reverse of the conservative view of sex education. "Don't talk about it, we'll pretend the problem doesn't exist, and that kids won't encounter this outside of school.

The bottom line is that there is currently an impasse. Legislators can continue to beat their heads against a wall, or they can negotiate.

looksee · 04-06-2022 10:46pm

If an under 21 person says they need a firearm because they feel threatened, and the conclusion is that, well of course an under 21 should have a firearm to protect themself (does this include under 21 Black kids also?), and furthermore they should have it now, because they are being threatened now, then there is so much more wrong with American society than the issues over guns.

What this suggests is a legalised version of gang warfare. Arm the kids and let them fight it out. Yes that's a great idea. How about legislating for properly trained police? So that a young person who feels threatened to the extent of needing a firearm to sort their problems can instead report their concerns and get some protection? How come young people in every other developed country in the world manage to get to 21 without feeling the need to shoot someone in self defence? Its all so pathetic I am beyond arguing about it.

Christy42 · 06-06-2022 12:19am

Disagreeing with what measures to take to reduce deaths and looking at the deaths as a way to get new toys are two very different things. They are not the same at all. If the NRA and its ilk want their toys they can suggest sensible legislation to bring down gun deaths. When the gun deaths go down it seems like a good idea to pair down on legislation that isn't as effective.

Fine stick in the gun training into the bill, it should be done for all gun owners in any case. You could also add in training for the parents so the kids don't get their hands on the gun in the first place. Likening it to sex ed is weird though. I suspect the idea is to work as advertisements for gun companies but in any case as you say we can have ideas from both sides to try and fix this. Honestly though a 21 year old needing to defend themselves is more evidence that stringent measures need to be taken.

Sam Russell · 06-06-2022 11:49am

If one were to cast one's mind to the first 70 years of this state where men in dresses, sworn to celibacy, dictated the sexual mores that the rest of society had to live to, and that society accepted that young girls who fell short of such standards and fell pregnant would be imprisoned in laundries, washing the dirty linen of society, while being forced to give up their babies, then ask why did society allow themselves to be convinced of the righteousness of such action.

It took many referendums to unravel the most egregious of the constitutional Gordian knots that were preventing a just resolution.

However, after one hundred years, we are nearly there - just a few more to go.

So, I hope it will not take the USA that long to solve the gun issue, or rather the constitutional right to kill one's fellow Americans with one's own gun.

Leroy42 · 06-06-2022 1:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119159475#Comment_119159475

Upsides? A week after the shooting dead of 19 school children and you are struggling to find upsides to gun control?

As I said in an earlier post, at some stage all the gun advocates arguments fall into the basic line that their enjoyment of guns out-weights the lives of people killed by them. It could be started tomorrow, if the will was there.

looksee · 06-06-2022 2:37pm

I wonder why having to have a drivers licence in order to drive a car is not an infringement of people's liberty?

Igotadose · 06-06-2022 3:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165425#Comment_119165425

It's not in the US Constitution

bad2thebone · 06-06-2022 3:53pm

I'm old school myself and probably as thick as a brick. But if a young man came into my shop looking with the looks and demeanor of a psychopath or had incel like attributes I wouldn't sell him a gun, I'd tell him to get fcked. That's the problem nowadays any weirdo in America can buy arms, because the law will state you're being discriminatory if you say no.

Most of the psychopaths are unhinged and just looking at them you can see they're odd balls. And they're young white men who were probably weirdos in school.

I remember them in school, they stand out and there was a vibe off them that was lurky, despondent and not really there. Unfriendly and just souless. Eyes like a white shark dead inside.

It's easy enough to difrenciate between someone who's having an off day depressed, shy or a bit quite. But the psychopath or sociopath has that dead look about them, it's hard to describe. But even how they hold themselves.

I've a friend who has a son and he'd look at you as if you're on his list, myself and the lads sometimes say we're only waiting for the day he burns the house down or harms the whole family. He's just absolute evil, there's nothing there. Comes from a respectable middle class background.

As a kid he'd hide behind his mum, and if he looked at you he'd have eye's of a predator peep out at you for a split second as if he's going to hunt you down when he's older. My son never liked him, he gave him the creeps.

This kid is a young man now and hides away in his room, his mum is running out of excuses for him and getting worried now.

Year's ago kids like that were either sent to the priesthood or the parents couldn't cope with having a headcase in the house and made him get his or her own flat.

It's controversial nowadays to judge people by their looks, personalities or demeanor. But some of us can spot an evil person quite easily but we can't make any assumptions about our observation.

Eyes like a white shark and nothing inside, souless and a danger to society.

Like I said there's a difference between someone who's off, depressed, has social anxiety or overtly shy. These psychopaths are like this since the day they're born. Just pure evil.

Manic Moran · 06-06-2022 3:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165142#Comment_119165142

I didn't say there were no upsides. I did, however, say that there were also downsides to be considered as well.

We talk about spree shootings because they make the global news. We don't talk about defensive use as much because they don't make the global news. When the 'good gal with the gun' stopped the spree shooting in West Virginia last week, I saw it on BBC. I then checked CNN, and it wasn't covered. (Indeed, as I type this, and type into Google "Dennis Butler West Virginia Shooting" CNN still doesn't have an article on it, though other news agencies have picked it up). That doesn't mean that they don't happen, or that they aren't important including up to to the level of life-saving to the individuals in question. If you take all factors into account, what is the net effect? The refusal to even consider that a net effect can result in addition to the 'positives' is part of the reason for the current political entrenchment.

I wonder why having to have a drivers licence in order to drive a car is not an infringement of people's liberty?

Well, the obvious legal reason being that the Constitutions (Federal or State) are somewhat silent on the matter of transportation.

However, if you really do want to equate a vehicle with a car, I note that generally speaking the idea of having a license to carry your gun around in public much like you need a license to drive a car around in public isn't considered overly controversial, as long as they are issued on a similar "shall issue" basis. It's "may issue" which is causing the legal issues right now, and which we're waiting to see what SCOTUS says in the next couple of weeks.

Still, the idea of treating firearms just like we treat cars may not be particularly objected to by gun owners, I grant you. Think about it.

No minimum age requirement, no background check requirement to purchase a car.

If the car is kept and operated on private property, no need for registration, tax or operator's permit. There are also no inspection requirements, configuration requirements, you can make your own car at home and nobody minds as long as you don't operate it on the public highway. It may be transported from private location to private location on the public highway and used freely at both ends.

May operate a car unsupervised on the public highway at 16. There are no restrictions on the type of vehicle, it may be as powerful or as fast as the owner can afford and thinks appropriate.

A license to operate a car must be recognised by all 50 States and the territories.

Nobody tries to sue car companies if their cars are mis-used.

Who knows. Maybe suggesting legislation which treats firearms just like cars would be accepted by the firearms community.

Meanwhile, across the border.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canadians-queue-for-guns-ahead-of-proposed-pistol-ban/ar-AAY8BNT?li=BBnbfcL

looksee · 06-06-2022 5:45pm

So if I lived in the US I could just go and buy a car and drive it away, regardless of whether I had a license? My license here specifies that I have to wear glasses for my vision and my license is endorsed because I have a particular condition that could affect my driving. In the event it does not and I can drive, but the government are making sure I am safe to be in control of a vehicle.

If the constitution is unmoveable how come there are so many amendments to it?

Igotadose · 06-06-2022 5:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166102#Comment_119166102

It's not unmoveable as you so rightly point out, but it's been dog's years since the last amendment. The last Amendment was in 1992 so that's 30 years ago and it was kind of a technical issue anyway that went back over 200 years!

Heck, the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified by the States in terms of number passing it, but it's status is up in the air as it's gone on so long (since 1972) and some States rescinded their support - which is a process that isn't clear per the Constitution.

So, it is feasible to amend the Constitution, but it's a rare thing and the process is cumbersome.

Not saying I'm a big fan of the Irish Constitutional update process either, there's way too much in the Constitution that rightly should be up to the Dail (like the Constitution shouldn't say anything at all about Religion and school funding), but the referendum process might be better than what the US has. I say might, the whole 'states rights' thing comes into play - high population states shouldn't control the Constitution either, but maybe a simple majority of States voting for it in the appropriate cycle like coincident with the POTUS election.

Igotadose · 06-06-2022 6:11pm

Checks out:

Christy42 · 06-06-2022 6:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165721#Comment_119165721

A large chunk of mass shootings in the US don't really make the news as well just due to sheer volume.

Strumms · 06-06-2022 7:07pm

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If a dictatorial power takes over the US… what do people think is going to be achieved by having that written in the 2nd amendment ?

Between active duty and reserve personnel there are about 2.2 million military personnel. Who if loyal to a president / regime won’t be beaten. All of those personnel are….Trained, equipped, resourced and experienced…

About 258 million adult citizens in the USA. But against the military they wouldn’t stand a chance…

Manic Moran · 06-06-2022 7:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166102#Comment_119166102

You wouldn't be able to drive it away. You would, however, be able to have it delivered to your door/ranch/farm/private track/wherever. and you could own and use it there. Particularly common for vehicles which are by design not road legal, such as sandrails. The dealer doesn't check your license before delivery in either case, but just looking at 'legality' here.

I never said the Constitution was immovable. I just observe the extreme practical unlikelihood of an amendment which will serve to restrict firearms access.

looksee · 06-06-2022 7:29pm

So I can buy a vehicle, which, while somewhat dangerous if mishandled, but in order to drive it in public I have to do a test to show I am competent. I can use it on my private property (which, unless you have an extensive piece of land is not likely to be a great help) but I am restricted in taking it out into the public. But I or anyone over 18 can walk into a store and buy a gun and with no further questions take it into a public place with no guarantee that I have the first idea how to use it, safely or otherwise. Can you not see the lack of logic here?

Manic Moran · 06-06-2022 8:56pm

I'm just expanding on the comparison made earlier. As I said, some form of permitting for carriage in public seems generally acceptable at least on a "shall issue" basis, but I suspect that the flaw in the comparison isn't so much whether a permit should be required to have a gun in public, but on the premise that someone with mayhem in mind is going to be put off by the idea that his firearm isn't allowed to be used off private property. Strikes me as being one of the least of his (or her) concerns. I hear the "regulate guns like cars" argument often enough, but it falls flat when you dig into the details.

BattleCorp · 06-06-2022 9:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166409#Comment_119166409

If a dictatorial power took over the US, the armed citizens would stand a hell of a lot better chance than if they were unarmed.

Sam Russell · 06-06-2022 9:41pm

When the 6th Jan 2021 attack on the Capitol attempted a coup to put Trump into the Presidency, it was not armed citizens that prevented it. Nor was it the secret service or the military might of the state.

No, it was prevented by Nancy Pelosi and VP Pence who refused to be forced into an illegal act.

So, it was not 'a good guy with a gun' that saved the day (and the USA democracy) but a set of honest politicians acting in concert to 'do the right thing'.

Igotadose · 08-06-2022 6:54pm

I'd forgotten this - Reagan was the Governor who began California's turn to restrictive gun ownership. Seems that the wrong color people showed up in Sacramento open-carrying, causing Reagan and the California legislature to lose their sh1t and pass all kinds of laws that have been built upon to this day.

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/08/when-ronald-reagans-saved-lives-armed-black-men-meant-immediate-control_partner/

NB: Salon is left-wing for the US and tends to be hyperbolic on many issues, but the facts they're reporting here are true.

Manic Moran · 08-06-2022 7:12pm

Pre-dates that. California's "may issue" regimen is about a hundred years old, now. As it was illegal for the State to say "only white people can carry concealed guns", they instead wrote into law "They must have a good reason and be of good character", which basically meant that the local official could declare white folks had a good reason and black and hispanic folks didn't.

As the State turned more anti-gun in general, the newer governments realised that the same laws, if equally applied to everyone, could turn into an overall gun control regime. Well, more or less equally applied to everyone, favoritism amongst the politicians is still a thing. From Silicon Valley:

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/unprecedented-santa-clara-county-da-sounds-off-on-grand-jury-corruption-accusations-against-sheriff/2756876/

“If you want to get a CCW to carry a firearm, you should be treated fairly and equally,” Rosen said. “One of those standards cannot be are you supporting the Sheriff or the Sheriff’s reelection. And that’s what this bribery investigation was about.”

Igotadose · 08-06-2022 8:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119175494#Comment_119175494

Also, fwiw, although California has more gun homicides than any state, it's also the largest state and per-100,000 one of the lowest rates (7 per 100,000). The national average is around 14. Texas matches the national average, really it seems like no surprise that a state with an extremely liberal gun culture (Texas) has a much higher rate of gun homicide than California or the other states with more restrictive rules. Occam's razor and all that. And Texas as I recall is the 2d largest state in terms of population in the US, but twice the homicide rate. What else could be the cause but the easy availability of guns? Are the people in California that much more peaceful? Texas also has a much lower population density than California, so that's not the reason the people aren't packed in any tighter pissing each other off.

Manic Moran · 08-06-2022 11:54pm

True, yet on the other hand, it’s worth noting that gun friendly states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are in the top ten least murders per capita. California tends to rank 24, Texas 28, so it’s not as if they are that far from each other. CA also has normally a slightly higher violent crime rate, 2020 being the recent exception. The main denominator for murder rate seems to be economic status, more than firearms.

California’s fewer gun owners also seem to be busier. Only 28% of Californians have guns, the National average is 44%. Texas runs at 45%. Top two are Montana and Wyoming, 66%, both of which have lower murder rates per capita than California.

Igotadose · 09-06-2022 7:53am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119176991#Comment_119176991

It's per 100,000 not per capita. Can't compare per capita as you have huge differences between states like Montana and California (or Texas.) Montana, Wyoming, etc. are above the national average (and very low population). Utah is slightly below. Data from here.

Gun friendliness is subjective, New Hampshire is below the national average for firearms deaths per 100,000 and is gun friendly, so 1/50 are gun friendly, and below the national average in 100,000 deaths due to firearms. It's an interesting question as to why, New Hampshire's residents always have been reputed to have that New England character ("Live free or die.") Maybe whatever model they use for gun ownership works.

I'm getting my gun 'friendliness' data from here. What is your source?

Sam Russell · 09-06-2022 8:39am

If the USA constitution guaranties the right to carry arms, and that is interpreted to allow a callow eighteen year old youth to go into a gun shop on his birthday and buy a couple of military grade assault rife and quite a bit of ammo. But when the 2nd amendment was passed, that eighteen year old was considered a minor, and would have been prevented from even buying a musket.

The proposed increase in gun control is just moving the minimum age to buy an assault rifle be increased to twenty one, which would have applied when the 2nd was passed.

Alternatively, they can hope the next time a deranged eighteen year old who has just bought assault rifles is prevented from getting inside a school, and if he does, the local police do not wait outside for an hour while he executes all the kids inside.

The Republicans can all wait for the next school shooting and hope the electors can forgive them (again) for doing nothing to protect the children.

Leroy42 · 09-06-2022 10:31am

"The Republicans can all wait for the next school shooting and hope the electors can forgive them (again) for doing nothing to protect the children."

They don't need to hope, recent history tells us they are perfectly right to think that way. This is not a vote loser for the GOP

09-06-2022 10:35am

Now you have to be 21 to buy an assault weapon!

problem solved! :o

Sudden Valley · 09-06-2022 10:42am

Im not sure a mad 18 year wont turn into a sane 21 year, especially if they have grown to hate their society.

There is something wrong with US society that strangers would kill children in a school or patients would kill their doctors. All countries have mental health issues and some of those countries have guns but dont have these issues. Perhaps the super-competitiveness in the US is a cause.

Manic Moran · 09-06-2022 2:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119177317#Comment_119177317

Per capita is just per 100,000 divided by 100,000. The ratios are the same.

Murder rates are simply from Wiki. You can sort by ranking by year, and are shown per 100,000. Gun ownership percentage from worldpopulationreview

~Rebel~ · 11-06-2022 2:28am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119177936#Comment_119177936

It's a start though... at 18, your main perspective and experience of the world has come from school structure. You're still a kid, you're likely at the most volatile emotional stage of your entire life by dint of a vast swathe of hormonal changes, and most of your personal issues are going to be tied up in things like school bullying, or anger at what you consider an oppressive school system. Even though it's just 3 years, a 21 will usually have moved past that a bit, with a broader experience of the world. And most of all, just having a few years distance from the weight of emotion they would've associated with school.

So I think it would have something of an impact on shootings, but actually a particularly large impact on school shootings specifically. Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Columbine, Buffalo etc shooters, were all under 21. The average age of school shooters is 18.

I've little doubt even this bit of common sense legislation won't pass though.

y0ssar1an22 · 11-06-2022 2:49am

to address a problem, you must 1st recognise what the problem is.

what % of violent crime in the US happened via knife, handgun, assault rifle, fists?

you cant really reach a conclusion till you have all the data

~Rebel~ · 11-06-2022 4:01am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119186766#Comment_119186766

The problem itself is far larger than just guns... it's the long term erosion in the sense of community and support within American society. Being squeezed everywhere you look, from education, to medical care, to workers rights, to maternity care etc etc, every direction effectively saying "you have no value". And when you fundamentally lose social buy-in from so many people, these are the things that happen. It's insane that people setting up go-fund-me's are now pretty much the default for a huge section of society to deal with issues that should be supported by social safety nets.

Add to this the ease with which you can get guns, and the total lack of requirement to even inform you how to be a responsible and trained gun owner, and it makes the fall out from said missing buy-in all the worse. That vast swathe of irresponsible gun ownership in the home, combined with the social backlash, have made guns the highest killer of children, above traffic accidents or cancer etc.

y0ssar1an22 · 11-06-2022 4:02am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119186796#Comment_119186796

gimme paragraphs at the very least

~Rebel~ · 11-06-2022 4:04am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119186797#Comment_119186797

Done.

looksee · 11-06-2022 9:06am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119186796#Comment_119186796

I was talking to an otherwise apparently reasonable Texan woman who believed that social medicine was not good as charitable medicine allowed people to practise their Christian duty by giving to charities that supported hospitals for poor people. An attitude that most civilised countries got over more than a century ago. She also complained, in tones that suggested I would of course agree with her, about the numbers of 'our brown friends' that were populating her area. Quite what the problem was with them was not specified, it was just understood that there was a problem.

It seems innocuous on the face of it - after all a bit of patronage and racism isn't going to kill anyone, is it? But add it to all the 'rights' that some (obviously not all) members of society enjoy, the insecurity of an unreliable police force, a government largely based on wealth, and you have a good basis for discontent. All you need then is guns thrown into the mix.

MakersMark · 11-06-2022 9:12am

I wonder why Irish people, living in Ireland get so worked up about gun deaths in the US, but dont appear to care in the slightest about the 250,000 African children killed annually by war over the last 20 years.

Plenty of left wing racists here, that's for sure.

~Rebel~ · 11-06-2022 9:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119187041#Comment_119187041

Plenty of us live in, or have family in, the US. Ireland also has loads of US based companies, with Irish staff working side by side on a daily basis with their American counterparts. I've been living in the US for a decade now myself... so as long as we have a thread about the subject, I and I presume others, will continue to chat about it as it's quite close to home for a lot of us in different ways.

Caring or chatting about one subject does not mean another subject is irrelevant. Pop up a thread if you have insights on other subjects, or even just want to discuss them - I'm sure many of us have huge blind spots on loads of international issues that we're less closely connected to, but which we'd be only too happy to learn more about.

looksee · 11-06-2022 9:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119187041#Comment_119187041

It is perfectly possible to be concerned about two things at once, but usually it is less confusing to stick to one topic per thread. Feel free to start a thread about African children, or maybe you don't actually want to discuss them, you just want to score points?

Manic Moran · 13-06-2022 7:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119186766#Comment_119186766

Here you go. Sortof. It's murder, not violent crime.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

Knives, 10.5%. Handguns 45.7%, Rifles ("assault" or not), 2.6%, fists/feet etc, 4.3%

riclad · 24-06-2022 9:53pm

Its very obvious the bare minimum gun control in america is no one under 21 can buy rifles , strict background checks of anyone who buys a gun, red flag laws to take guns away from people who the police deem to be dangerous .we have seen the worst mass shootings seem to be carried out by people under the age of 21 .

BattleCorp · 24-06-2022 11:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119245952#Comment_119245952

It's a common misconception that the worst mass shootings in the US have been carried out by people under the age of 21. Based on the number of casualties, below are the people who have killed the most in mass shootings. Only two of the 10 were under the age of 21.

Paddock - Age 64 - Las Vegas - 60 deaths

Omar Mateen - Age 29 - Pulse Nightclub - 49 deaths

Seung Hui Cho - Age 23 - Virginia Tech - 32 deaths

Adam Lanza - 20 - Age 20 - Sandy Hook - 27 deaths

Patrick Kelley - Age 26 - Sutherland Springs Church - 26 deaths

George Hennard - Age 35 - Luby's - 23 deaths

Patrick Wood Crusius - Age 21 - Walmart, El Paso - 23 deaths

James Huberty - Age 41 - McDonalds, San Diego - 21 deaths

Salvador Ramos - Age 18 - Uvalde - 21 deaths

Charles Whitman - Age 25 - University of Texas Tower shooting - 17 deaths

America do need to do more when it comes to keeping the guns out of the hands of crazy fcukers. I don't really agree with under 21's not being allowed to buy rifles as I had a rifle from the age of 18 and I was safe with it. I would have hoops for everyone to jump through to get any firearm such as background checks, mandatory waiting periods, only buying guns from FFL dealers etc.

The red flag laws have some merit but I'd need to know what exactly they entail before I'd support them. What evidence would suffice for banning someone from having a gun? My fear would be that the system would be open to abuse by people who didn't like each other.

Igotadose · 26-06-2022 7:43am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119246434#Comment_119246434

What's sad about your post is whatever site you used, you missed Parkland and Columbine. Cruz killed 17 at the age of 19. And I guess the Columbine massacre by two 18 year olds didn't make the cut as it was 'only' 12 people? Two of the biggest school shootings in history and your site didn't mention them?

BattleCorp · 26-06-2022 1:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119250944#Comment_119250944

I didn't leave out Parkland and Columbine on purpose. I was replying to post #198. If you give it a read, it doesn't mention school shootings anywhere in the post. I've quoted the bit of the post I was replying to below. That's why I didn't just focus on school shootings, I focused on the worst mass shootings, including school shootings.

we have seen the worst mass shootings seem to be carried out by people under the age of 21 .

I doubted the accuracy of the statement above so I went onto Wikipedia and listed the 10 worst shootings based on deaths and checked which shooters were under the age of 21. Given that I was replying to the above quote and it says "the worst mass shootings" I felt it was reasonable to base my answer on the top 10.

It's not that I left them out on purpose, they weren't in the top 10 worst shootings based on the number of deaths. But if we include them, then that would mean that 4 out of the top 15 were shooters under the age of 21. My point still stands, it's a misconception that U21s carry out the worst mass shootings.

Sorry, forgot to add this. The site I used is wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Gun Violence and how to address it

Comments