[Rama Set]

The gun violence rate in the US is exceptionally low (in the vast majority of the country) and is in line with other first world nations, so gun control wouldn't affect local gun violence, and certainly wouldn't affect a mass shooting that had been premeditated well in advance.

I think it would be more effective to examine why people perform mass shootings versus banning the tools they used. The US has seen a constant drop in crime rates across the board but gun sales have only gone up. The idea that guns create this sort of crime isn't supported by the data that I've seen.

If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.

That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.

[Rushy]

If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.

That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.

Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.

We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.

Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

[Luke 22:35-38]

No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.

Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?

It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.

Ok then here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States

Fair enough.

Ok.

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

I can see you missed the point.

Ok I'll prove my point.

http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/

How did this study control for economics and other social factors?  Crime has been going down in most Western nations for a really long time, but they do not show the US case is different. Correlation does not equal causation.

Crime in America has been dropping as well. We had always had a higher death rate period compared to other nations simply due to our size. Also most of our gun deaths are coming from large cities (particularly those with restrictive gun laws).

Why does the USA being a bigger country cause a higher crime rate?  I think it's pretty common for larger denser cities to have a larger proportion of the crimes committed. Nothing novel there.

We are bigger in terms of population. More people, more deaths, period.

By the military's definition.

Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

You might want to retread that page. It literally says semi-automatic weapons are included the definition and specifically identifies the AR-15.

Ok then here.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Lol. Well this does not change that the AR-15, by the AWB is considered an assault weapon. It's all pointless anyway since a weapon does not have to be automatic to have either a high firing rate or deadly effectiveness.

Pistols have the same thing, yet we don't see anyone going after them to ban.

Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

Did I mention a ban at any time?  Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?

EDIT: Fixed quotes

Then what do you suggest?

Restrictions on who can buy them and how quickly you can buy them.

Why? How would that have stopped this shooting? Plus lets examine the current process. If you want to kill someone out of rage and passion you must do the following:

1. Have the money to buy a gun.

2. Step outside the house.

3. Get into your car.

4. Get directions to the nearest gun store.

5. Drive to the nearest gun store.

6. Park the car at the gun store.

7. Go inside the gun store.

8. Pick out the gun you want.

9. Converse with the dealer in a way that won't expose you emotional state because they won't sell you one if they see you're emotionally unstable.

10. Go through a BC.

11. Do 7-2 in reverse order.

There have been many accounts recently of people acquiring an AR-15 in less than 10 minutes. Let's call it 10. Tack on 20 minutes travel time and you have someone who can go from pissed off to ready for battle in less than an hour. Bet they can do it on credit too. If that doesn't seem fast to you then I don't know what to say.

If you can't simmer down within 10 minutes then its not an act of passion but premeditated murder.

Periodic proof of ownership and proof of possession of registered guns. These are a couple of half-formed ideas off the top of my head.

Every confiscation started with registration.

Good old slippery slope fallacy. Good talk.

A slippery slope that has proved itself to be true. Before Hitler confiscated the guns off of Jews the Jews had there guns registered. Before Lenin and Stalin confiscated the guns they had the guns registered. Before Australia had its mandatory buy back the guns were registered. Before the handgun ban and confiscation  in England guns had to be registered. Before the ban on all things that look like an AK and confiscated in Canada the guns had to be registered. Before the ban on high capacity magazines in California they had to be registered.

[Rama Set]

If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.

That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.

Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.

We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.

Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

I think we are mostly in agreement. I guess I need to get my thinking straight about contributors to mass shootings, but really any sort of measure to restrict guns, if there is an efficient measure, would ultimately be a band aid. The socio-economic roots of violent crime are what needs addressing and there is evidence that indicates an increase in education will result in a decrease in crime.

Anyway, get you shit cleaned up Americans. I'm tired of talking about it.

[Lord Dave]

If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.

That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.

Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.

We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.

Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

With respect, Norway has massive gun restrictions.  If the 30/100 is applicable, its hunting rifles.  Pistols are very hard to get and assault weapons are nearly impossible.

The police can't even carry a gun on them.  They have it in their car and must ask permission to use it.

Norway's mass shooting (singular) was so deadly in large part because it was an island and took police 3 hours to get there.


I think what it boils down to is population density and social anger with little to lose.  We're constantly looking at our life and asking "Whose fault is it I'm sad?"
And facebook, our politicians, and our chosen news outlets always seem to answer "That other guy."

A slippery slope that has proved itself to be true. Before Hitler confiscated the guns off of Jews the Jews had there guns registered. Before Lenin and Stalin confiscated the guns they had the guns registered. Before Australia had its mandatory buy back the guns were registered. Before the handgun ban and confiscation  in England guns had to be registered. Before the ban on all things that look like an AK and confiscated in Canada the guns had to be registered. Before the ban on high capacity magazines in California they had to be registered.

Before Hitler took jew guns, he expanded gun ownership by removing old restrictions.
Know what else he did?  He took all the anger and frustration in the nation and focused it on one group. 

If we make this current: imagine Muslims are the new Jews.  If the US announced that Muslims weren't allowded guns but all other restrictions were lifted(like you can buy a machine gun unregistered), would you be upset?

[model 29]

Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?

It was probably a designated 'gun-free' zone. 

[Lord Dave]

Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?

It was probably a designated 'gun-free' zone.

Does Florida have those?

[rooster]

Where was the good guy with a gun the NRA always promises us?

It was probably a designated 'gun-free' zone.

Does Florida have those?

I would assume any place where you can buy and drink alcohol prohibits guns.

[garygreen]

Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

how did you get the idea that this is true?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.

That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.

Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.

We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.

Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

I think we are mostly in agreement. I guess I need to get my thinking straight about contributors to mass shootings, but really any sort of measure to restrict guns, if there is an efficient measure, would ultimately be a band aid. The socio-economic roots of violent crime are what needs addressing and there is evidence that indicates an increase in education will result in a decrease in crime.

Anyway, get you shit cleaned up Americans. I'm tired of talking about it.

Refreshing to see someone accepting truth for once instead of just finding more and more absurd rhetoric to invalidate it.

[Lord Dave]

Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

how did you get the idea that this is true?

I see it too.  When different subcultures have to share laws and social behaviors, there is conflict.  Its not intentional just a product of human behavior.

[Rama Set]

Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

how did you get the idea that this is true?

I see it too.  When different subcultures have to share laws and social behaviors, there is conflict.  Its not intentional just a product of human behavior.

Incorrect.  Come to Toronto.  It's extremely safe and extremely multicultural.

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

http://www.blogto.com/city/2016/05/toronto_named_most_diverse_city_in_the_world/

[Rushy]

Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

how did you get the idea that this is true?

I see it too.  When different subcultures have to share laws and social behaviors, there is conflict.  Its not intentional just a product of human behavior.

Incorrect.  Come to Toronto.  It's extremely safe and extremely multicultural.

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

http://www.blogto.com/city/2016/05/toronto_named_most_diverse_city_in_the_world/

Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.

[Rama Set]

Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.

Wuh?  So we are not poor enough for you?  Only poor people, uneducated people can have culture shock and conflict?  How is it shallow?

[Luke 22:35-38]

If your goal is to eliminate or mitigate mass-shootings then restricting guns appears to be a viable solution. Australia has all but eliminated these crimes after cracking down on guns; Canada has similarly tiny rates of mass-shootings despite similar rates of gun ownership. It makes sense intuitively that reducing access to guns that facilitate efficient mass-shootings would cut down on them.

That being said, the goal should be to ultimately lower the overall violent crime rate and gun restriction is not the way to do that. Socio-economic reform is probably a better route and would avoid the ridiculous politicking the US encounters over gun laws.

Most mass shootings are premeditated months in advance and are done using guns which were acquired in preparation (not sudden bouts of rage). Gun control is simply a form of buyer obfuscation, not gun sales reduction. If a mass shooter must resort to waiting a few months for background checks to go through, it is likely that they will do so. The majority of mass shootings are done by people with no previous history of violent behavior. Mass shootings aren't a gun problem as the rate of gun ownership doesn't correlate to mass shooting incidents in any first world country.

We should see for every three mass shootings that the US has: Switzerland, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, and many other countries with approximately 30 guns per 100 residents should see at least one mass shooting a piece (since the US has roughly three times the gun ownership rate of those countries). However, we don't see that occurring. Despite many European countries having 30 guns for every 100 people, they simply don't go on mass shooting sprees as often. The data doesn't support the correlation claims you are making.

Most of Europe has relatively lax firearm possession laws. It's also much easier to get a suppressor (something of which I'm jealous). I believe that the lack of mass shootings is due to cultural homogeneity over gun possession rate, but I don't have any data personally backing that up. Cultures that are less ethnically diverse in general have less crime. This isn't limited to one race, either, which suggests that culture clashing is something that is undesirable across the board.

With respect, Norway has massive gun restrictions.  If the 30/100 is applicable, its hunting rifles.  Pistols are very hard to get and assault weapons are nearly impossible.

The police can't even carry a gun on them.  They have it in their car and must ask permission to use it.

Norway's mass shooting (singular) was so deadly in large part because it was an island and took police 3 hours to get there.


I think what it boils down to is population density and social anger with little to lose.  We're constantly looking at our life and asking "Whose fault is it I'm sad?"
And facebook, our politicians, and our chosen news outlets always seem to answer "That other guy."

A slippery slope that has proved itself to be true. Before Hitler confiscated the guns off of Jews the Jews had there guns registered. Before Lenin and Stalin confiscated the guns they had the guns registered. Before Australia had its mandatory buy back the guns were registered. Before the handgun ban and confiscation  in England guns had to be registered. Before the ban on all things that look like an AK and confiscated in Canada the guns had to be registered. Before the ban on high capacity magazines in California they had to be registered.

Before Hitler took jew guns, he expanded gun ownership by removing old restrictions.
Know what else he did?  He took all the anger and frustration in the nation and focused it on one group. 

If we make this current: imagine Muslims are the new Jews.  If the US announced that Muslims weren't allowded guns but all other restrictions were lifted(like you can buy a machine gun unregistered), would you be upset?

First place they stilled registered the guns owned by the Jews and using the registration they confiscated the guns. And to answer your question I would be upset that Muslims would be barred from owning guns but not upset about unregistered machine guns.

[Rushy]

Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.

Wuh?  So we are not poor enough for you?  Only poor people, uneducated people can have culture shock and conflict?  How is it shallow?

Having a bunch of people from different countries and different skin colors isn't cultural diversity when all of those people are highly educated, westernized echelons of their home society. Cultural clashing happens when cultures literally disagree with one another, something Canada's immigration policies distinctly avoid.

[Rama Set]

Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.

Wuh?  So we are not poor enough for you?  Only poor people, uneducated people can have culture shock and conflict?  How is it shallow?

Having a bunch of people from different countries and different skin colors isn't cultural diversity when all of those people are highly educated, westernized echelons of their home society. Cultural clashing happens when cultures literally disagree with one another, something Canada's immigration policies distinctly avoid.

The rates of higher education among Canadian and American immigrants respectively is approx. 50% to 35%.  That leaves 50% of our immigrants, who are not highly educated which is a significant portion of our population, so your assertion is just simply not true. Culture clashes do not happen when people disagree, they happen when people cannot work out their disagreements. 

[Rushy]

Canada has stringent immigration laws that result in mostly highly educated and westernized immigration. They are only diverse in the most shallow of senses.

Wuh?  So we are not poor enough for you?  Only poor people, uneducated people can have culture shock and conflict?  How is it shallow?

Having a bunch of people from different countries and different skin colors isn't cultural diversity when all of those people are highly educated, westernized echelons of their home society. Cultural clashing happens when cultures literally disagree with one another, something Canada's immigration policies distinctly avoid.

The rates of higher education among Canadian and American immigrants respectively is approx. 50% to 35%.  That leaves 50% of our immigrants, who are not highly educated which is a significant portion of our population, so your assertion is just simply not true. Culture clashes do not happen when people disagree, they happen when people cannot work out their disagreements.

You don't work out a disagreement with gang culture or Sharia law. Luckily Canada has a smart enough immigration policy not to import either of those things.

[Rama Set]

We have both of those things.

[Rushy]

We have both of those things.

Not as much as many other cities. I can guarantee Detroit and Chicago has much more diverse gang culture than Toronto.