Mass Shootings in the US

Last post before I need sleep. I will say that before you came across as a sensible, well-balanced person able to debate their point of view. Now you're edging into 'the guvment gonna take mah guns' territory.

The only person bringing a liberal / conservative split into this was you. Maybe it's just a more UK way of looking at things (we tend to despise all politicians equally) but I don't see why, because the ATF tried to ban a supposedly armour-piercing round, that means 'the liberals' are coming for your guns.
If you were over here, you'd bloody well know the "liberals" aim is indeed to "take everyone's guns", in as much as they desire to disarm law abiding citizens whilst doing bugger all to disarm criminals (especially those from their support base).
 
Now you're just being a dick.
As it happens, I had other things to do (I went shooting, with handguns & didn't kill anyone) rather than await any questions here.
As for the statistics; I don't recall you asking for them & if you want them, they're easy to find using Google.
I asked for them here - link - and you still haven't provided them. They aren't easy to find via google as most firearms records stop in the last decade. You're welcome to look up my posts in previous gun violence threads to find data up to 1997.
 
I
As I and others have pointed out before, firearms crime is not the same as shootings with firearms or murders using firearms.

Handgun crime is not the same as firearms crime.

Can you please give me the statistics for handgun crime, shootings and murders before and after the handgun ban? People are quite happy to assert that gun crime increased as a result of the ban but I haven't seen any stats to back it up.

Firearms crime in 2016 was lower than that in 1998 so it's just as easy to claim it's a long term impact and the ban is paying off. All sorts of fun can be played with statistics unless you have the actual data set to look at.

Then there's also the fact that owning a handgun before the ban was legal, owning one after the ban was illegal (except NI, hunting 2-shot revolvers etc.) If you ban something then crime will spike immediately afterwards, just because it's illegal to own. If you made kebab ownership illegal now then kebab crime would reach record heights tomorrow night. The number of murders using a kebab would remain at a very low level.
I guess you haven't looked:
firearms_offences_624gr.gif

firearms crime.png

homicide.JPG


I don't hang on your every word, so don't try to imply I can't supply what YOU could have found in five minutes if you really wished to.

You don't really want answers; you want reinforcement for your position.
For that i suggest you join a Facebook group of like minded souls.
 
I mean everyone except two people (who have been judged to be competent) are not allowed to own firearms. I thought that was self evident.
OK, so Joe Bloggs wants to own a firearm. Run me through the necessary steps for him to obtain his 'right' of owning a centrefire rifle. You can assume he has no previous convictions or CRB/DBS issues.
Get hitched to an American chick, move
to the States. Then get a Green card. Buy a firearm after some paperwork.
 
I

I don't hang on your every word, so don't try to imply I can't supply what YOU could have found in five minutes if you really wished to.

You don't really want answers; you want reinforcement for your position.
For that i suggest you join a Facebook group of like minded souls.
No, I want answers.
I


I guess you haven't looked:
View attachment 331942
View attachment 331943
View attachment 331944

I don't hang on your every word, so don't try to imply I can't supply what YOU could have found in five minutes if you really wished to.

You don't really want answers; you want reinforcement for your position.
For that i suggest you join a Facebook group of like minded souls.
I'll break down your numbers tomorrow. For now can you please find the number of handgun murders before and after the ban? Just the 4 years before and after would be fine

To repeat, the number of handgun murders before and after the ban. I can't find it anywhere else so, as it is so easy to find, you can indulge me.
 
Really? Do you actually see a liberal/conservative conspiracy behind every bush? It's frankly worrying.

Um you are kidding me right? What the hell do you think both parties do when they are in power? They push their respective agendas as far as they can. Obamacare, Trump Tax cuts etc. that is the name of the game here bud. Politics is just a polite term for tribalism.
 
So to fulfill this 'right' one must pay a fee, join a club, fill in a form and buy a large armoured cabinet.

It doesn't sound much like the 'right' of the Americans where they can walk into a supermarket and walk out with a gun.

In fact, I think it would also require a visit from a police officer to check your storage area and then, judging from news stories, your licence may or may not be approved.
Excuse me sir that only applies at Walmart. But their guns suck now.
 
No, I want answers.

I'll break down your numbers tomorrow. For now can you please find the number of handgun murders before and after the ban? Just the 4 years before and after would be fine

To repeat, the number of handgun murders before and after the ban. I can't find it anywhere else so, as it is so easy to find, you can indulge me.
Find them yourself if they're that important, which quite plainly they're not.
Hint: The majority of firearms homicides, before & after the ban involved handguns, with a significant uptick after they were banned.
All you're after is agreement with your preconceptions, which you will accept unequivocally, whilst sticking your fingers in your ears & singing "la la la, I can't hear you" should anyone produce evidence to the contrary.
 
What one must remember is that people legally owning guns are a tiny proportion of the total of people committing gun crimes. The problem is not with legal gun owners but with people who have no legal right to possess a firearm. A major part of the problem is that in recent years it is seen as racist if police stop and frisk a person of colour. Police in many cities are ordered not to stop and frisk people unless a gun is in full view.

Some here may have seen an item in the news about an naked individual who shot 4 people in a Waffle House* restaurant in Tennessee this week. In that case the individual last year was arrested at the White House as he "needed to talk to President Trump" . Not surprisingly the police in his home state revoked his firearm license and seized his guns and turned the guns over to the man's father on the condition that they be locked up and not given back to the son. From what I hear on the news the father recently gave at least some of the sons guns back to him. I think that it is likely that the father may face "accessory before the fact" charges of murder and Tennessee is a death penalty state. Good!

*Note to my UK friends here. If you find yourself craving breakfast while visiting the US do not stop to eat at a Waffle House. Horrible food. If I craved breakfast I would drive 30 miles past a Waffle House and find a Denny's, Cracker Barrel, Dunkin Donut (sic) or even (gag) a McDonalds.
 
What one must remember is that people legally owning guns are a tiny proportion of the total of people committing gun crimes. The problem is not with legal gun owners but with people who have no legal right to possess a firearm. A major part of the problem is that in recent years it is seen as racist if police stop and frisk a person of colour. Police in many cities are ordered not to stop and frisk people unless a gun is in full view.
The first two sentences apply to most if not all of the EU as well. The last two appear to apply to Britain, but not Germany, yet. The problem is that as far as the non-shooting public is concerned the criminals and law abiding are all lumped together. This has been seen in Britain and Germany and during the recent demos in the States there were unashamed accusations that the target shooting fraternity were responsible for murders, eg "Your hobby is killing us" was clearly visible on one poster. It would therefore appear that minor details like facts don't interest a lot of people, that or they are simply too lazy to check.
 
A silly little thought I had the other day...

When comparing US and the UK maybe you shouldn't be comparing gun crime statistics?

Why not use the bow in the UK, as its got several of the same factors for the US gun ownership.
Owning both are based on historic reasons.
There's an absolutely huge number of bow owners in the UK, like gun owners in the US. The amount of archery clubs around is huge.
Bow's are unregulated.
Like US gun owners, archers have our own subset of yobboo's, crossbow users.
 
What one must remember is that people legally owning guns are a tiny proportion of the total of people committing gun crimes. The problem is not with legal gun owners but with people who have no legal right to possess a firearm. A major part of the problem is that in recent years it is seen as racist if police stop and frisk a person of colour. Police in many cities are ordered not to stop and frisk people unless a gun is in full view.

Some here may have seen an item in the news about an naked individual who shot 4 people in a Waffle House* restaurant in Tennessee this week. In that case the individual last year was arrested at the White House as he "needed to talk to President Trump" . Not surprisingly the police in his home state revoked his firearm license and seized his guns and turned the guns over to the man's father on the condition that they be locked up and not given back to the son. From what I hear on the news the father recently gave at least some of the sons guns back to him. I think that it is likely that the father may face "accessory before the fact" charges of murder and Tennessee is a death penalty state. Good!

*Note to my UK friends here. If you find yourself craving breakfast while visiting the US do not stop to eat at a Waffle House. Horrible food. If I craved breakfast I would drive 30 miles past a Waffle House and find a Denny's, Cracker Barrel, Dunkin Donut (sic) or even (gag) a McDonalds.
I would rather eat a breakfast burrito at a gas station, then get McDonalds......
 
Find them yourself if they're that important, which quite plainly they're not.
Hint: The majority of firearms homicides, before & after the ban involved handguns, with a significant uptick after they were banned.
That may well be the case but you haven't provided evidence for it. The graphs you posted have been posted before and can be used misleadingly. For your 3 graphs you posted earlier:
Firearms offences is anything involving something that may or may not be a gun, which may or may not be fired.
Firearms homicide is better but, since it doesn't distinguish between pistols, rifles, air weapons etc. it doesn't actually show the effect of the ban on handgun murders.
The big spike in homicides in 2003? That was Shipman.

So, again, as it's so easy to find with 5 minutes googling can you show the effect of the handgun ban on murders using handguns? I'm asking as I've spent quite a bit of time digging through the published statistics looking for it and it's not clear.

All you're after is agreement with your preconceptions, which you will accept unequivocally, whilst sticking your fingers in your ears & singing "la la la, I can't hear you" should anyone produce evidence to the contrary.
Nope, I am quite happy to change my mind if I'm wrong. You just haven't actually given any evidence that actually is what you claim it is.
 
Does that mean TV, radio and the internet shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment then?
You mean this FA; Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see your point?
 
You mean this FA; Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see your point?
If the only firearms allowed are those that were available when the Constitution was written, then should the only forms of free speech covered by the First Amendment be those that were available then too?
 
If the only firearms allowed are those that were available when the Constitution was written, then should the only forms of free speech covered by the First Amendment be those that were available then too?
That’s an interesting thought; you can do a lot of damage with uncontrolled mass media, and no-one knows that you’ve done it. Anyone got the figures for people killed as a result of stereotypes portrayed in mass media?
 
That’s an interesting thought; you can do a lot of damage with uncontrolled mass media, and no-one knows that you’ve done it. Anyone got the figures for people killed as a result of stereotypes portrayed in mass media?
Every single serious study into the motivations of mass shooters has found that the media attention is one of their major motivators for doing it. If they weren't getting the level of media attention/fame they currently receive most of them wouldn't do it.
 
Every single serious study into the motivations of mass shooters has found that the media attention is one of their major motivators for doing it. If they weren't getting the level of media attention/fame they currently receive most of them wouldn't do it.
I wasn’t just thinking about shootings. Panics, riots, not vaccinating your children, unscientific denial of all sorts of things and similar silliness.
 
That may well be the case but you haven't provided evidence for it. The graphs you posted have been posted before and can be used misleadingly. For your 3 graphs you posted earlier:
Firearms offences is anything involving something that may or may not be a gun, which may or may not be fired.
Firearms homicide is better but, since it doesn't distinguish between pistols, rifles, air weapons etc. it doesn't actually show the effect of the ban on handgun murders.
The big spike in homicides in 2003? That was Shipman.

So, again, as it's so easy to find with 5 minutes googling can you show the effect of the handgun ban on murders using handguns? I'm asking as I've spent quite a bit of time digging through the published statistics looking for it and it's not clear.


Nope, I am quite happy to change my mind if I'm wrong. You just haven't actually given any evidence that actually is what you claim it is.
Every time a question you ask is answered, you then complain that it's not actually the question & demand more.
Go & look for it yourself, as it's plain your mind is made up & nothing, including facts, will change it.
I'm done with your silliness.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top