After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

How people can make a comparison like that is beyond me. But at least you didn't mention broomsticks or screwdrivers like another poster did.

Yeah, the Brit's want to ban the sale of acid !

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/14/sign-this-petition-to-end-unrestricted-sale-of-acid-to-prevent-future-attacks-6778319/

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

No confusion, those events  that he stated earlier were meant as a concert. Your claim is a mass shooting event took place in a event. In this case (Vegas) ,no concert(event) equals no mass shooting event.

No. He is referring to a mass shooting as event. And police position is that armed bystanders can be confusing.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Yeah, the Brit's want to ban the sale of acid !

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/14/sign-this-petition-to-end-unrestricted-sale-of-acid-to-prevent-future-attacks-6778319/

So you use a crazy proposal, never implemented, for a crazy comparison. You succeeded in making yourself look foolish.

[riclag]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

No. He is referring to a mass shooting as event. And police position is that armed bystanders can be confusing.

You said how can I make a comparison like that right. All I was saying was banning guns, and acid is ridiculous

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

You said how can I make a comparison like that right. All I was saying was banning guns, and acid is ridiculous

And again, that crazy comparison.

[Blue Muton]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

No confusion, those events  that he stated earlier were meant as a concert. Your claim is a mass shooting event took place in a event. In this case (Vegas) ,no concert(event) equals no mass shooting event.

 

You do seem to be getting your wires crossed, here's a reminder:

 

 Blue Muton said:

 

Nevada has some of the loosest gun control laws in the world. How exactly did the heavily armed population of Nevada help in this case?

Golgotta said:

 

Especially as Police in US and other countries have  said countless times that people with weapons during such events are not helping but confuse the police and slow them down...

 

So the reference to police "in other countries" is a very clear indication that "such events" means shooting sprees and not concerts.

[riclag]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No. He is referring to a mass shooting as event. And police position is that armed bystanders can be confusing.

You will never see armed bystanders in a concert event!  No confusion inside that event .

http://aliengearholsters.com/blog/concert-concealed-carry/

Edited October 4, 2017 by riclag

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

You will never see armed bystanders in a concert event!  No confusion inside that event .

http://aliengearholsters.com/blog/concert-concealed-carry/

Nobody is talking about that here but you, everybody else understands what is meant with 'event'. 

[Golgota]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

No confusion, those events  that he stated earlier were meant as a concert. Your claim is a mass shooting event took place in a event. In this case (Vegas) ,no concert(event) equals no mass shooting event.

I was speaking about  mass shootings. Not this specific one. Twist and bend it the way you want : more guns available means more deaths. Numbers speak for themselves when it comes to USA, gun avaibility, semi autos, silencers and others stupid shit linked to the second amendment and the NRA.

Anyway, one more time unfortunately the reality speaks foe itself : usa had more than 1500 mass shooting since Sandy Hook and republicans and gun polishers are still in denial.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Golgota

[Golgota]

55 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

 

You do seem to be getting your wires crossed, here's a reminder:

 

 Blue Muton said:

 

Nevada has some of the loosest gun control laws in the world. How exactly did the heavily armed population of Nevada help in this case?

Golgotta said:

 

Especially as Police in US and other countries have  said countless times that people with weapons during such events are not helping but confuse the police and slow them down...

 

So the reference to police "in other countries" is a very clear indication that "such events" means shooting sprees and not concerts.

And events with an S... 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Blue Muton said:

 

That soundbite "guns don't kill, people do" is way past its sell by date. People kill. With guns. Nobody has ever committed mass murder with a broom handle (yes, somebody did liken broom handle availability when supporting gun availability here on this thread). Republicans clearly have blood on their hands when it comes to mass shootings in the US, as it is their responsibility to stop their citizens from being routinely slaughtered, in the full knowledge that it will just keep happening unless and until the arms race on your streets is stopped. They have a duty of care and they are failing, they are conspiring with the arms manufacturers to keep witnessing more of the same, thereby recklessly endangering peoples lives with tragic but predictable results.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/

Protection is one of the major reasons why gun owners have guns in America.The anti's want to take away the guns from the law abiding owners.The criminals who have guns illegally will be running havoc. With the left complaining police brutality and profiling etc,etc,etc ,many police are holding  back in protecting and keeping citizens safe. Protection is a major talking point of 2 A.

[Blue Muton]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

And again, that crazy comparison.

 

Actually, there is a comparison of sorts here, not the comparison between gun attacks in the US and acid attacks in the UK, more the reaction of the respective governments.

 

The US government fails to take preventative action when hundreds of their citizens have been massacred in recent years. The UK has seen a relatively small number of cases where people have been injured by acid and are immediately looking at ways to combat the problem. This is coming from somebody who is no fan of the current government in the UK.

[Blue Muton]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/

Protection is one of the major reasons why gun owners have guns in America.The anti's want to take away the guns from the law abiding owners.The criminals who have guns illegally will be running havoc. With the left complaining police brutality and profiling etc,etc,etc ,many police are holding  back in protecting and keeping citizens safe. Protection is a major talking point of 2 A.

 

I stand by my original post. I also challenge your inference that those of us who want gun control would somehow be happy to see criminals remain in possession of their guns. 

 

Has it not occurred to you that if last Saturday, guns had been taken away from that nice, law abiding, respectable Mr. Paddock we would not be having this conversation? That would have been real protection for those who needed it yesterday.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, riclag said:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/

Protection is one of the major reasons why gun owners have guns in America.The anti's want to take away the guns from the law abiding owners.The criminals who have guns illegally will be running havoc. With the left complaining police brutality and profiling etc,etc,etc ,many police are holding  back in protecting and keeping citizens safe. Protection is a major talking point of 2 A.

Who wants to take guns away?

[attrayant]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Who wants to take guns away?

 

Why, the boogey man of course.  Right-wing nuttery doesn't work nearly as well if there's no boogey man to be afraid of.

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Yeah, the Brit's want to ban the sale of acid !

 

The article you linked to says they want to restrict the sale of acid, not ban it.  I think that's a good idea.  Dangerous substances should be available only when certain risk protocols are in place.  The first time I went to buy acid to stock my chem lab here in Thailand (when I used to teach chemistry), I couldn't believe that 18 molar (the strongest possible concentration) sulfuric acid was freely available, just sitting there on the shelf.  They didn't even ask me for my teacher's licence or school ID badge.

[riclag]

1 minute ago, Blue Muton said:

 

I stand by my original post. I also challenge your inference that those of us who want gun control would somehow be happy to see criminals remain in possession of their guns. 

 

Has it not occurred to you that if last Saturday, guns had been taken away from that nice, law abiding, respectable Mr. Paddock we would not be having this conversation? That would have been real protection for those who needed it yesterday.

Did you bother to read more then just the link source headline?

This link below explains why the Anti's have no grounds to say that automatic weapons are  killing hundreds of American's.

https://thejacknews.com/law/gun-rights/legally-owned-fully-automatic-weapons-only-used-in-three-crimes-since-1934/.

 

This next link describes why their is less gun violence in  America .

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

 People kill not gun's.2 A is etched in stone.With the world the way it is today banning guns will never happen.

[Blue Muton]

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

Did you bother to read more then just the link source headline?

This link below explains why the Anti's have no grounds to say that automatic weapons are  killing hundreds of American's.

https://thejacknews.com/law/gun-rights/legally-owned-fully-automatic-weapons-only-used-in-three-crimes-since-1934/.

 

This next link describes why their is less gun violence in  America .

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

 People kill not gun's.2 A is etched in stone.With the world the way it is today banning guns will never happen.

 

Stop playing with words and try to see the bigger picture.

 

For clarity when I refer to playing with words I mean you being very specific about "automatic weapons". The guns used in LV were not technically automatic, but to all intents and purposes they were. In fact the "low" number of murders committed in the US with "automatic" guns is a point in favour of regulation, as that type of  gun is regulated.

 

The bigger picture is staring you in the face, it is the absurd, shameful number of innocent people killed by guns there.

[boomerangutang]

Police found 12 'bump-fire' guns in the killer's hotel room.  source

 

ATF says they're legal.  Sick.  It shows what a stranglehold the NRA, rednecks and right-wingers have on the gun issue in the US.  They should be hauled up on charges of co-conspiracy in mass-murder.   

 

It will be interesting to hear what Trump says in Vegas.  Will he bleat out the senseless, 'prayers go out.....' or will he show he gives a dried crap for the safety of Americans - and propose tangible fixes for the vomit-choked situation in the US ?   It's a dumb question.  Of course Trump won't do the right thing.  When has he ever? 

 

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Yeah, the Brit's want to ban the sale of acid !

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/14/sign-this-petition-to-end-unrestricted-sale-of-acid-to-prevent-future-attacks-6778319/

 

It makes sense.  Who really needs to buy acid?  Perhaps a craftsman etching metal, or a chemist.  If a Muslim enters a chemistry shop in a huff and asks for a bottle of acid, chances are he's up to no good.  Its sale should be restricted.  Call me race-baiting if you want, but I hate to hear about young Muslim women getting acid splashed into their pretty faces - maimed/blinded for life.

 

6 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

That is funny. Every incremental gun law restriction is an incremental call for total confiscation by liberal elites, who will never give up armed protection. Don't play games.

 

Liberal elites, ha.  Most sensible Americans want a ban on military-type weapons.  Most don't want a ban on non-auto handguns or single-shot hunting guns.  Don't let your paranoia get too strong a hold on your fears.

[attrayant]

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

This next link describes why their is less gun violence in  America .

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

 

Analysis from a conservative think tank supports conservative viewpoints.  Amazing!

 

And since I can't engage directly with the author, I'll just sit here and wonder out loud about the title: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013.  If there really is an inverse correlation between guns and gun violence, then why do states with the most guns have the highest rates of gun violence?

 

Quote

Most, but not all, cross-sectional studies have found a positive association between various measures of firearm availability and overall rates of homicide, a trend that holds across regions, states, cities, and counties.

 

[snip]

 

At the regional level, we found a positive and statistically significant relationship be-tween rates of household gun ownership and homicide victimization for the entire population, for victims aged 5 to 14 years, and for victims 35 years and older.

 

The association between higher household gun ownership rates and higher overall homicide rates is robust.

 

The second curiosity I noticed is the source for the author's data: 

 

 

Sources: The Centers for Disease Control and Congressional Research.

 

Which is strange, because the CDC hasn't done any firearm research since 1996 when the NRA figuratively held a gun to their heads:

 

Quote

The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC’s self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms.

 

And the second source is "congressional research".  The same congress that was just mentioned in the CDC firearm research ban?  Really?  And if that weren't bad enough, the author also cites Breitbart.  I got tired of following links to other blogs and gave up.  If you have the actual scientific study that shows causation (rather than just spurious correlation), I'll be happy to look at it.

 

49 minutes ago, riclag said:

People kill not gun's.

 

Do you really think we're mad at guns?  We're mad at legislators who refuse to enact sensible gun laws.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Analysis from a conservative think tank supports conservative viewpoints.  Amazing!

 

And since I can't engage directly with the author, I'll just sit here and wonder out loud about the title: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013.  If there really is an inverse correlation between guns and gun violence, then why do states with the most guns have the highest rates of gun violence?

 

 

The second curiosity I noticed is the source for the author's data: 

 

 

Sources: The Centers for Disease Control and Congressional Research.

 

Which is strange, because the CDC hasn't done any firearm research since 1996 when the NRA figuratively held a gun to their heads:

 

 

And the second source is "congressional research".  The same congress that was just mentioned in the CDC firearm research ban?  Really?  And if that weren't bad enough, the author also cites Breitbart.  I got tired of following links to other blogs and gave up.  If you have the actual scientific study that shows causation (rather than just spurious correlation), I'll be happy to look at it.

 

 

Do you really think we're mad at guns?  We're mad at legislators who refuse to enact sensible gun laws.

Very impressive research. thank you.

[attrayant]

And of course as soon as I posted that, I found a nice scatter plot of the data:
 

 

Sourced from the BMJ (subscription required) but available for free at Research Gate.

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, riclag said:

If only that were true! Can you give me your google results to back up that statement that the MSM is perfect 100% of the time in their vetting ?Did it ever occur to you why people go to other sources of news?

Where did I say MSM is perfect 100% of the time?  What media outlet is perfect 100% of the time?  None.  But MSM does a much better job of vetting.  No denying that.

 

This is worth reading.  Scary.

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/media/the-macedonia-story/

[OMGImInPattaya]

Just to add some perspective...

 

Of the approximately 34k gun deaths per year in the United States...LESS than 100 are caused by "mass shooting" incidents like what happened in Las Vegas...

 

Two-thirds of the deaths are suicides (which by definition are going to happen whatever the nation's gun laws)...

 

Of the approximately 11k deaths remaining, 2/3rd of these are by handguns, which would be unaffected by the gun confiscation advocates call for an "assault weapons" ban...and less than 3 percent of these 11k gun deaths are caused by a rifle of any sort.

 

Looks to me like many are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Just to add some perspective...

 

Of the approximately 34k gun deaths per year in the United States...LESS than 100 are caused by "mass shooting" incidents like what happened in Las Vegas...

 

Two-thirds of the deaths are suicides (which by definition are going to happen whatever the nation's gun laws)...

 

Of the approximately 11k deaths remaining, 2/3rd of these are by handguns, which would be unaffected by the gun confiscation advocates call for an "assault weapons" ban...and less than 3 percent of these 11k gun deaths are caused by a rifle of any sort.

 

Looks to me like many are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

 

A

Edited October 5, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[boomerangutang]

11 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

 

Sourced from the BMJ (subscription required) but available for free at Research Gate.

Note, all the 'red states' are in the upper right.  'Blue states' are lower left.  Red = blood color. Appropriate.

 

5 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Just to add some perspective...

Of the approximately 34k gun deaths per year in the United States...LESS than 100 are caused by "mass shooting" incidents like what happened in Las Vegas...

Two-thirds of the deaths are suicides (which by definition are going to happen whatever the nation's gun laws)...

Of the approximately 11k deaths remaining, 2/3rd of these are by handguns, which would be unaffected by the gun confiscation advocates call for an "assault weapons" ban...and less than 3 percent of these 11k gun deaths are caused by a rifle of any sort.

Looks to me like many are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I agree that suicides are going to happen, whether a person has a gun or not, though with a gun, it's more likely a successful kill.

 

Even if it's less than 3% of gun-related deaths are due to rifles (if we're to believe the stats), it's still a significant number.  That's like saying, 'less than 3% of car crashes are cause by failing brakes, so we should not be concerned about fixing brakes.'   3% of 40,000 is 1,200.

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Just to add some perspective...

 

Of the approximately 34k gun deaths per year in the United States...LESS than 100 are caused by "mass shooting" incidents like what happened in Las Vegas...

 

Can you explain why it matters whether I get killed in a mass shooting or in a drive-by shooting on the street?  Exactly what perspective are you trying to paint?

 

Any why the scare quotes for 'mass shooting'?  You don't think they exist?

 

6 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Two-thirds of the deaths are suicides (which by definition are going to happen whatever the nation's gun laws)...

 

Can we see the dictionary you're getting your definitions from?  Because that's simply untrue.  From my earlier cite:

 

Quote

The fraction of all suicides in a state that involve a firearm is highly correlated with the percentage of households reporting firearm ownership in studies of 16 developed nations.

 

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides [...] in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

 

The lesson? Many lives would likely be saved if people disposed of their firearms, kept them locked away, or stored them outside the home. Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway, the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”

 

Back to you:

 

6 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Of the approximately 11k deaths remaining, 2/3rd of these are by handguns, which would be unaffected by the gun confiscation advocates call for an "assault weapons" ban.

 

Looks to me like many are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Even if we accept your unsourced numbers, one-third of eleven thousand murders is not what I call a nonexistent problem.  Maybe you're using that weird dictionary again.

[OMGImInPattaya]

22 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Note, all the 'red states' are in the upper right.  'Blue states' are lower left.  Red = blood color. Appropriate.

 

I agree that suicides are going to happen, whether a person has a gun or not, though with a gun, it's more likely a successful kill.

 

Even if it's less than 3% of gun-related deaths are due to rifles (if we're to believe the stats), it's still a significant number.  That's like saying, 'less than 3% of car crashes are cause by failing brakes, so we should not be concerned about fixing brakes.'   3% of 40,000 is 1,200.

You're padding your statistics (like in the election)...it's 34k not 40...and it's three percent of 11k not "40k."

[OMGImInPattaya]

14 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Can you explain why it matters whether I get killed in a mass shooting or in a drive-by shooting on the street?  Exactly what perspective are you trying to paint?

 

Any why the scare quotes for 'mass shooting'?  You don't think they exist?

 

 

Can we see the dictionary you're getting your definitions from?  Because that's simply untrue.  From my earlier cite:

 

 

Back to you:

 

 

Even if we accept your unsourced numbers, one-third of eleven thousand murders is not what I call a nonexistent problem.  Maybe you're using that weird dictionary again.

I'm more interested how you can cross the street...as you seem to fear such miniscule risk.

 

If you care to read posts without hyperventilating, you would have comprehended that I said the 2/3rds of handgun deaths wouldn't be affected (i.e., wouldn't go down) by gun confiscation advocates' call for an "assault weapons [usually defined as high-capacity semi-automatic rifles]" ban.