NOT A TROLL - Serious Question

You are attempting to offer a clever debate.

NOT A TROLL

Click to expand...

How do I know that before reading your question? You want to me have a favorable view of you before reading the rest of your post.

- Serious Question

Click to expand...

er - ok.

I am very pro gun.

Click to expand...

Another attempt to get me to get to view you in a favorable manner before reading all of your post.

Why do so many (mass) shootings happen here in the US?

Click to expand...

This is a attempt to get the reader to agree to a undefined number of events.

Your position is there are so many mass shootings in the US but you fail to cite any statistics to define your question.

First of all what is your definition of mass shootings?

Second how many people need to be involved? Are you counting only those killed or those killed and injured?

Third over what period of time?

even taking differences in population into account these "mass shootings" and even shootings in general don't happen nearly as frequently in other countries.

Click to expand...

You are attempting to rebut an argument to your premise before it is presented. You want the reader to agree with your still undefined “mass shootings” events.

Barring terrorist type attacks, and "mass shootings" aren't more people shot here in the US than in other first world countries?

Click to expand...

Seemly simple but trick question. Do more raindrops hit the ground in area that covers one square mile as compared to a area that is only one hundred square feet?

Would this number not go down dramatically if the civilian population didn't have access to firearms?

Click to expand...

Another simple trick question. If there were no automobiles then wouldn’t traffic fatalities go down?

My counterargument for you is why has the United States with a population of about 321,000,000 and has a land area of 9,826,675 sq. km. had fewer terrorist attacks by people from the Middle East than France which has a population of 66,553,766 and has a land area 643,801 sq. km. during the last 5 years?

thanks for being willing to play devil's advocate, guitarguy. The responses are really good points!

Why? Attention. Everyone wants to be remembered, but these people want to be remembered for being monsters/patriots/martyrs - whatever fits into their delusion.

The FBI has said time and time again that the media attention not only encourages more attacks but gurantees them. Look at how many shooters have said that they were inspired by a previous shooting.

They use guns because it's the easiest way to kill a bunch of people in a short time. They're (relatively) cheap, plentiful and require virtually no skill to operate. Heck, you can buy everything you need to be global front page news at wal-mart.

Media ramps up anything that goes on to work with Obama's administration of gun control. Left media, left president = left agenda.

"I'd make this a sticky, but if we did, no one would ever read it again"



TCB

GunGuy: You smell like a plant to me but perhaps if you would focus on the actual deaths rather than the method you might remember all of the British people killed a few years ago by bombs planted in subway stations and a bus. The means of implementing killing are not limited to bullets. In the places where guns are not used you will notice that bombs, vehicles, and airplane explosions kill many more at one time without a single bullet. Had the Aurora theater shooter's booby trapped apartment not been defused you wouldn't even hear of the death toll at the theater because of the carnage that would have resulted from the explosion and fire in his apartment building. It was rigged to maximize the harm to the first responders too. If you are sincere in your thoughts then my apologies; but you would do yourself and society a favor if your thoughts would remain focused on the action and intent rather than the methodology.

Something to keep in mind is that recently there has been a push on to redefine what a "mass shooting" is. It's currently being pushed that any shooting involving 4 or more victims constitutes a "mass shooting". This definition is being used to pile up figures pointing to an "epidemic".

But this involves piling a number of varied incidents into one pile. If a depressed man shoots his family and then commits suicide, if rival motorcycle gangs get into a shootout, if a politically motivated person shoots up a Planned Parenthood clinic, if a drug deal goes wrong, a shootout in a crowded bar, if a mentally ill person shoots up a movie theater, if a jihadist couple shoots up a Christmas party... all these different type incidents get placed into the same bag and defined as the same thing when they are not. They get used to justify policies to end "the epidemic of gun violence".

It's as if they cited a Ronda Rousey bout as statistical evidence of violence against women.

There is no "epidemic" of mass shootings.

tipoc

A large part of it is the liberal breeding. Although starting as far back as the 1960s, it really took hold in the 1980s, when the liberal movement began pushing several concepts. One was the idea that everyone must be being offended by at least someone else virtually every day, and that such offense is harmful and undeserved. Once we convinced Americans they are offended by others, resentment began to brew.

So, the liberals moved further on that, to deepen that resentment, by perpetuating the idea that one's own failures or shortcomings are somehow "society's fault", that "we, as a society, apparently let him down." This removed a large part of the element of personal accountability, or responsibility, for one's own actions.

Now, if society deserves the blame for one's failures or misdeeds, then society deserves the credit for one's own successes. As the President himself said (as a candidate) of those with successful ventures, "You didn't build that!" So both credit and blame deserved by only a few become spread across the masses. Those deserving of credit become resentful when it is stripped away, and become further resentful when the fruits of their labors are granted to those who they feel have not earned it.

Teaching mass victimization, removing personal accountability, and preaching entitlement, all have created a collective feeling of anger, resentment, and despair, and many of those "suffering" from those are unable to deal with it in a constructive means, as they have not been taught to do so.

Virtually all of the most-publicized "true" mass shooters have left behind manifestos that have itemized how their "feelings were hurt", how they were victimized, and how society "deserves" what they (the killers) are dealing to it.

On September, 11, 2001 3,000 people were killed in New York, DC, and PA. Not a shot was fired.

Two days after San Bernadino three or four people walked into a night club in Egypt where westerners were known to frequent and killed 12 people with Molotov cocktails. I have no idea how many people were injured. I don't believe a single shot was fired.

It is a miracle that only three people were killed at the Boston marathon. Something like 200 people were injured. Not a shot was fired.

Mass murder happens for two reasons. Politics like radical Islam or radical white supremacy and unchecked mental illness. The US is the capital of the free world subjectively speaking and considered same by our enemies (not so much by our friends). That invites political attacks. The US is a very racially and religiously diverse society. That gives xenophobic extremists something to grind on (Westboro Baptist...just waiting for those people to start killing). We are a society that does nothing for the mentally ill until they kill somebody. It didn't used to be that way. 50 years ago, the VA Tech guy, the Tuscon guy, the Colorado guy, the Conneticut school murderer, and maybe the Charleston church shooter would have been locked up.

That is why there is so much mass murder in the US.

MachIVshooter said:

A lot of dystopian books and movies (correctly) postulate exactly that. It's too bad some folks who take NCIS or Law & Order so seriously are quickly dismissive of pop culture that alludes to such more realistic Orwellian conditions and possibilities in our world, present and future. Somehow, to them, a Beverly Hills home converted to plush crime lab run by 3 or 4 chic, attractive people tracing a bullet to a gun owner and getting a murder conviction in 24 hours is plausible, but Hollywood representations that are not so far removed from real world proposals like agenda 21 "could never happen here".

Click to expand...

And this is a big part of the problem of gun violence. We have several generations that have grown up watching gun violence on the tube. Turn to nearly any channel during primetime and it is wall to wall murderer. You couldn't carry all of the ammo in a semi trailer that is shot up in one hour of primetime. Then you have the video games. As my old granny used to say, "garbage in, garbage out ".

Mass shootings vs Concealed Carry

Since the San Bernardino shooting, a number of the politicians are saying that if the victims had been armed, the attackers would have been the ones killed.

Sounds good, but it occurred to me that one of the problems with concealed carry is that it's illegal to have a firearm in some of the places that are most vulnerable. No firearms in hospitals, clinics, most schools and universities, government offices--any place large groups of people gather--so even with a permit, one is not likely be able to carry a handgun where it might be most needed.

I was visiting a friend in a small hospital with metal detectors several years ago and had to take my pocket knife back to the car before I was allowed to go in. I'd probably been arrested if I'd showed up with my Walther, but metal detectors and a bored security guard certainly won't deter armed assailants. Maybe our way of thinking needs an overhaul more than our gun laws...

And this is a big part of the problem of gun violence. We have several generations that have grown up watching gun violence on the tube. Turn to nearly any channel during primetime and it is wall to wall murderer. You couldn't carry all of the ammo in a semi trailer that is shot up in one hour of primetime. Then you have the video games. As my old granny used to say, "garbage in, garbage out ".

Click to expand...

And yet all violence, including gun violence, has decreased since the 1960s.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...d-low-and-falling-in-the-u.s./article/2577709

What *has* increased is media obsession with banning the most popular guns. But violence is near record lows.

Geezer G said:

Since the San Bernardino shooting, a number of the politicians are saying that if the victims had been armed, the attackers would have been the ones killed.

Sounds good, but it occurred to me that one of the problems with concealed carry is that it's illegal to have a firearm in some of the places that are most vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Read Article: Gun Violence Declining, Except in Gun-Free Zones

Welcome to THR!

Was no one killed, before the advent of the gun?

Rwanda, 1990's, approximate 1 MILLION people killed....most by hatchets and machete's.

Cambodia, 1970's, an estimated 3 MILLION people killed....most NOT by firearms....many by plastic bags over their heads.

1139, Pope Innocent III and the papal council outlaw the crossbow....as being a weapon to terrible to be used. (In fact, at the time, it was thought that this weapon was so horrific, it would make war unthinkable).

Crusades....


Thanks

MIL-DOT said:

The fact that guns are so common and easily acquired here is obviously going to make them easier to use in a crime. The media blowing this out of proportion to perpetuate their Leftist agenda only serves to enhance the perception of a "plague" of "gun violence".
Also, and most significantly, this country turned away from it's moral foundation in a big way back in the 1960's, while embracing atheism, materialism, unrestrained sexual gratification, recreational drugs, etc., and our society has been going off the rails, and been paying the price ever since.
Barring a serious turn-around that has almost zero chance of occuring, this is only going to worsen.

Click to expand...

So very, very true.

One thing I didn't see mentioned was this: there are daily "mass" killings all over the world without a shot being fired. Think about it, hardly a week goes by that we don't see/hear a news report of some idiot blowing himself and many other people with a bomb. Some of these are worn on the person, some are in cars driven into crowds, and some are detonated remotely such as in the case of the Russian airliner.

So, if tomorrow ever firearm in the US were to magically disappear would mass killings cease? Absolutely not....they'd use more bombs.

35W

guitarguy314 said:

Can anyone help straighten this out for me?

Click to expand...

This is a vague question with no actual evidence involved. But I guess.....

One, we are the enemy of every radical group and dictatorship in the world. We also stick our noses in places trying to protect human rights, and spread democracy, which is a good thing I suppose. These things make us a target.

Next is the domestic threat from mentally unstable folks. We have judicial system that requires someone to break the law before their rights are limited, and thank god for that. If acting suspicious made you a criminal, half of the country would be on trial. So people bent on havoc are never preemptively stopped. No one wants to be accused of infringing on someone's right to be strange because it's a free country. Some folks may be scared of these nuts as well, so they say nothing.
So, they slip through the cracks.

While we have the best system in the world, and the most freedom in the world, it isn't perfect. Freedom has lead a lot of people down the road of apathy, complacency, and an unwillingness to speak up and help sick violent folks get the help they need.

It's still the system I choose to live in, and I like my freedom, so I think I'll stay. But my answer is dependent on what you mean by "so many" and the assumption that things are any worse here than anywhere else. Lunatics will find a way to kill if they are bent on the idea.

Video Games and mamas boys.

I'll repeat myself.

Since it is fashionable among American anti-gunners to cite British gun bans, I would like to point out that a ban on practically all civilian handguns was passed in 1997.

1997 British Handgun Ban and British Murders and Robberies

o Six years before the handgun ban (1991-1996):
Total murders: 4,240, handgun murders: 176,
Total robberies: 358,178, handgun robberies: 17,321.

o Six years after the ban (1998-2003):
Total murders: 5,103, handgun murders: 255,
Total robberies: 576,218, handgun robberies: 17,047.

Handgun murders increased from 176 in the six years before the handgun ban, to 255 after the handgun ban, or up 49%. But total murders increased from 4,240 before to 5,103 after or up 20%, so handgun murders as a percentage of the total murders went from 4.15% before to just 4.99% after.

But there was a tremendous reduction in handgun robbery by a stupendous 1% from 17,321 to 17,047. The six-year before and six-year after totals shows 20% more murder and 60% more robbery.

The significant increases in robbery and murder were in the good non-handgun violence, not in the horrid handgun violence.

Now, why would a publicized ban on handguns be followed by an increase in non-handgun robbery and murder? Could it be the handgun ban (and public demonization of self-defense) removed a deterrence to those willing to attack unarmed victims with brute force, knives, clubs, or superior numbers?

There is precious little pro 2A proffered in the Lame Stream Media, Faux news being no exception. It harps incessantly on an if it bleeds it leads principal. A longer term world perspective begets an entirely different mindset.
http://libertyunbound.com/node/1175

Our mass murders aren't stupid. They pick gun free zones to do their killing.

Liberals, media, and politicians ignore this because it doesn't fit their agenda.