Mass Public Shootings

[Kults]

[Hua Guofang]

That many?

 

Jesus fucking wept.

[Schnitzel]

does that include the ones that killed themselves/ get shot dead by the police or do they count as "arrested"?

 

 Either way it's pretty dire guys.

[abrasivesaint]

It has some info in the corner but its too blurry for me to read 

[Mercer]

Read a Snopes article that partially debunked, or gave a mixture rating to that mass shooting meme. They partially debunked on the grounds it used a strict "4 victims" or more rule to define a mass shooting which I think is a completely legitimate measure. The article goes on to explain the meme's author cited sources, and that there's no universally accepted definition for the term "mass shooting" so I don't consider this even partially debunked in the least. The meme itself explains their method of definition as 4 or more victims per individual shooting incident. 

 

In my opinion they're bending over backwards to debunk this, due to a hidden racial bias of their own they are unaware of. The public has this massive bias of only considering it a mass shooting if the victims are white, which I think is another flavor of racism. If you're a group of 4 or more non-white victims, or if it's a non-white shooter, apparently you don't matter as much? At least that much to a progressives general public when it comes to actually taking action to prevent violent deaths.

 

This meme IMO shows holes in the left's, or progressive logical consistency. Any objective critical thinker would take issue with this, privately of course. Even pointing this hypocrisy out is considered racist (if you're a certain race that is). This, combined with the whole it's OK to casually mention/joke about "most mass shooters are white" while at the same time condemning anyone for saying other races are "prone to certain types of crime" in any way (true or not statistically) would immediately brand someone as a racist. Get them fired for a twitter post type shit, and green-lighting other totalitarian thought police type disgusting behavior.

 

This is exactly why people vote Trump. Pretty sure most of the people consider a vote for Trump more or less a vote against this vocal majority. It say's a lot about the not learning lessons about flaws in our currently politically correct situation. One more reason why I can take a centrist, or anyone who thinks any current popular popular political view as infallible. That's retarded to anyone who's read a history book, or studied this topic, and why I can't take anyone on the left/right center seriously.

 

Progressives can (for now) control the bulk of public narrative to favor this racist double standard pointed out by this meme. They can even find ways to publicly shame/punish anyone who goes outside of their narrative publicly, but you can't silence peoples private thoughts. Something people on the left will never acknowledge, a concept many of them are truly bewildered by. How could people vote Trump? Why is this provocative white nationalist propoganda meme infuriating to NPC SJW's, and at the same time 100% true as far as snopes could tell. Sucks because obviously as a minority myself the last thing I want is for the fucking Nazis to be right about anything, The only way to correct this annoying defect isn't silencing, or ignoring the truth, it's acknowledging the massive flaws in left's political machine. That's what has to change in order to correct what's wrong in this specific situation.

 

16 hours ago, Kults said:

Overall, I don't think the race of the victims/shooters should matter, right? The impact should be measured in total numbers dead, and total numbers injured temporarily, and total number of permanent injuries.

 

15 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

That many?

 

Jesus fucking wept.

Reality is harsh. Being shot as part of a group, or any situation doesn't really matter when you're the one bleeding out, thinking about WTF your family is going to do, fighting to stay alive. What if we follow this line of thought to it's logical conclusion? Mass shootings are just a small slice of the overall lager problem of gun violence. Taking that concept even further, gun violence itself is just a small slice of the overall larger problem of human violence. People are also beaten to death by bare fists every day, they're poisoned, run over by cars, pushed in front of trains, etc. We can't ban everything that has 100% legitimate use cases.

 

It's irrational to ignore the overall big picture of violence, to focus on just this single rare instance (mass shootings). That is if your end goal like mine is zero intentional harm to any living human cell period. Again, this circles back to a measure of reducing human suffering, and the easiest way to prevent the largest number of these violent deaths isn't limiting the rights of individual citizens. It's much easier, and more effective to limit the number of violent deaths your own government is intentionally responsible for, and yeah, English speaking countries I'm looking right at you.

 

The reality of the matter is this, no other entity throughout the entirety of human history has been responsible for more violent deaths than "the state" in it's various incarnations period. This isn't even debatable. The concept of a right to self defense against anyone, including your own government should be a no brainer but somehow the western English speaking world hasn't seen a need for, or successful revolt against tyranny for a couple generations now. How easy we forget, and how soft we've become. We're coddled into a false state of "dEm0cRacY could nEveR gO wRonG" when even recent history suggests the opposite.

 

Instead of measuring by race, let's measure in hard numbers. It's not important determining if the 4th person is the shooter themselves or not. Let's drop "mass shooting" and instead use the term "massacre" which reflects even greater numbers of people killed in one incident. Obviously this doesn't cover individual acts of murder/execution by the hands of the State. That said, any guess as to the percentage of these mass-mass shooting victims that were at the hands of their own local governments?

 

Peep the the list yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

 

 

 

These "legally disarmed, before they're murdered" numbers aren't as important during this debate because it's harder to draw the direct connection. On the surface, a legally armed public seems counterintuitive. The reality is random gun crime totals including one person killing sprees are always (go fucking figure) much smaller, but consistently more sensational by comparison. There's no way to actually prove what I'm about to say, but I assume a heavily armed public population, combined with limits to, or no government would have prevented almost every one of those deaths. On an individual basis gun deaths that would be prevented by anti civilian legislation may only offers a false sense of security, and risks an even worse problem than it claims it will be able to prevent.

[Kults]

@Merceragreed. I don’t even think gang shootings should be in the same classification? That pic was obviously put together to get a reaction out of people. 

[Mercer]

@KultsI do, a bullet has no preference between random white dude, or gang member shooting, neither do my internal organs. Same difference as far as classifications go hot lead mixed with human flesh is just as terrifying in any situation.

 

If I live, or as far as my family is concerned I'd actually prefer to be shot someone I can sue against so If I get a choice I'd lean towards preferring the assailant least likely to be a gang member. The real question here is why I think the person 4 in from the left on the next to the bottom row would be most profitable to be shot by based on mugshots alone. Thank god as a minority it's physically impossible for me to have a racist thought.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Mercer

[Kults]

Fair maybe it should.

[Mercer]

[abrasivesaint]

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

@KultsI do, a bullet has no preference between random white dude, or gang member shooting, neither do my internal organs. Same difference as far as classifications go hot lead mixed with human flesh is just as terrifying in any situation.

 

If I live, or as far as my family is concerned I'd actually prefer to be shot someone I can sue against so If I get a choice I'd lean towards preferring the assailant least likely to be a gang member. The real question here is why I think the person 4 in from the left on the next to the bottom row would be most profitable to be shot by based on mugshots alone. Thank god as a minority it's physically impossible for me to have a racist thought.

From what i gathered in the past, although the feds keep little information on mass shootings, they keep them in 3 rough classes. 

 

-mass public shootings

-felonious shootings (gang/crime related) 

-domestic violence. 

 

When it comes to understanding why shootings are happening, classifications matter. A gang shooting up a group of a rival gang is different than a gunman firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people. 

 

You could argue that a politically driven shooting isn’t a far cry from gang vs gang violence.  

 

Not saying any shooting or classification is any less or more important, but motive does matter if you have any hope of future prevention. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[Hua Guofang]

@Mercer- I am confused by your mega-post up there. You talk about the legitimacy of that meme and the response by Snopes and then seem to leap to the problem with left/progressives. Where's the link between the legitimacy of the meme and the left? Not saying it's not there but you've demonstrated no link in your post at all.

 

Regards the distinction between gun violence, mass shooting, bashings, domestic violence, etc., I think it is a mistake to pool all these issues together as if there is no difference between them. Yes, you can say that they are all part of suffering in general, which is bad and we all should work to minimise it as much as we can. However, the dynamics and drivers of car crashes to food poisoning, to industrial accident to gang crime to domestic violence are fucking world's apart. They require different motives, are carried out in different was and impact people in a different way.

 

I think about this a lot, as mentioned up the page, but mass shootings and terrorism impact very few people and your chance of being a victim of these crimes is extremely low. (especially when compared to standard gun crime, domestic abuse, car accident, etc.) Yet the response is disproportionate. I think it's due to the intent of the act. Terrorism, by nature, is intended to be an attack on a whole community and comes with a threat of follow on attacks if a policy is not changed to suit the attacker's demands. Therefore, there is an element of coercion against the whole society, the attack is on the whole society. Therefore, the victims of this attack and the intended targets are not just those hit by the bullets - hence, a whole of society reaction to terror attacks.

 

Mass shootings are only a step away from this. Attacks like the shooting at El Paso, Christchurch and Tree of Life in Pittsburgh are acts of terror, not so much your garden variety mass shooting like the recent Texas shooting, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, etc. But even your garden variety mass shooting have an intent over an above normal gun crime, (I place mass attacks by vehicle and bombings in the same pool as this, but they are extreeeeeemely rare) given that the targets are indiscriminate and the the attacker is simply trying to kill as many people as possible in places where people operate on a daily basis and do not expect to be caught up in a combat zone (shops, churches, movies, schools, etc), as has been mentioned up the page.

 

These kinds of mass attacks have the effect of an attack on society as anyone can be a victim of these attacks anywhere, without being known to the attacker. Is that a rational response? Possibly not, but it is the standard response of people in general so you can say it's very much a human response.

 

Australia regards mass shootings as 5 shot, including the attacker. I have a problem with this as it also involves family killings (which in the last 20 years makes up most of Australia's mass shootings and they are almost all made up of attacks by legal gun owners or people who have guns that were once legal that made their way into the hands of crims). In these instances where a wife and three kids are shot in their sleep or as they walk through the door and then the killer shoots himself, I think the gun is irrelevant. The victims are known to to the killer, so he can be in the house or be close without eliciting a defensive response. The killer could use a knife, axe, lump of wood or even hands in this situation and be very likely to kill them all. The gun makes little difference. Gang killings are similar for these reasons, the targets are not indiscriminate and are often involved in actual combat rather than unprovoked murder by people not known to them. In these examples, most of the time, if you're not part of the family or gang dynamic, you're not going to be a victim. (excepting people hit by crossfire, etc.)

 

I'd prefer to see mass shootings only involve shootings where targets are indiscriminate - as in the shooter doesn't know who they are and just tries to kill people for the sake of killing them. That would separate domestic killings, gang killings and acts of terror. And I think you have to define the problem accurately to be able to develop a credible and effective policy response.

[abrasivesaint]

Lol at the over population tags..

 

 

[misteraven]

15 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

From what i gathered in the past, although the feds keep little information on mass shootings, they keep them in 3 rough classes. 

 

-mass public shootings

-felonious shootings (gang/crime related) 

-domestic violence. 

 

When it comes to understanding why shootings are happening, classifications matter. A gang shooting up a group of a rival gang is different than a gunman firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people. 

 

You could argue that a politically driven shooting isn’t a far cry from gang vs gang violence.  

 

Not saying any shooting or classification is any less or more important, but motive does matter if you have any hope of future prevention. 

This isn't quite correct. In fact, I believe its all in one lump metric for gun related deaths, which is only segmented by long gun, shotgun and pistol. The long gun figure is so small, that people have largely reversed out the numbers for basic stats on using the AR15. They also track murder specifically, but these figures are rarely referenced since they seem puny compared to firearms related homicides. Homicides happen to include suicide (about 2/3 the total number) as well as justifiable homicides whether its by law enforcement or legal citizen.

 

*Side note: I've been referencing these figures for years and have noticed that the actual metrics are getting harder to find. They are often buried in Google searches and also buried on the FBI website compared to years past.

 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-20

 

And again for the record, classification of "Assault Weapon" is a disingenuous twist on the military specification, which is entirely different. Officially, the first fundamental feature of an "Assault Weapon" is a select fire, small arms weapons platform. The AR15, doesn't fit that requirement and is not a military grade assault weapon according to our military. It has never been deployed to our military or any other military on the planet for that very reason. In fact, the stoner design it's built on, that forms the basis for everything from the M16 through to the modern day M4 carbine, is being phased out as we speak, since the 5.56 NATO round is considered to be a weak round. The AR15 shoots the civilian version of it (.223), which is has a slightly lighter powder charge, though 5.56 is legally obtainable by anyone as well and that most AR's are setup multi-cal, meaning they can fire either. Point is that an AR15 is only an assault weapon according to the media and the anti gun crowd because it doesn't actually fit the most basic requirement of an assault weapon according to the US and most military's. Even if converted, its considered a weaker platform and is being abandoned for the FNH Scar 17 in most situations, which shoots 7.62 NATO (.308).

 

Also note that the FBI

[misteraven]

11 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

@Mercer- I am confused by your mega-post up there. You talk about the legitimacy of that meme and the response by Snopes and then seem to leap to the problem with left/progressives. Where's the link between the legitimacy of the meme and the left? Not saying it's not there but you've demonstrated no link in your post at all.

 

Regards the distinction between gun violence, mass shooting, bashings, domestic violence, etc., I think it is a mistake to pool all these issues together as if there is no difference between them. Yes, you can say that they are all part of suffering in general, which is bad and we all should work to minimise it as much as we can. However, the dynamics and drivers of car crashes to food poisoning, to industrial accident to gang crime to domestic violence are fucking world's apart. They require different motives, are carried out in different was and impact people in a different way.

 

I think about this a lot, as mentioned up the page, but mass shootings and terrorism impact very few people and your chance of being a victim of these crimes is extremely low. (especially when compared to standard gun crime, domestic abuse, car accident, etc.) Yet the response is disproportionate. I think it's due to the intent of the act. Terrorism, by nature, is intended to be an attack on a whole community and comes with a threat of follow on attacks if a policy is not changed to suit the attacker's demands. Therefore, there is an element of coercion against the whole society, the attack is on the whole society. Therefore, the victims of this attack and the intended targets are not just those hit by the bullets - hence, a whole of society reaction to terror attacks.

 

Mass shootings are only a step away from this. Attacks like the shooting at El Paso, Christchurch and Tree of Life in Pittsburgh are acts of terror, not so much your garden variety mass shooting like the recent Texas shooting, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, etc. But even your garden variety mass shooting have an intent over an above normal gun crime, (I place mass attacks by vehicle and bombings in the same pool as this, but they are extreeeeeemely rare) given that the targets are indiscriminate and the the attacker is simply trying to kill as many people as possible in places where people operate on a daily basis and do not expect to be caught up in a combat zone (shops, churches, movies, schools, etc), as has been mentioned up the page.

 

These kinds of mass attacks have the effect of an attack on society as anyone can be a victim of these attacks anywhere, without being known to the attacker. Is that a rational response? Possibly not, but it is the standard response of people in general so you can say it's very much a human response.

 

Australia regards mass shootings as 5 shot, including the attacker. I have a problem with this as it also involves family killings (which in the last 20 years makes up most of Australia's mass shootings and they are almost all made up of attacks by legal gun owners or people who have guns that were once legal that made their way into the hands of crims). In these instances where a wife and three kids are shot in their sleep or as they walk through the door and then the killer shoots himself, I think the gun is irrelevant. The victims are known to to the killer, so he can be in the house or be close without eliciting a defensive response. The killer could use a knife, axe, lump of wood or even hands in this situation and be very likely to kill them all. The gun makes little difference. Gang killings are similar for these reasons, the targets are not indiscriminate and are often involved in actual combat rather than unprovoked murder by people not known to them. In these examples, most of the time, if you're not part of the family or gang dynamic, you're not going to be a victim. (excepting people hit by crossfire, etc.)

 

I'd prefer to see mass shootings only involve shootings where targets are indiscriminate - as in the shooter doesn't know who they are and just tries to kill people for the sake of killing them. That would separate domestic killings, gang killings and acts of terror. And I think you have to define the problem accurately to be able to develop a credible and effective policy response.

I'd like to point out that its also not right to compare similar crime across countries and assume that whatever evidence can be produced is automatically relevant. Not that you're necessarily doing it in your post. I hear on both sides of the debate, people reference Switzerlands very high gun ownership rate and very low crime as a defense fro gun ownership, the same way I hear the opposite true, often with the massive gun confiscation of either Australia or England held up from the opposite end of the debate.

 

Fact of the matter is there are massive cultural differences at play that makes these comparisons largely invalid. Suicide is a massive issue in Japan, likely because of its role throughout their history. There's a profound cultural difference just within the USA due to how large a country it is. both geographically and by population. Having recently lived and frequently travel between NYC, LA and where I'm at in NW Montana, I can say that it's likely the largest issue plaguing our country to which, I see no clear solution. Worse, its being effectively leveraged (IMHO) to keep people at divided at each others throats.

[Hua Guofang]

YEah, definitely not making comparisons as I Was using using Australian laws and recent events as a case in point as to how to define mass shootings.

 

In most of the recent mass shootings in Australia, the gun was irrelevant (could have been a hammer, knife, etc.) because of the circumstances. And thus, I don't think a simple body count is an appropriate way to define 'mass shooting'. That's the only point that was being made, how to define the act.

 

Interesting point about Australian gun crime (can dig the references up from our crime commission, if anyone really wants it), a huge majority of firearms used in gun crimes (including mass shootings) started their life as legal weapons that made their way into the hands of crims or were used by their legal owners for criminal behaviour. I don't know the answer to the question, but it at least has to be asked whether a reduction in legal weapons would then mean a reduction in gun crime in Australia.

[misteraven]

17 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Interesting point about Australian gun crime (can dig the references up from our crime commission, if anyone really wants it), a huge majority of firearms used in gun crimes (including mass shootings) started their life as legal weapons that made their way into the hands of crims or were used by their legal owners for criminal behaviour. I don't know the answer to the question, but it at least has to be asked whether a reduction in legal weapons would then mean a reduction in gun crime in Australia.

I don't have a clear reference to backup my position, especially without comparing it to another country, but my belief is evil is a fundamental component to the human condition. Like most things human (or natural for that matter), is that by and large it will take the path of least resistance. If a gun isn't available, it'll move to whatever is next easily accessible. Honestly it scares me to think of where that can go. Back when we lived in NYC we'd drop the kids off at elementary school and their protocol was leave them all grouped in a fenced in school yard until school started. Literally hundreds of kids backed into an area about the size of two basketball courts. It was never really a shooting that scared me, but rather how easy it would have been to lob molotov cocktails in the crowds if your intent was maximum devastating effect.

 

If we are to look at other countries, we'd see that people will illegally import high powered weapons, plant IEDs, set buildings on fire or simply mow crowds down in trucks. All of this scares me far more than a gun man, because at least when it comes to guns, you have a chance to equalize a situation, assuming you have the right to carry and defend your life. Not a whole lot you can do when a building blows up or being locked into a packed venue that gets set on fire. Unfortunately, its my belief that this is where its all going and that taking guns away will only accelerate that likely path.

[misteraven]

And the debate ramps up:

 

Walmart ends all handgun ammunition sales and asks customers not to carry guns into stores

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/business/walmart-ends-handgun-ammo-sales/index.html

 

 

This is not from this week, but have heard a lot of talk that substantial changes were made on Saturday and that its entered a new round of demonetizing 2A related channels.

YouTube Permanently Demonetizing Some Gun Channels

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/05/15/youtube/

[Hua Guofang]

37 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

 

If we are to look at other countries, we'd see that people will illegally import high powered weapons, plant IEDs, set buildings on fire or simply mow crowds down in trucks. All of this scares me far more than a gun man, because at least when it comes to guns, you have a chance to equalize a situation, assuming you have the right to carry and defend your life. Not a whole lot you can do when a building blows up or being locked into a packed venue that gets set on fire. Unfortunately, its my belief that this is where its all going and that taking guns away will only accelerate that likely path.

Hasn't happened in Australia. As a matter of fact, our bombings occurred when the regulations on guns was loose.

 

We had one loony that thinks he's Jesus run down folk in a busy shopping street killing 7.  But before gun restrictions the loony that went mad killed 30+ with an M16. We just haven't had what you suggest. Our greatest threat still comes from guns, thanks to all the guns that were legally owned before the tighter regulations. The legal guns from that time that made their way into the wrong hands still course through our system causing damage. Thankfully, though, we don't have the level of mass, indiscriminate killings that the US is experiencing. We just have gun crime in general and domestic violence, which, as we all seem to agree, is actually a much greater threat to most societies, in terms of risk to the person, than mass killings.

.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Mercer]

 

 

 

I feel another megapost popping off after I walk the dog.

 

[misteraven]

7 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Hasn't happened in Australia. As a matter of fact, our bombings occurred when the regulations on guns was loose.

 

We had one loony that thinks he's Jesus run down folk in a busy shopping street killing 7.  But before gun restrictions the loony that went mad killed 30+ with an M16. We just haven't had what you suggest. Our greatest threat still comes from guns, thanks to all the guns that were legally owned before the tighter regulations. The legal guns from that time that made their way into the wrong hands still course through our system causing damage. Thankfully, though, we don't have the level of mass, indiscriminate killings that the US is experiencing. We just have gun crime in general and domestic violence, which, as we all seem to agree, is actually a much greater threat to most societies, in terms of risk to the person, than mass killings.

.

We actually don't have a ton of mass shootings. Keep in mind that the USA has over 320 million people. All gun violence combined doesn't even make the top 10 of what preventable deaths in America. Likewise, going back to our comments on cultural differences, its impossible to compare. UK is seriously debating banning knives because their violent crime is growing rapidly. London had more murders this past year than NYC according to some NYT article I read a couple months ago. Also speaking to the same comments, if you look at violent crime in the USA, its largely isolated to a handful of cities (Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore among others). Interesting to note that with almost no exception, they have particularly strict gun controls by US standards and that if you drop the top 5 most violent cities in the USA, despite or geographic size and huge population, I think it jumps to the number 3 most safe country in the world. Wish I'd save the article I read that in, but the article provided metrics from the FBI site that backed up the claim, but feel free to look into it.

[6Pennies]

9 hours ago, misteraven said:

.... If a gun isn't available, it'll move to whatever is next easily accessible. Honestly it scares me to think of where that can go. Back when we lived in NYC we'd drop the kids off at elementary school and their protocol was leave them all grouped in a fenced in school yard until school started. Literally hundreds of kids backed into an area about the size of two basketball courts. It was never really a shooting that scared me, but rather how easy it would have been to lob molotov cocktails in the crowds if your intent was maximum devastating effect.

 

 

See knife crime in the UK.  They have been trying to pass anti-knife laws for years now.  Even read about a study that was conducted to discover the legality of knife length by surveying cooks.....

[6Pennies]

9 hours ago, misteraven said:

And the debate ramps up:

 

Walmart ends all handgun ammunition sales and asks customers not to carry guns into stores

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/business/walmart-ends-handgun-ammo-sales/index.html

 

 

This is not from this week, but have heard a lot of talk that substantial changes were made on Saturday and that its entered a new round of demonetizing 2A related channels.

YouTube Permanently Demonetizing Some Gun Channels

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/05/15/youtube/

Had not heard about Youtube's new policies.../

[6Pennies]

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

We actually don't have a ton of mass shootings. Keep in mind that the USA has over 320 million people. All gun violence combined doesn't even make the top 10 of what preventable deaths in America. Likewise, going back to our comments on cultural differences, its impossible to compare. UK is seriously debating banning knives because their violent crime is growing rapidly. London had more murders this past year than NYC according to some NYT article I read a couple months ago. Also speaking to the same comments, if you look at violent crime in the USA, its largely isolated to a handful of cities (Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore among others). Interesting to note that with almost no exception, they have particularly strict gun controls by US standards and that if you drop the top 5 most violent cities in the USA, despite or geographic size and huge population, I think it jumps to the number 3 most safe country in the world. Wish I'd save the article I read that in, but the article provided metrics from the FBI site that backed up the claim, but feel free to look into it.

One thing that is left unsaid in the debate as it pertains to the geographic stats, both domestic and worldwide, is the large mass/highly concentrated disaffected/disenfranchised populations.  This is none more visibly clear than the drastic disparity of in places like Brazil's metropoles....

 

And, I also have seen that data re: the US's overall global safety rating....

[Hua Guofang]

4 hours ago, misteraven said:

We actually don't have a ton of mass shootings. Keep in mind that the USA has over 320 million people. All gun violence combined doesn't even make the top 10 of what preventable deaths in America. Likewise, going back to our comments on cultural differences, its impossible to compare. UK is seriously debating banning knives because their violent crime is growing rapidly. London had more murders this past year than NYC according to some NYT article I read a couple months ago. Also speaking to the same comments, if you look at violent crime in the USA, its largely isolated to a handful of cities (Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore among others). Interesting to note that with almost no exception, they have particularly strict gun controls by US standards and that if you drop the top 5 most violent cities in the USA, despite or geographic size and huge population, I think it jumps to the number 3 most safe country in the world. Wish I'd save the article I read that in, but the article provided metrics from the FBI site that backed up the claim, but feel free to look into it.

I'm probably missing your point but you say it's impossible to compare but then you compare London to NYC.

 

I've spent a bunch of time in the US - Cali, NYC, Ct, Tx, etc. I've generally felt safer there than I have in most parts of Europe I've traveled to. However, I have felt unsafe in the US, not because of crime, but because of the lax approach to gun safety. Two examples, One time driving from bar to bar with a colleague (I was already uncool with him drinking and driving, but he wasn't actually drunk) and he's pulling out his Sig, etc. to show me whilst he's driving. Muzzle awareness was shite and they were just sitting under his seat in a car that was left overnight outside the bar after he drunk too much. Second, was at a BBQ, bloke that was seeing the girl who lived there was and ICE agent, had bought his BB gun to plug cans with in the yard. I go inside to use the toilet and there's his AR and a Beretta just sitting, unattended on the coffee table for anyone to pick up and fuck with. Fortunately, everyone else there was professional enough to leave it be. That ICE guy was also one of the biggest fuckwits I've ever met. Racist as fuck, openly so and just an all-round cockhead.

 

@misteraven- this is the part that I have a problem with - All gun violence combined doesn't even make the top 10 of what preventable deaths in America

 

This approach suggests that it's all about numbers - more people die doing this than die doing that. I think that reduces the situation to its most simplest form and misses a big part of the picture. It's just like saying "guns are the whole of the problem", whilst ignoring cultural issues, economic problems, drugs, whatever.

 

As I mentioned above, there is a reason why society responds disproportionately to mass shootings and terror attacks. It's not because of how many people are killed, it's because they are a deliberate attack, often meant to harm society as a whole, not just the people that get hit with bullets. Crime is similar, because it's (theoretically) a break down of order and stability. But mass shootings/terror are different because they come with the propaganda of the deed, they are designed to disrupt society as a whole, the viewers of the act are as much of a target as the victims of the bullets. With that being the case, the body count doesn't tell the whole story.

[Hua Guofang]

4 hours ago, 6Pennies said:

See knife crime in the UK.  They have been trying to pass anti-knife laws for years now.  Even read about a study that was conducted to discover the legality of knife length by surveying cooks.....

Sydney, Australia banned the carrying of blades over a certain length, unless you have a clear reason to carry one for your profession (and you're out and about because of work, not at a bar). There was a spate of shitty street gang dickheads coming into the city from the suburbs looking for for trouble (I was working doors at the time and saw it numerous times, considerable representation of Vietnamese and Lebanese street crime losers along with white trash morons from the outer-suburbs) and stabbing dudes. Knife crime went down after that. Sydney is a pretty safe city all up. You're biggest risk is getting beaten up, especially if you're a woman in a fucked up relationship. I've never felt like I've needed a gun in Sydney and I'm a qualified marksman and have represented Australia in combat skill at arms and shooting comps. Less guns on the streets, the safer I feel.

[Mercer]

Serious question, do you feel like there's any chance this disarmament could unintentionally lead to more Australian deaths down the road? Like China realizing they could take out your armed forces, then use your 100% reliance on central control against you? It took very little resources for England to subjugate India, a much larger country because of this arms centralization. 

 

Scenario one:

Australias government taken over by a single rough faction, with no chances of resistance by the population? Not so worried.

 

Scenario two:

A much larger country like China needing only to defeat Australia's armed forces, then having near zero fear of irregular warfare like their other subjects? Hmmmm.

 

I feel there's a serious threat from the latter. I could be wrong about this, maybe we're heading into a time of unprecedented world peace. But I think most of the Western world has a false sense of complacency under the current geopolitical circumstances of the last half of the 20th century. The idea this is only temporary is forgotten. What if America isn't going to be able to afford to partner up with, and protect their allies the same way much longer. Centralization definitely has it's faults too, there's significant overlooked value in decentralized approaches, any country that's been a subject of another knows this all too well.

[Hua Guofang]

No, that is neither plausible nor realistic for so many reasons.

 

The most prominent in the shape of a question: why would China choose to invade and occupy Australia?

[Mercer]

To follow up so it's obvious, I'm suggesting there's a very credible threat, of a significantly larger series of mass shootings on a scale that's hard to imagine. The disarming of your populace only ripened the conditions for this scenario. It's at least possible one day Americans might be smugly touting the superiority of their decentralized back up system.

[Mercer]

6 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

No, that is neither plausible nor realistic for so many reasons.

 

The most prominent in the shape of a question: why would China choose to invade and occupy Australia?

Wait, why would England subjugate India?

Why would China subjugate any of it's subjects?

Why did the USSR do it to Poland, etc.

 

Access to natural resources.

 

Who's your largest trading partner, and why are they choosing to trade with you now?

Would you say access to your natural resources has become essential for Chinas economy?

Think it has anything to do with the mining, AKA natural resources.

 

 

 

 

All ripe for the picking saying "why would they do that"makes me think this scenario hasn't crossed your mind. Do you think Australia armed forces  could stop China from doing whatever the fuck it wanted to do?

Edited September 4, 2019 by Mercer

[Hua Guofang]

They already have access to our resources.