Jump to content

Mass Shootings

Nice Guy Eddie

By Nice Guy Eddie
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

David Dennison

David Dennison 18648

Posted
Posted
Just now, BabaYaga said:

So it was just the NRA and their supporters that he called sick fuckers and child murderers.  So it's OK then.  Never mind.  This completely indemnifies him from any subsequent personal attacks.  

The NRA is a reprehensible organization and should be called out at every opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hornmpa96
hornmpa96

That’s not true. As has been pointed out in this thread multiple times, other countries who had mass shooting events immediately changed their gun laws to make it harder or impossible to obtain the we

Chuckie Finster
Chuckie Finster

The "we can't solve 100% of the problem so we shouldn't make any attempt at all" line of thinking is a big reason why we are where we are. 

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

yeah i was going to ask for clarification from creasy but i suspended them instead

Posted Images

BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15208

Posted
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

The NRA is a reprehensible organization and should be called out at every opportunity.

And free health care.  Don't forget that.  We'll get to the rest of your rehashed talking points in due time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So it was just the NRA and their supporters that he called sick fuckers and child murderers.  So it's OK then.  Never mind.  This completely indemnifies him from any subsequent personal attacks.  

Still not what he said, either. You're being purposefully dishonest because your arguments are shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18648

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Nobody is this stupid.  Who do you think makes of the NRA?

Well, NRA members consistently tell pollsters that they don't agree with many of the positions of the executive committee when it comes to gun laws, so really the NRA that David Hogg is talking about is Wayne LaPierre and his minions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15208

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Well, NRA members consistently tell pollsters that they don't agree with many of the positions of the executive committee when it comes to gun laws, so really the NRA that David Hogg is talking about is Wayne LaPierre and his minions.

Congratulations - you just described every political organization on the planet.  Good show.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15208

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you realize he's not talking about NRA members.

Which ones....funny how all republicans are this/that relative to their affiliation and leadership.  Or is that not in scope here now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1952

Posted
Posted

Hopefully the trolling has gone away.

The below report looks at gun violence from 1993 to 2011. Note that after the crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s, rates have been relatively flat.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

In addition to the crack epidemic and war on drugs, another potential factor that may have helped lower rates of gun violence in 90s was the lowering of lead levels in the blood of children during the 70s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Hopefully the trolling has gone away.

The below report looks at gun violence from 1993 to 2011. Note that after the crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s, rates have been relatively flat.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

...

I skimmed over the BJS report you cite.  Nowhere in the report does it explain how any of the "rates" are calculated.   There is no citation or reference for the denominator (population data).  Lots of pages discussing the numerators.  Looking at the rate charts in the referenced page, it looks like they used the same denominator across all data points as the rate graph has the identical shape as the data points themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

We were experiencing the tale end of the crack-cocaine epidemic in 1993. 1993 isn’t a good year to compare gun violence. Since then, change in rates of gun violence have been relatively flat, while also being much higher when compared to other countries.

GW, I understand the statistics during the crack epidemic are skewed, but why is that much different than now? There’s a thread on here about how bad Chicago’s (and many other shitty cities) murder and shooting rates are.  They aren’t all easily blamed on crack anymore, but are still gang violence.  You have no issue looking at the violence rates of today without adding to the discussion that vast amounts of it are still from gang/drugs.  If the time up to 1994 needs to be excused, a lot of the violence we see today does too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15208

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

GW, I understand the statistics during the crack epidemic are skewed, but why is that much different than now? There’s a thread on here about how bad Chicago’s (and many other shitty cities) murder and shooting rates are.  They aren’t all easily blamed on crack anymore, but are still gang violence.  You have no issue looking at the violence rates of today without adding to the discussion that vast amounts of it are still from gang/drugs.  If the time up to 1994 needs to be excused, a lot of the violence we see today does too. 

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as

noun

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1952

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

GW, I understand the statistics during the crack epidemic are skewed, but why is that much different than now? There’s a thread on here about how bad Chicago’s (and many other shitty cities) murder and shooting rates are.  They aren’t all easily blamed on crack anymore, but are still gang violence.  You have no issue looking at the violence rates of today without adding to the discussion that vast amounts of it are still from gang/drugs.  If the time up to 1994 needs to be excused, a lot of the violence we see today does too. 

Its not that the stats were skewed during 90s. I’m not excusing the rates from the 90s. We just have an understanding of why we had a big spike during that time.

My point is that just comparing two points in time (one in peak crack cocaine era and the other today) and concluding that rates of violence has plummeted and therefore we don’t have a problem, isn’t the best way to look at it. 

Hence, a need to look at a range of stats/information to come up with an understanding of the gun violence issue in the US. Looking at how we compare to other countries is an attampt to do this. Vox attempted to do this. See items 6 and 7 in the below vox link.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

See page 5 of the BJS study I linked earlier today. Blacks have a higher rate of homicides when compared to whites, and Hispanics have a higher rate when compared to non-Hispanics. IMO no one should be saying that we don’t have a gun violenece problem because non-white people are involved. Blacks and Hispanics are still part of our community. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

The opposite occurs when looking at suicides. Whites make up more of suicides by firearm then blacks.

Basically, most suicides by firearms are whites and most homicide by firearm are blacks.

Edited by GW Hayduke
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1952

Posted
Posted

Axios:

The American Medical Association has formally — and overwhelmingly — endorsed a slate of gun control measures, calling gun violence a public health crisis. 

Why it matters: The AMA isn’t as powerful as it once was. But in the uphill climb to frame gun violence as a public health issue, having the AMA on board certainly can’t hurt.

According to AP, the policies the AMA endorsed at its annual policy meeting yesterday include:

Banning gun sales to people younger than 21.

Requiring safety training along with licensing and registration.

Expanding limits on gun ownership — for example, allowing families of potentially suicidal people to seek a court order removing guns from their possession.

https://www.axios.com/american-medical-association-endorses-gun-control-16b9e100-ff8d-4b92-a056-1712bac958b7.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted

Interesting how Axios edited the info.  They linked the Chicago Tribune which states (bold emphasis mine):

Quote

...

AMA delegates voted to adopt several of nearly a dozen gun-related proposals presented by doctor groups that are part of the AMA's membership. They agreed to:

— Support any bans on the purchase or possession of guns and ammunition by people under 21.

— Back laws that would require licensing and safety courses for gun owners and registration of all firearms.

— Press for legislation that would allow relatives of suicidal people or those who have threatened imminent violence to seek court-ordered removal of guns from the home.

— Encourage better training for physicians in how to recognize patients at risk for suicide.

— Push to eliminate loopholes in laws preventing the purchase or possession of guns by people found guilty of domestic violence, including expanding such measures to cover convicted stalkers.

...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-ama-gun-violence-20180612-story.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

They are close to the list of measures I listed earlier, but they went too far IMO (especially with the bits that I bolded).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15208

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Requiring safety training along with licensing and registration.

How about no.  Need yet another recent reason ?  How about this unconstitutional sack of dog shit coming out of Deerfield, IL.  Citizens have a week to turn in their black rifles or face $1,000/day fine. The town council has given the police permission to go to homes and confiscate anything they deem to be an assault weapon (which they give a vague description of meaning it can be whatever they say it is).  Good way to get people killed.

And that pesky 4th amendment is not just violated, but burned, shredded, and it's ashes scattered to the winds.  Oh, and Perkins, Coie is representing the township pro bono...

Now, where have I seen that name before???

Thankfully, a Lake County circuit judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking it.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
XYZ

XYZ 2154

Posted
Posted

I know that there isn’t such thing as a referendum at the federal level, but assuming that there were a national referendum asking the question “should the second amendment be removed from the constitution?”, which side do y’all think would win right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
Just now, XYZ said:

I know that there isn’t such thing as a referendum at the federal level, but assuming that there were a national referendum asking the question “should the second amendment be removed from the constitution?”, which side do y’all think would win right now?

The side with the guns would win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted

I got two emails over the last few days.  Local police dept. is conducting 3 days of training at the local high school.  The emails were warning citizens that there would be a very heavy police presence at the school and not to be alarmed.  They are training for active shooter response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3648

Posted
Posted
On 6/13/2018 at 7:03 PM, XYZ said:

I know that there isn’t such thing as a referendum at the federal level, but assuming that there were a national referendum asking the question “should the second amendment be removed from the constitution?”, which side do y’all think would win right now?

Non-repeal.  It'd be the most one-sided national vote ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted

I got an email from my son's school yesterday...

Quote

This afternoon, two students at Friendswood High School made verbal threats toward the high school.  Based on the content of the threats, the students were taken into custody by the Friendswood Police Department and charged with Terroristic Threat.  We take all verbal threats seriously and report all threats to law enforcement.

smh.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13409

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, LongestHorn said:

Some of the worst massacres in recent memory have had something in common: the AR-15 style rifle. Scott Pelley reports on why the high-velocity rounds used in the gun makes it so deadly

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-used-mass-shootings-weapon-of-choice-60-minutes/

 

I don’t know what was more sad about that story:  that it’s easy to forgot the individual mass shootings or that small children are being taught to treat gunshot wounds in response to the mass shooting epidemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28705

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

This would be my guess.  There are guns that would be just as, if not more effective but that doesn’t fit the narrative so I’ll let it lie. 

None of them belong in the hands of the civilian population. If you own one then you're part of the market that allows for the legal manufacture and distribution of millions of those weapons, some of which are used for mass murders. If twenty people are killed with an assault rifle where, say, only eight people would've been killed with a 9mm handgun, you've got the blood of a dozen people on your hands. Because you can own one, a mass murderer can own one and more innocent people get killed. The people who own them are all complicit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

None of them belong in the hands of the civilian population. If you own one then you're part of the market that allows for the legal manufacture and distribution of millions of those weapons, some of which are used for mass murders. If twenty people are killed with an assault rifle where, say, only eight people would've been killed with a 9mm handgun, you've got the blood of a dozen people on your hands. Because you can own one, a mass murderer can own one and more innocent people get killed. The people who own them are all complicit.  

As someone who owns many, you are right. I am. We are. 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You sound like the NRA. Congrats

 WTB does have a point that gun culture/consumption is part of the problem but the truth is everyone is complicit to some degree. 

We didn’t always have a mass shooter problem like we do now.  Someone buying an AR-15 decades ago has little to do with it. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...