Gun laws and control

[Charger]

Legal gun owner 1

Bad guy 0

https://concealednation.org/2019/05/father-saves-entire-family-and-stops-home-invader-with-head-shot-in-california/?fbclid=IwAR2tTeT0aRfEbDM7jOPXtZ1YJ5MlTUEP9ejkhwDdA1yP0MNTfX8Z_qjQJKc

[Typhon]

^^^^^^

[Vyn]

Good shoot. I wonder how hard the DA is going to go after the homeowner. California, man.

[Zzzptm]

Legal gun owner who turned out to be a bad guy: 0

City of Virginia Beach : -12

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/us/virginia-beach-shooting-sunday/index.html

[Typhon]

[Zzzptm]

^ So you're saying you wanted the Muslims in Christchurch to be armed while they attended services? But that view is inconsistent with one that holds Muslims to be almost entirely made up of radicals, dangerous to the world and at war with the West.

No. This guy is your political next-door neighbor. We're going to see more of his ilk because the right refuses to properly police itself and to make clear the distinctions between political conservatism and hateful racist/nationalist ideologies. Those extremists are tolerated by many on the right and encouraged by enough for them to grow in influence and reach. The Christchurch murderer was motivated by the very "We are at war with Islam" comment we were discussing in another thread. Acts such as this one stem directly from that sort of propaganda.

If someone in the mosque had a weapon and used it to incapacitate or kill the Christchurch murderer, he would still have made a symbolic attack on a mosque and would still be a martyr to the movement. As for casualties, I agree with the NZ government. Pass laws to make classes of weapons illegal so that they are more difficult to obtain, thereby reducing the frequency of attacks such as these. They cannot be eliminated, but they can be reduced in frequency.

[Zzzptm]

Now to call BS on the video's logic. This Christchurch shooting compares to the Orlando nightclub shooting of 2016. Similar crowd, similar body count.

Would armed individuals in the nightclub have stopped that shooter? Let's say the answer is yes. The follow-on question is, what else would happen if people carried weapons into places where they intended to get drunk and where emotions could flare occasionally?



In every other industrialized nation that has limited access to firearms in the wake of a mass shooting, the frequency of those mass shootings has decreased substantially. The decreases are, in fact, steeper than the decreases in available, legal firearms.

This was the first mass shooting in NZ since 1997. Let that sink in - first since 1997. Taking 1997 and 2019 as bookends, NZ has had 56 killed due to mass shootings in 2 events. The USA has had 984 in 140 events. Take 2019 out and NZ has only 6 killed in one event - 1997. Take 2019 out of the US numbers, and the USA totals go down to in 951 in 133 events. True the US population is 65 times that of NZ, but 6 in one times 95 equals 570 in 95, both far below the actual numbers. The USA is disproportionately mass-murder-y and I look at our lax gun controls as the primary contributing factor.

Looking over the list of 140 mass shootings in the USA since 1997, there were names of places that I thought I'd never forget, but have forgotten due to the sheer volume of mass shootings. I hate to say it, but there's enough in there to make for a rousing round of trivia.

Quick, name 6 of the 8 elementary or high schools where a mass shooting has taken place since the Sandy Hook shooting of December 2012!

Name the two airports that were scenes of mass shootings after 2012. For a bonus, name the two military facilities that were sites of mass shootings in that same interval. 

Name the mass killing that involved an Uber driver.

Name the shooting at a Texas church that had 27 fatalities that took place just over a month after the Las Vegas shooting.

I could go on and on, but I wish I couldn't. We forget these supposedly "never forget" moments because there are so many of them. We need better gun controls so that the tragedies are infrequent enough that they truly do stand out. The first big one - Whitman's sniper murders from the UT tower - absolutely stands out because it was the first. But do we now recall the event that first exceeded that death toll? Hint, it was in 1984, and we thought then we'd never forget it.

[Zzzptm]

Holy smokes, my USA numbers were low because I used the Wikipedia summary page for years since 2012 and not the Wiki pages for each year, which have more detail. This is outrageous... For example, the summary page shows 33 dead in 7 mass shootings in 2019. There have actually been 153 in the year to date. Shootings, that is. Deaths from mass shootings stands at 149 year to date, with 607 injuries.

Of course, injury could mean anything from a hard scrape on up to a limb being shot off or part of a jaw or skull being shot away.

It should also be noted that definitions of mass shootings vary. Wikipedia cites 6 definitions and then notes that only incidents that satisfy at least two of those definitions are counted... so that means there are other incidents with multiple shootings, but because they were spread out over time or did not meet a casualty threshold, they were not accounted in the Wikipedia page.

Pass some laws, already, this is unacceptable.

[Vyn]

[Typhon]

^ So you're saying you wanted the Muslims in Christchurch to be armed while they attended services? But that view is inconsistent with one that holds Muslims to be almost entirely made up of radicals, dangerous to the world and at war with the West.

No. This guy is your political next-door neighbor.

For the record, Matt Christiansen, although not a registered Democrat, has voted democrat over 80% of the time in his life.  So you should find out more about a person before trying to label them.  Matt is definitely to the left of me (although he seems to be smartening up  ).  I suppose now you will go ahead and label me.   

[Zzzptm]

^ So you're saying you wanted the Muslims in Christchurch to be armed while they attended services? But that view is inconsistent with one that holds Muslims to be almost entirely made up of radicals, dangerous to the world and at war with the West.

No. This guy is your political next-door neighbor.

For the record, Matt Christiansen, although not a registered Democrat, has voted democrat over 80% of the time in his life.  So you should find out more about a person before trying to label them.  Matt is definitely to the left of me (although he seems to be smartening up  ).  I suppose now you will go ahead and label me.   

So *now* you do some research.

Very well, he may not be next door, but it looks like he's checking out your neighborhood. All the same, I'm not going to agree with him. Reducing access to weapons means reducing the death toll from those weapons over time, it's as simple as that. We've seen it all around the industrialized world, it's time we went down the path that actually works.

[Typhon]

MC's complaint was that New Zealand banned everything!  Even you're not saying that.

[Zzzptm]

Yeah, whatever he's saying, I'm not agreeing with in general.

[Vyn]

Colt has stopped selling AR-15 rifles to civilians. For those that aren't aware, Colt owns the trademark for AR15 and AR-15. I guess they don't own AR 15 lol. Anyway, the timing is interesting even though it is strictly a financial move.

[Charger]

Well I'm assuming the civilian market has been marginal anyways. Probably over 95% goes to law enforcement and military use.

I remember reading about Colt starting the development for the replacement of the AR in the near future.