-Shrike- wrote: You have to pass several tests to get a driver's license, I assume.
They are joke. Clearly demonstrated by the millions of deaths and car wrecks every year.
Background checks and forms for guns are a joke, clearly demonstrated by the (number) of deaths and injuries every year. That either set of tests and checks can't/don't prevent death and injury doesn't mean that the measures aren't there, which could lead to a driving license being more difficult to obtain than a concealed carry license. Do you actually have to be tested on whether you know how to properly operate a firearm?
Actually they work FANTASTICLY. How about the millions of legal gun owners who have never hurt anyone?
WrentheFaceless wrote: You'd think that chart would at least use other countries with comparable populations.
How many countries have 300mm people or more?
Just 3
Here is tonight's Top Ten List:
Rank Country Population 1. China - 1,321,851,888 2. India - 1,129,866,154 3. United States - 301,139,947 4. Indonesia - 234,693,997 5. Brazil - 190,010,647 6. Pakistan - 169,270,617 7. Bangladesh - 150,448,339 8. Russia - 141,377,752 9. Nigeria - 135,031,164 10. Japan - 127,467,972
Edit: How does Japan have 127 million living on those tiny islands?
Gordon Shumway wrote: I wonder if I wouldn't be easier (and perhaps more productive) if we were able to restrict a different right in order to curb these mass shootings: the right of freedom of the press. Would it be possible to pass some sort of law that limits what the press can report on for national security reasons? We do it with military intelligence. Could we also do it with domestic violence like this?
For example, the press could report the story, and interview willing family victims, but the name and identity of the shooter could not be revealed or discussed in the news. Nor could the actual details of the specific actions. It might limit the celebritization of these killers.
I think an honest critique is needed.
While you're on the right track, we don't need laws to restrict information. For example:
When was the last time you saw a streaker run across a base diamond or football field on TV? It's because the TV producers knows that by NOT showing the streaker, you'll reduce the occurances in the future as your reducing that publicity slant.
Another topic, is how society these days seems to treat boys.
WrentheFaceless wrote: You'd think that chart would at least use other countries with comparable populations.
How many countries have 300mm people or more?
Just 3
Here is tonight's Top Ten List:
Rank Country Population
1. China - 1,321,851,888
2. India - 1,129,866,154
3. United States - 301,139,947
4. Indonesia - 234,693,997
5. Brazil - 190,010,647
6. Pakistan - 169,270,617
7. Bangladesh - 150,448,339
8. Russia - 141,377,752
9. Nigeria - 135,031,164
10. Japan - 127,467,972
Well the numbers from 3 on down to 10 would probably be a more fair comparason than countries with 80 or less that all the small European countries have.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I wonder if I wouldn't be easier (and perhaps more productive) if we were able to restrict a different right in order to curb these mass shootings: the right of freedom of the press. Would it be possible to pass some sort of law that limits what the press can report on for national security reasons? We do it with military intelligence. Could we also do it with domestic violence like this?
For example, the press could report the story, and interview willing family victims, but the name and identity of the shooter could not be revealed or discussed in the news. Nor could the actual details of the specific actions. It might limit the celebritization of these killers.
This would probably be one of the most effective routes, but I don't think it's possible to restrict, and I don't think it's possible to be effective, *someone* will leak *something* *somewhere*. In the age of the internet, I just don't think it's possible.
It's one thing for military things where only a small number of people will ever be "in the know", and actions are typically in remote locations with professional, trustworthy personnel. It's another when something happens in a public, domestic location affecting hundreds or thousands of people.
That said, I think the media need to do some self policing and cut down their circle-jerk fest over the shooters. The media extravaganza they put on for each of these guys needs to be toned down.
CptJake wrote: Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.
Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.
The definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more people, it was used this way in 2013. With the same definition the number is already up and there will be a lot more in the coming months. They might just be 4 people groupings, or they can be sandy hook numbers, only time will tell. Isn't it sad we can predict how many more there will be. Because nothing is being done to slow the trend, or stop the trend.
Uh... The US has been trending downwards...
Besides: Mass shooting isn't unique to US... and the worst rates, are countries having more restrictive Gun Controls.
That is not showing a downward trend, and look at columns 2 and 4, america is far in the lead above all other shown countries combined. America leading the world in rampage fatalities and incidents.
In raw numbers... sure. But not compared to overall population... which is more meaningful.
Have you noticed that the number of incidents is mostly one or two for all the other countries in the chosen time frame? That makes it rather meaningless to compare the rates, i.e. if you look at the same data for any other five year interval the ranking will change dramatically. It's less useless if you combine the data for all the displayed european countries or accumulate the data for much longer periods.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I wonder if I wouldn't be easier (and perhaps more productive) if we were able to restrict a different right in order to curb these mass shootings: the right of freedom of the press. Would it be possible to pass some sort of law that limits what the press can report on for national security reasons? We do it with military intelligence. Could we also do it with domestic violence like this?
For example, the press could report the story, and interview willing family victims, but the name and identity of the shooter could not be revealed or discussed in the news. Nor could the actual details of the specific actions. It might limit the celebritization of these killers.
I think an honest critique is needed.
While you're on the right track, we don't need laws to restrict information. For example:
When was the last time you saw a streaker run across a base diamond or football field on TV? It's because the TV producers knows that by NOT showing the streaker, you'll reduce the occurances in the future as your reducing that publicity slant.
Another topic, is how society these days seems to treat boys.
But there are actually laws against that via the FCC, aren't there? I know cable can largely do what it wants, but can CNN or Fox show nudity if they want? If so, why arent they, dammit?
-Shrike- wrote: You have to pass several tests to get a driver's license, I assume.
They are joke. Clearly demonstrated by the millions of deaths and car wrecks every year.
Background checks and forms for guns are a joke, clearly demonstrated by the (number) of deaths and injuries every year. That either set of tests and checks can't/don't prevent death and injury doesn't mean that the measures aren't there, which could lead to a driving license being more difficult to obtain than a concealed carry license. Do you actually have to be tested on whether you know how to properly operate a firearm?
Actually they work FANTASTICLY. How about the millions of legal gun owners who have never hurt anyone?
How about the millions of legal car owners who have never hurt anyone? Come on, please say you could see this reply coming...
Edit: How does Japan have 127 million living on those tiny islands?
Is it crowded over there?
Not really, most of the population is along the shore line, the middle is mostly mountainous. around Tokyo is a large sprawling city, the further north and south you go the more rural it gets.
on the car tangent, getting a car over there is quite the ordeal. you first need to prove you have a place to park it, before you can buy one.
It's a bit more of an analysis of the factors to be topics of research, It's a good start ...just what I want to read on a friday night . Good to see I'm wrong about no research being carried out
For example, the press could report the story, and interview willing family victims, but the name and identity of the shooter could not be revealed or discussed in the news. Nor could the actual details of the specific actions. It might limit the celebritization of these killers.
Can you see that happening though? I'd imagine there would be calls of impingement on press liberties as well as it would be likely that the details would get out, probably online, then the press could have the excuse that they were being penalised as the details which "people want to hear" are on other media platforms.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I wonder if I wouldn't be easier (and perhaps more productive) if we were able to restrict a different right in order to curb these mass shootings: the right of freedom of the press. Would it be possible to pass some sort of law that limits what the press can report on for national security reasons? We do it with military intelligence. Could we also do it with domestic violence like this?
For example, the press could report the story, and interview willing family victims, but the name and identity of the shooter could not be revealed or discussed in the news. Nor could the actual details of the specific actions. It might limit the celebritization of these killers.
This would probably be one of the most effective routes, but I don't think it's possible to restrict, and I don't think it's possible to be effective, *someone* will leak *something* *somewhere*. In the age of the internet, I just don't think it's possible.
It's one thing for military things where only a small number of people will ever be "in the know", and actions are typically in remote locations with professional, trustworthy personnel. It's another when something happens in a public, domestic location affecting hundreds or thousands of people.
That said, I think the media need to do some self policing and cut down their circle-jerk fest over the shooters. The media extravaganza they put on for each of these guys needs to be toned down.
Of course people will know who did it, just talk to any of the students, but without the megaphone of national news reporting that knows if it bleeds, it leads, the focus might be shifted elsewhere (heartbroken families) as opposed to the national notoriety of the killer.
Rank Country Population
1. China - 1,321,851,888
2. India - 1,129,866,154
3. United States - 301,139,947
4. Indonesia - 234,693,997
5. Brazil - 190,010,647
6. Pakistan - 169,270,617
7. Bangladesh - 150,448,339
8. Russia - 141,377,752
9. Nigeria - 135,031,164
10. Japan - 127,467,972
Well the numbers from 3 on down to 10 would probably be a more fair comparason than countries with 80 or less that all the small European countries have.
Of 3-10, the US has a lower homicide rate than Russia, Nigera, Pakistan, and Brazil.
Rank Country Population 1. China - 1,321,851,888 2. India - 1,129,866,154 3. United States - 301,139,947 4. Indonesia - 234,693,997 5. Brazil - 190,010,647 6. Pakistan - 169,270,617 7. Bangladesh - 150,448,339 8. Russia - 141,377,752 9. Nigeria - 135,031,164 10. Japan - 127,467,972
Well the numbers from 3 on down to 10 would probably be a more fair comparason than countries with 80 or less that all the small European countries have.
Of 3-10, the US has a lower homicide rate than Russia, Nigera, Pakistan, and Brazil.
We're number 4 (of those 4 countries listed)! We're number 4 (of those 4 countries listed)!
Edit: Quotes got messed up. I did the exhaustive population count of those 10 countries and helped add to the Generation Kronk by making deposits with the local MILFs.
Rank Country Population
1. China - 1,321,851,888
2. India - 1,129,866,154
3. United States - 301,139,947
4. Indonesia - 234,693,997
5. Brazil - 190,010,647
6. Pakistan - 169,270,617
7. Bangladesh - 150,448,339
8. Russia - 141,377,752
9. Nigeria - 135,031,164
10. Japan - 127,467,972
Well the numbers from 3 on down to 10 would probably be a more fair comparason than countries with 80 or less that all the small European countries have.
Of 3-10, the US has a lower homicide rate than Russia, Nigera, Pakistan, and Brazil.
Ok, that may be true, but how many between the countries are gun related, and proportion there of?
@Onemannoodles wrote: Can you see that happening though? I'd imagine there would be calls of impingement on press liberties as well as it would be likely that the details would get out, probably online, then the press could have the excuse that they were being penalised as the details which "people want to hear" are on other media platforms.
I can see it happening if there is a reason for it to happen (certainly guns rights restrictions are being discussed now). And there would definately be calls of press infringement liberties, which is good, let's hash it out openly. Pro and con. I just think if it weren't for the national press corps constantly celebritizing these people, the focus would go elsewhere. Yeah, if you really wanted to know, you could find it online (what can't you find online?). If I wanted to watch an ISIS beheading online, I could. I would just like to see the national media to use the same restraint in these cases as well. Since they don't seem willing on their own to self govern, would it be possible to pass a law to restrict them in some way? I genuinely don't know.
As an aside, how does one quote just a part of someone else's comment? I'm old and don't know such things.
The gunman’s father, Ian Mercer, said he was “just as shocked as everybody” at his son’s actions
Poor bastard.
Evidently my best friend's dad was good friends with the dad back when they lived in England. To the point that he (my friend) has been on holiday to their house, and knew the shooter a few years back.
-Shrike- wrote: You have to pass several tests to get a driver's license, I assume.
They are joke. Clearly demonstrated by the millions of deaths and car wrecks every year.
Background checks and forms for guns are a joke, clearly demonstrated by the (number) of deaths and injuries every year. That either set of tests and checks can't/don't prevent death and injury doesn't mean that the measures aren't there, which could lead to a driving license being more difficult to obtain than a concealed carry license. Do you actually have to be tested on whether you know how to properly operate a firearm?
Actually they work FANTASTICLY. How about the millions of legal gun owners who have never hurt anyone?
How about the millions of legal car owners who have never hurt anyone? Come on, please say you could see this reply coming...
For cars, we require a minimum age to operate, licensing to exhibit competency, insurance to cover costs if you injure yourself or others, or their property, and registration with the state.
Ok, that may be true, but how many between the countries are gun related, and proportion there of?
Are you claiming being killed with a gun is worse than being killed with a knife or a club or a fist?
I'm claiming in a topic about gun violence, numbers showing comparable gun violence is more relevant than how many people got stabbed, or the overall violence numbers
How 'horrible' your death is with one object or another is irrelevant, nor was it mentioned.
Ok, that may be true, but how many between the countries are gun related, and proportion there of?
Are you claiming being killed with a gun is worse than being killed with a knife or a club or a fist?
I'm claiming in a topic about gun violence, numbers showing comparable gun violence is more relevant than how many people got stabbed, or the overall violence numbers
How 'horrible' your death is with one object or another is irrelevant, nor was it mentioned.
The point is that simply looking at the numbers just for guns is taking things in a vacuum, many people who would be killed by guns would just as easily be killed with other weapons, the gun just happened to be what was on-hand at the time. There's all sorts of things just looking at "guns" misses.
Looking at other developed nations relative to the US, even if you cut out every single firearm homicide, the US would still have a notably higher homicide rate than most other developed nations. This would indicate that the US has a problem with violence in general, and that focusing on the particular tools used to kill is missing the more fundamental problems of why violence and homicide rates in the US are higher than other developed nations.
America has some unique socio-economic challenges that drive violence in ways that don't express themselves at the same rate as in other developed nations, and, fundamentally, Americans are quite simply willing to accept more risk in exchange for more freedom, whether its speech, firearms, or anything else. You can do and say things in the US that would get you thrown in prison in most of Europe, just as we can own weapons that most Europeans cannot.
-Shrike- wrote: You have to pass several tests to get a driver's license, I assume.
They are joke. Clearly demonstrated by the millions of deaths and car wrecks every year.
Background checks and forms for guns are a joke, clearly demonstrated by the (number) of deaths and injuries every year. That either set of tests and checks can't/don't prevent death and injury doesn't mean that the measures aren't there, which could lead to a driving license being more difficult to obtain than a concealed carry license. Do you actually have to be tested on whether you know how to properly operate a firearm?
Actually they work FANTASTICLY. How about the millions of legal gun owners who have never hurt anyone?
How about the millions of legal car owners who have never hurt anyone? Come on, please say you could see this reply coming...
For cars, we require a minimum age to operate, licensing to exhibit competency, insurance to cover costs if you injure yourself or others, or their property, and registration with the state.
No. I can legally purchase a car without having a drivers license and without having insurance. I only need those if I choose to drive the car on public roads. I can buy all the cars I can afford and keep them on my property without having a license or insurance. I cannot legally purchase a pistol in my state without passing a background check, getting three people to provide a character reference for me and submitting them and the appropriate forms to the county sheriff and waiting for the sherrif to send me a pistol purchase permit which can be revoked at any time, is good for the purchase of only one pistol and I have to keep a record of the sale. I can have no insurance, have a revoked license for multiple duis and still legally own a car.
Psienesis wrote: More freedom than... where, again? There's not many things that are freedoms in the US that are not in Europe, outside the possession of firearms.
Economy. By a long shot. EU is extremely restrictive towards companies compared to the US.
-Shrike- wrote: You have to pass several tests to get a driver's license, I assume.
They are joke. Clearly demonstrated by the millions of deaths and car wrecks every year.
Background checks and forms for guns are a joke, clearly demonstrated by the (number) of deaths and injuries every year. That either set of tests and checks can't/don't prevent death and injury doesn't mean that the measures aren't there, which could lead to a driving license being more difficult to obtain than a concealed carry license. Do you actually have to be tested on whether you know how to properly operate a firearm?
Actually they work FANTASTICLY. How about the millions of legal gun owners who have never hurt anyone?
How about the millions of legal car owners who have never hurt anyone? Come on, please say you could see this reply coming...
For cars, we require a minimum age to operate, licensing to exhibit competency, insurance to cover costs if you injure yourself or others, or their property, and registration with the state.
No. I can legally purchase a car without having a drivers license and without having insurance. I only need those if I choose to drive the car on public roads. I can buy all the cars I can afford and keep them on my property without having a license or insurance. I cannot legally purchase a pistol in my state without passing a background check, getting three people to provide a character reference for me and submitting them and the appropriate forms to the county sheriff and waiting for the sherrif to send me a pistol purchase permit which can be revoked at any time, is good for the purchase of only one pistol and I have to keep a record of the sale. I can have no insurance, have a revoked license for multiple duis and still legally own a car.
Which is comparable to the Drivers License process, not the actual purchase of a car, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Sounds like your state does it right, most states dont, and the inconsistency is a problem. Getting a Drivers License is fairly consistant across the country as far as I'm aware.
It maybe one of those "truths" that really isn't true, but I think men are usually more likely to commit violent suicide whereas women commit "nice" suicide.
Going down in a spray of bullets may be an extension of that?
Psienesis wrote: More freedom than... where, again? There's not many things that are freedoms in the US that are not in Europe, outside the possession of firearms.
Freedom of speech/expression is less there than here. Like you can't have Swastikas and other Nazi paraphernalia in Germany. And as I recall some guy was arrested for Hate Speech for a rude facebook post or something.
Almost all mass shootings have been carried out by marginalized individuals with mental health issues. They feel that they do not have a voice. They feel unimportant. They believe that in death they can have a platform for their views and be legitimized in doing so. And every single time the media does it. They publish manifestos. They devote hours of talking incessantly and speculating about why the acts were carried out. And it reaches a new audience. Those who also feel marginalized. That have trouble integrating with society. This person was sadly right when he said the more people you kill the more limelight you get. So the next sick person who feels marginalized, and who can relate to this killer knows that if he wants to be heard, to have a voice, to leave his mark on society all he has to do is to make himself a martyr for his beliefs. In their eyes if other people have to suffer along the way then so be it.
Maybe with this incident we are turning the corner. We are celebrating and giving thanks to those who willingly put their lives at risk to stop the shooter.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Almost all mass shootings have been carried out by marginalized individuals with mental health issues. They feel that they do not have a voice. They feel unimportant. They believe that in death they can have a platform for their views and be legitimized in doing so. And every single time the media does it. They publish manifestos. They devote hours of talking incessantly and speculating about why the acts were carried out. And it reaches a new audience. Those who also feel marginalized. That have trouble integrating with society. This person was sadly right when he said the more people you kill the more limelight you get. So the next sick person who feels marginalized, and who can relate to this killer knows that if he wants to be heard, to have a voice, to leave his mark on society all he has to do is to make himself a martyr for his beliefs. In their eyes if other people have to suffer along the way then so be it.
Maybe with this incident we are turning the corner. We are celebrating and giving thanks to those who willingly put their lives at risk to stop the shooter.
Agreed. Focus on the people killed or were heroic in the situation and don't even worry about the killer. Flush their memory into the obscurity it so richly merits.
Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
From their chart we can see the death count has been on the rise since 04. Is this loss of life really worth allowing people to have guns? I say no, let's repeal the second amendment and replace it with some sanity. To answer yes, and by doing nothing to reduce the gun deaths, accepting this as a fair payment for your right to have a gun, is to say feth you to all the victims.
Have a read:
. Good to see I'm wrong about no research being carried out
