Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-other-mass-shooting-that-happened-today-in-the-united-states/

Unsure if mentioned, but San Bernardino was not the only mass shooting yesterday.

Sad times

"Mass shooting"

One person died and three were injured... Sounds like a Wednesday in Chicago

...

That's what a mass shooting is. You don't have to have dozens of people killed for it to be a mass shooting.

We as a nation have chosen to accept gun rights and regulations where they are, and that includes accepting that these mass shootings will occur with the given regularity. For those who argue in favor of more restriction on fireararms in order to reduce mass shootings, remember that you will need to prove that such restrictions will indeed reduce such crimes. For those who argue against changes to gun regulation, remember that you must either prove that there is a negligible association between level of restriction and gun crime, or admit that you accept the current regularity of mass shootings.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not sure where you're from, but here the driver's test is something you do with a person in the car with you who instructs you to do different things to judge your ability.

Not sure of your point here- in Tennessee a carry permit requires you attend a class with an instructor, followed by a trip to the firing range where you have an instructor watch you load and fire the weapon.

Relevant. Haven't read it, so someone will have to let me know whether it's factual or more buzzwords.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

 jreilly89 wrote:
Relevant. Haven't read it, so someone will have to let me know whether it's factual or more buzzwords.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

Another take on the Aussie gun buy back: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-18/opinion/chi-the-failure-of-gun-control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

In part:

You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All that's required to buy a car is money. The driver's licence is to prove you have passed the training course to operate one safely. It allows you to drive any car you are qualified for. You also need insurance, of course.

or a cash bond.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What other rights are you willing to give up?

Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?

I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.

Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.

Translation, civil war. Bring it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What other rights are you willing to give up?

Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?

I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.

Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.

Translation, civil war. Bring it.

Frazz', for it to be repealed, you need 2/3rds of both parties, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. At that point, people objecting to it would be well in the minority, and those willing to go to war over it even less. Civil war would not happen, and even if it did, it would be over quickly (a bunch of civilans with semi-auto rifles, versus the US Armed Forces, who do you think would win that fight?).

 CptJake wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Relevant. Haven't read it, so someone will have to let me know whether it's factual or more buzzwords.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

Another take on the Aussie gun buy back: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-18/opinion/chi-the-failure-of-gun-control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

In part:

You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.

Another way to look at that is they don't have a mass shooting every day.

and why would you quote an american paper for statistics in australia?

Why shouldn't he? American opnion writers are well known to be neutral observers when it comes to gun rights.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What other rights are you willing to give up?

Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?

I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.

Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.

Translation, civil war. Bring it.

Frazz', for it to be repealed, you need 2/3rds of both parties, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. At that point, people objecting to it would be well in the minority, and those willing to go to war over it even less. Civil war would not happen, and even if it did, it would be over quickly (a bunch of civilans with semi-auto rifles, versus the US Armed Forces, who do you think would win that fight?).

Ask how it went in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Now change that number to millions, with military units defecting.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...

That's what a mass shooting is. You don't have to have dozens of people killed for it to be a mass shooting.

Which is disingenuous because when people think of "Mass shootings" they think of nutjobs shooting up schools or terrorism. Not a gang shootout which hurt more than 2 people. But the left-wing is more than happy to pad the numbers with those events to make people think that there some sort of epidemic.

The definition should be altered to be a better representation of reality. Both number of victims and motive should be considered.

 jasper76 wrote:
Why shouldn't he? American opnion writers are well known to be neutral observers when it comes to gun rights.

Read the report. Find figures that prove your view point. Dispute what it says.

Or, you know, just mock the source.


https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40534/1/MPRA_paper_40534.pdf (not an American study by the way)

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Why shouldn't he? American opnion writers are well known to be neutral observers when it comes to gun rights.

Read the report. Find figures that prove your view point. Dispute what it says.

Or, you know, just mock the source.

I don't have a point of view on Australia's buy back program. Kind of hard to form one when you have two articales, one touting it as a major success, the other arguing it was only a minor success. Just pointing out that American opinion writers are not well known for objectivity when it comes to gun issues....on both sides.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...

That's what a mass shooting is. You don't have to have dozens of people killed for it to be a mass shooting.

Which is disingenuous because when people think of "Mass shootings" they think of nutjobs shooting up schools or terrorism. Not a gang shootout which hurt more than 2 people. But the left-wing is more than happy to pad the numbers with those events to make people think that there some sort of epidemic.

The definition should be altered to be a better representation of reality. Both number of victims and motive should be considered.

'Hurt more than two people' seems like a pretty good definition of 'mass shooting' to me.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What other rights are you willing to give up?

Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?

I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.

Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.

Translation, civil war. Bring it.

Frazz', for it to be repealed, you need 2/3rds of both parties, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. At that point, people objecting to it would be well in the minority, and those willing to go to war over it even less. Civil war would not happen, and even if it did, it would be over quickly (a bunch of civilans with semi-auto rifles, versus the US Armed Forces, who do you think would win that fight?).

Ask how it went in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Now change that number to millions, with military units defecting.

Did you not read what I just said? 2/3rds majority in both houses and 3/4ths of the states. Meaning that any attempt to make a civil war will not have popular support. That's the point. It's not that an armed uprising couldn't sucseed if it was big enough, it's that it most probably won't happen, and, even if it does, will be nowhere near big enough. Were talking about something that would have to be extremely popular to do. This isn't something like a 55/45 split, we're talking 75-80/25-20 split. And even if that 25-20% rises up, they will be absolutely crushed by the other 75-80%, resulting in mindless death all round for no real difference.

I agree with Spinners definition, and I wonder why there is so much antipathy towards using the words "mass shooting". Anyone care to enlighten? And if we shouldn't use he term "mass shooting" , what's a better term to use?

I think the baseline is four (usually), but there really is no cut and dry definition.

 Spinner wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...

That's what a mass shooting is. You don't have to have dozens of people killed for it to be a mass shooting.

Which is disingenuous because when people think of "Mass shootings" they think of nutjobs shooting up schools or terrorism. Not a gang shootout which hurt more than 2 people. But the left-wing is more than happy to pad the numbers with those events to make people think that there some sort of epidemic.

The definition should be altered to be a better representation of reality. Both number of victims and motive should be considered.

'Hurt more than two people' seems like a pretty good definition of 'mass shooting' to me.

No, its a terrible definition because it is irrespective of motive.

There is a huge difference between a gang shootout and someone shooting up a school, and they have 2 very different solutions(neither of which has anything to do with taking away guns).

Focusing on guns is like walking into a room, seeing one toddler beating up another toddler with a toy dinosaur and just taking away all the toys and leaving. You have not solved anything, all you've done is made the bully have to use his fists instead and now nobody has toys to play with.

IMO, Mass Shootings should be defined as attacks, or attempted attacks, meant to kill more than 4 people and attempting to make a political or social statement.

@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What other rights are you willing to give up?

Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?

I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.

Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.

Translation, civil war. Bring it.

Frazz', for it to be repealed, you need 2/3rds of both parties, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. At that point, people objecting to it would be well in the minority, and those willing to go to war over it even less. Civil war would not happen, and even if it did, it would be over quickly (a bunch of civilans with semi-auto rifles, versus the US Armed Forces, who do you think would win that fight?).

Ask how it went in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Now change that number to millions, with military units defecting.

I'm fairly certain that both Vietnam and Afghanistans 'rebels' were both trained and equipped by the united states. Iraq is, well Iraq, we've made a big enough obvious mess there.

Now with that in mind do you really think the average fellow with his taticool assault rifel is going to stand much chance against our military? You know with drones and Abrahams tanks being a thing?

Even with possble military units defecting, who do you think the powers of the world are going to back? I sincerely doubt france will be opening supply lines to a bunch of guys who's rally cry is "Feth you, don't touch our guns!"

In all honesty it would probably be over very quickly and be rather embarressing.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.

If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.

If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.

So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.

Do we? I haven't noticed that. I don't think of a mass shooting as necessarily linked to ideology or a school shooting.

(Also, I was under the impression that mass shootings are ALL criminal in nature, 'cause, you know. Murder.)

lonestarr777 wrote:
You know with drones and Abrahams tanks being a thing?

Tanks are useless unless you are dealing with other tanks or entrenched positions. Fighting against an insurgency or in any type of urban setting and they become massive liabilities. You're just going to waste tons of fuel and lose most of your vehicles.

Drones are also only as good as your ability to identify the enemy. They're not better than aircraft, only having the advantage of being able to stay in the air longer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.

Do we? I haven't noticed that. I don't think of a mass shooting as necessarily linked to ideology or a school shooting.

(Also, I was under the impression that mass shootings are ALL criminal in nature, 'cause, you know. Murder.)

By Criminal I mean they have criminal motivations, not ideological. Usually tied to the drug trade. Tons of people get murdered over drugs or in robberies all the time. But this is clearly a different problem than a nutter going postal.

But here's the point, it won't ever result in an effective civil war because a vast majority of people would have to support it for it to pass. 2/3rds of both houses of both houses and 3/4ths of the states.

Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?

The entire line of thinking is completely absurd. Is it worth it to risk your own life and the lives of your family and friends just to keep a hobby?

'Sorry son, but your life is worth risking if it means I get to keep my AK.'

I'm fairly certain that both Vietnam and Afghanistans 'rebels' were both trained and equipped by the united states.

Victor Charlie was trained by the US? Son you need to get to a library and pronto.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?

The entire line of thinking is completely absurd. Is it worth it to risk your own life and the lives of your family and friends just to keep a hobby?

'Sorry son, but your life is worth risking if it means I get to keep my AK.'

Sweden, meet Texas.

But to be fair, gun ownership is more than a hobby. I personally live in an area where cops would take quite a while to reach, so home defense is a legit concern. Also, although I can afford food, I use a rifle once a year to bring in venison.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?

The entire line of thinking is completely absurd. Is it worth it to risk your own life and the lives of your family and friends just to keep a hobby?

'Sorry son, but your life is worth risking if it means I get to keep my AK.'

What right do they come for next? Freedom of speech? Nobody needs that, far more people are abusing it to hurt people's feelings than ever got hurt because of guns. Lets restrict that one too. And that Freedom of Religion thing, can't have the "bad religions" be allowed to remain. They hurt too many people. No freedom of the press or assembly either, they might incite riots or gather to discuss how to hurt people.