freeman3 wrote:" firearm officers were not needed ". One officer with a taser subdued a guy with a knife . Impressive.

Very.

The problems with tasers: 1) you can't take down more than one suspect; 2) they fail more often than guns; 3) they are more easily taken from the person wielding them.

fate

So, which is the danger, the gun or the ideology?

Its pretty obvious that both the San Bernadino and the recent incident in England were perpetrated by people who were ideologically motivated. But the first were better armed... Which is the point he was trying to make. The guns make the terrorist more dangerous. The lack of guns make them both less dangerous and, as demonstrated in England, easier to resist by unarmed people.

Its also pretty obvious that although ISIS peddles a dangerous perverted version of Islam that is motivating some already alienated people to commit acts of terror ..
its nothing compared to what motivates most mass shooters in the US... Who happen to be young white men. Christians too.

But research shows that mass shootings are primarily committed by white males—the most privileged class in society. So why are they the ones who snap? And is calling them "mentally ill" a way to avoid talking about race?

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-are ... te-men-623
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/27/us/mass-shootings/

There are as many potential mass murderers in other modern nations, like England, Australia etc. Its just that there are fewer mass shootings because the guns aren't as readily available.
How long it will take for that reality to be admitted?

rickyp wrote:fate

So, which is the danger, the gun or the ideology?

Its pretty obvious that both the San Bernadino and the recent incident in England were perpetrated by people who were ideologically motivated. But the first were better armed... Which is the point he was trying to make. The guns make the terrorist more dangerous. The lack of guns make them both less dangerous and, as demonstrated in England, easier to resist by unarmed people.

One person with a knife is less dangerous than two people with guns. Duh.

So what?

We're not going to get rid of the Second Amendment. To do so would require a Second Civil War, which would be short-lived as it would feature those who want guns versus those who do not.

What is more pertinent: the ideology. Had our government, the same one claiming it can vet the Syrian refugees, done a modicum of research, it would have discovered the female Muslim terrorist presented a false name and a fake address. She was radical. He was radical. The evidence is leaking out--even the media trip through their home was enlightening. The only images on their walls were quotations from the Qur'an. Their home screamed "obsessed with Islam." They were in contact with a known ISIS recruiter. If our government was interested, they could have located these folks before the attack or prevented her from entering the country altogether.

However, the great fear of the Obama regime is being anti-Muslim. They would not even release her picture for days. Why?

The Attorney General is warning against language that might appear to incite violence against Muslims. Is she monitoring mosques for language that might incite violence against Americans?

I can't wait for the Feckless One to speak tonight. I wonder what he'll say . . . this attack does not represent Islam . . . Muslims are our friends and neighbors . . . this should have no impact on immigration . . . ISIS is under control . . .

/snooze

Its also pretty obvious that although ISIS peddles a dangerous perverted version of Islam that is motivating some already alienated people to commit acts of terror ..
its nothing compared to what motivates most mass shooters in the US... Who happen to be young white men. Christians too.

But research shows that mass shootings are primarily committed by white males—the most privileged class in society. So why are they the ones who snap? And is calling them "mentally ill" a way to avoid talking about race?

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-are-so-many-mass-shootings-committed-by-young-white-men-623

No indication of religion.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/27/us/mass-shootings/

No indication of religion.

And, in fact, the Mother Jones piece goes back to 1982. Why do you suppose that is?

Answer: because recent shootings are more often motivated by Islam.

There are as many potential mass murderers in other modern nations, like England, Australia etc. Its just that there are fewer mass shootings because the guns aren't as readily available.
How long it will take for that reality to be admitted?

I'll admit it: guns are more available here than in England and Australia. There, feel better?

Now, this is the part where you tell us to change our gun laws and I tell you to mind your own business.

fate

We're not going to get rid of the Second Amendment. To do so would require a Second Civil War, which would be short-lived as it would feature those who want guns versus those who do not.
What is more pertinent: the ideology. Had our government, the same one claiming it can vet the Syrian refugees, done a modicum of research, it would have discovered the female Muslim terrorist presented a false name and a fake address. She was radical. He was radical. The evidence is leaking out--even the media trip through their home was enlightening. The only images on their walls were quotations from the Qur'an. Their home screamed "obsessed with Islam." They were in contact with a known ISIS recruiter. If our government was interested, they could have located these folks before the attack or prevented her from entering the country altogether

.

You seem far more prepared that people should surrender their rights under the 9th and 14th amendments. I guess those liberties have less meaning for an authoritarian like you?
The 2nd amendment doesn't preclude licensing, registration and restricted ownership... Nor is it likely that a democratic end to the 2nd amendment would ever lead to a "civil war".
As much as the "Militias" would like...
You may be right that it would take a lot of blood to move the nation to sensible, rational gun prohibitions and enforcement.

"More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... says-colu/

rickyp wrote:You seem far more prepared that people should surrender their rights under the 9th and 14th amendments. I guess those liberties have less meaning for an authoritarian like you?

??? You're making that up.

The 2nd amendment doesn't preclude licensing, registration and restricted ownership..

I think we have about all you're going to get.

Nor is it likely that a democratic end to the 2nd amendment would ever lead to a "civil war".
As much as the "Militias" would like...

A democratic end won't happen.

You may be right that it would take a lot of blood to move the nation to sensible, rational gun prohibitions and enforcement.

Yeah, prohibitions work so well in the States, don't they . . . alcohol had to be abandoned. Drugs? Illegal immigrants?

"More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... says-colu/

Rubbish. From your link:

In 2013, according to CDC data, 63 percent of gun-related deaths were from suicides, 33 percent were from homicides . . .

So, nearly 2/3 are suicides. Prove to me that if there were no guns all of these people would be alive. You can't.

1/3 are "homicides." That says nothing about whether they were "justifiable" or not.

In any event, stay north of the border. You'll be 100% safe.

While it is possible to get hold of guns in the UK, it's much more difficult than it is in the US and requires you to be actively tapped in to the criminal underground (which is of course heavily monitored by the security services), and even then you'd need to be very well connected. The couple who carried out the San Bernardino killings would never have had access to firearms over here.

It strikes me that Brad and Steve have more or less given up trying to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment and have now fallen back on saying that it exists and isn't going away so to hell with all of your objections. To an extent this is a valid point, but it's a counsel of despair nonetheless and difficult to take seriously. We seem to be getting at least one mass shooting every month these days and I've yet to see any evidence of armed citizens saving the day. Must be hard to keep making the same bogus arguments in favour of gun ownership in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Sassenach wrote:While it is possible to get hold of guns in the UK, it's much more difficult than it is in the US and requires you to be actively tapped in to the criminal underground (which is of course heavily monitored by the security services), and even then you'd need to be very well connected. The couple who carried out the San Bernardino killings would never have had access to firearms over here.

It strikes me that Brad and Steve have more or less given up trying to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment and have now fallen back on saying that it exists and isn't going away so to hell with all of your objections. To an extent this is a valid point, but it's a counsel of despair nonetheless and difficult to take seriously. We seem to be getting at least one mass shooting every month these days and I've yet to see any evidence of armed citizens saving the day. Must be hard to keep making the same bogus arguments in favour of gun ownership in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I would defend the Second Amendment, but no serious argument has been made against it.

The mass shootings, almost without exception, have been in "gun-free zones" or places where guns were unlikely (like a holiday party).

No enemy of the Second Amendment has explained how repealing it would stop ISIS associates from making pipe bombs, pressure-cooker bombs, etc. In one sense, we were lucky that these Muslim terrorists gunned down the people in San Bernardino. Had they instead used the bombs they made in a mall and used guns to kill those fleeing, the body count would have been significantly higher.

Again, why can't the government sort out that "Malik" was a fake name and that her address does not exist? Is that the level of competence that would cause Americans to trust government to keep them safe?

Fate

No enemy of the Second Amendment has explained how repealing it would stop ISIS associates from making pipe bombs, pressure-cooker bombs, et

No supporter of the 2nd Amendment has shown an example of guns stopping events like Sandy Hook, Roseburg Oregon, or the church in Charlston SC.
There is little evidence that the prevalence of guns is doing anything to contribute to safety in any way.
But plenty of evidence that it contributes to:
- increased violence, especially mass shootings
- an increase in accidental shootings and suicides
- especially for children.
- an increase in police tactics that are designed to protect police from omnipresent guns but have resulted in too may deaths in police encounters and a resulting lack of confidence in police.
- increased medical costs.
- fear

The reason there is no support for research into the effects of the guns in society is simply that those opposing the research already know the results. Its the same as Tobacco companies fighting research on smoking, and oil companies fighting the science of global warming. They already know.
But if a respected third party like the CDC starts to lay out the facts they are afraid that enumerating the costs will begin to sway the populace from their evidence free beliefs..
And that might lead to a willingness to change.
Though its interesting that although there is already over whelming support for back ground checks Washington politicians are afraid to take action.

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/ ... oll-finds/

The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.

Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization. A study focusing on youth in North Carolina found that most of these deaths were caused by legally purchased handguns. A recent meta-analysis revealed that easy access to firearms doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk for suicide among all household members. Family violence is also much more likely to be lethal in homes where a firearm is present, placing children especially in danger. Murder-suicides are another major risk to children and are most likely to be committed with a gun.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... e_nra.html

rickyp wrote:Fate

No enemy of the Second Amendment has explained how repealing it would stop ISIS associates from making pipe bombs, pressure-cooker bombs, et

No supporter of the 2nd Amendment has shown an example of guns stopping events like Sandy Hook, Roseburg Oregon, or the church in Charlston SC.

With all due respect, that's dumb. The only one where guns were legally permitted was Charleston, a church.

There is little evidence that the prevalence of guns is doing anything to contribute to safety in any way.
But plenty of evidence that it contributes to:
- increased violence, especially mass shootings
- an increase in accidental shootings and suicides
- especially for children.
- an increase in police tactics that are designed to protect police from omnipresent guns but have resulted in too may deaths in police encounters and a resulting lack of confidence in police.
- increased medical costs.
- fear

The reason there is no support for research into the effects of the guns in society is simply that those opposing the research already know the results. Its the same as Tobacco companies fighting research on smoking, and oil companies fighting the science of global warming. They already know.
But if a respected third party like the CDC starts to lay out the facts they are afraid that enumerating the costs will begin to sway the populace from their evidence free beliefs..
And that might lead to a willingness to change.
Though its interesting that although there is already over whelming support for back ground checks Washington politicians are afraid to take action.

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/ ... oll-finds/

The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.

Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization. A study focusing on youth in North Carolina found that most of these deaths were caused by legally purchased handguns. A recent meta-analysis revealed that easy access to firearms doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk for suicide among all household members. Family violence is also much more likely to be lethal in homes where a firearm is present, placing children especially in danger. Murder-suicides are another major risk to children and are most likely to be committed with a gun.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... e_nra.html

Tell you what: why don't you start a petition to repeal the Second Amendment? Oh, you can't because you're a Canadian?

Then stop telling Americans what to do.

fate

The only one where guns were legally permitted was Charleston, a church

.
There were over 350 mass shootings in the US this year. Plenty where there were laws allowing fire arms either concealed or open carry.
Colorado for instance....
So smart guy, name one time that civilian carried guns stopped a mass shooting in the US this year....
Hell, anytime.

answer:
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... with-guns/

rickyp wrote:fate

The only one where guns were legally permitted was Charleston, a church

.
There were over 350 mass shootings in the US this year. Plenty where there were laws allowing fire arms either concealed or open carry.
Colorado for instance....
So smart guy, name one time that civilian carried guns stopped a mass shooting in the US this year....
Hell, anytime.

Stop it. Just stop it.

First, there have not been 350 "mass shootings" in the US this year. How many gang shootings does that include? That is an entire sub-culture you have no idea about.

Second, how much you want to bet I can find one? I'll do it but ONLY if you agree to pay me when I do. I'm sick of your nonsense. You have no say in the matter and you are playing stupid games, like "mass shootings" instead of "mass murder."

So when gangs shoot multiple people it doesn't count?

Ridiculous. A mass shooting is a mass shooting. The standard used was 4 or more victims of gunshots.

danivon wrote:So when gangs shoot multiple people it doesn't count?

Ridiculous. A mass shooting is a mass shooting. The standard used was 4 or more victims of gunshots.

You might think it's ridiculous. However, in gang-infested areas, I don't even know how they could keep track of all the shootings that take place. Many of them go unreported. Chicago is a virtual war-zone.

The Stanford Mass Shootings in America project, a data aggregation effort founded in 2012 in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, defined "mass shooting" as "three or more shooting victims (not necessarily fatalities), not including the shooter." The Stanford database also weeds out shootings that are "identifiably gang- or drug-related" to focus on "indiscriminate killing."

Stanford's database shows a much lower number of mass shootings over the past 10 years than many other trackers, but a huge increase in 2015.http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/03/mass-sho ... -many.html

This is all fine and good, but to try to conflate the entire issue into just another mass gun shooting is to minimize the causes.

How many "mass shootings" (4 or more victims, not counting the assailant) are because of suicide, accidental shooting, and normal crime? I would say VERY LOW. Couple that with mental health issues and it is even lower.

Gang violence
Mental breakdown/defect
Extremism

Are there others that would fit this mold since we are talking "mass shootings"?

We should be dealing not with the everyday citizen who owns firearms, and assuming that the gun they own is the problem anymore than we should assume that all Muslims are problem.

Our president said we should not condemn all Islam for these two terrorists, and I agree. He follows that up with a condemnation of all law abiding gun owners because of these two terrorists.

It is not the guns, it is the people. Deal with the people who are perpetrating these crimes (which are already on the books).

I would defend the Second Amendment, but no serious argument has been made against it.

Plenty of arguments have been made against the 2nd Amendment. In fact people have been making arguments against the 2nd Amendment for as long as I've been posting here, which I believe dates it back to about 2006. The subject has come up again and again during that time and I'm quite sure it had been going on just as regularly before I arrived. Is it only a 'serious' argument if it's one that you agree with ?

Tell you what, why don't you make a positive case for mass gun ownership and then we can see whether it stands up to scrutiny.