Why Americans don't do anything about mass shootings[W:465]

[Mithrae]

Seriously. One country was founded by religious refugees, the other by transported criminals. Of course one would develop a more violent society than the other.

This has gotta be one of the best posts I've seen :lol:

###

The answer is finding out what is driving these people, look for early indicators and take action. Most mass shooters give off some sort of warning signs. The Parkland shooter was sending up red flares and nobody did anything.

It sounds like you'd rather "violate" citizen's first, fourth and fifth amendment rights, than the second: To curtail their liberty not because of any crimes committed, but because you don't like the "early indicators" you perceive in their freedom of expression.


I imagine that for most reasonable folk outside America (and many Americans too) it's not an either/or proposition. Licensing and registration, probationary periods and restrictions on locations and types which can be used are supported by virtually everyone in the case of vehicles designed for utility and convenience; it beggars belief that in the case of tools whose explicit purpose is to wound or kill, they suddenly become such outrageous concepts in the minds of some folk. But none of that precludes a stronger focus on mental wellbeing as well.

It's just ironic that while the Bill of Rights is often fallaciously invoked in the manner of fundamentalist scripture in the case of the second amendment, the alternative prospect would even more clearly "violate" such broad readings of multiple other amendments.

Let's just be honest enough to acknowledge that with the way some Americans interpret their constitution, there really isn't a single damn thing you can do except rejoice in your "freedom" while cleaning up the blood afterwards.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

This has gotta be one of the best posts I've seen :lol:

Heh - I wouldn’t have ignored it if it were a good post. Here it is again:

Seriously. One country was founded by religious refugees, the other by transported criminals. Of course one would develop a more violent society than the other.

Australia was not ‘founded by transported criminals’. It was discovered by James Cook in 1770, and Britain sent Captain Arthur Phillip and the first fleet to found Australia in 1788. Over 90 years about 160,000 petty criminals were transported to various penal colonies in Australia, but the worst convicts were kept in Britain. About 60,000 were sent to America. Both Australia and America needed roads and bridges built. Sending murderers and such would be counterproductive so they sent small time perps; people who stole loaves of bread and the like under starving conditions. Millions of immigrants to Australia and America swamped convicts out of the picture long ago. However, America has the world’s biggest population of prisoners (2.3 million), and there are plenty of felons among your 12 million illegal immigrants. Australia only has 4,500 prisoners. In my own case, I’m an immigrant from Canada.

Early American Crime ? Convict Transportation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony

 

[Mithrae]

Well I for one am proud of my convict ancestry

 

[veritas1]

Take away the gun deaths....and we have very few gun deaths. I love that one

The point, which you have a great tendency to miss, is that the majority of gun deaths are happening among criminals killing each other. So, your brilliant solution is not to take on criminality but to disarm the law abiding. Yea, that'll work.

 

[vegas giants]

The point, which you have a great tendency to miss, is that the majority of gun deaths are happening among criminals killing each other. So, your brilliant solution is not to take on criminality but to disarm the law abiding. Yea, that'll work.

If you could just show me ONE place where your plan is working I would love to see it. I have a dozen places to support my plan. How can you keep missing this?

 

[veritas1]

Yeah like a guy is Wyoming is the same as me......your logic

Oh look, another missed point. The point is that the demographics, population density, etc. in Wyoming are not the same as in the cities mentioned. It is why comparing Australia or Norway to America is a flawed and useless exercise.

 

[veritas1]

If you could just show me ONE place where your plan is working I would love to see it. I have a dozen places to support my plan. How can you keep missing this?

No, unless you have a country the size and density of the US, you have no comparables. You are comparing a pumpkin to a grape.

 

[veritas1]

The aim should be to arrive at a place where murderbrats can’t just grab mass murder weapons on a whim, then go to school to bump off fifty students because they were bullied or annoyed by someone. At the moment murderbrats have access to weapons their dopey parents leave lying around. Why? Because dopey parents weren’t raised with discipline. In the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza had access to guns through his witless mother, Nancy Lanza, a gun nut with at least a dozen firearms. Her murderbrat son shot her four times in her bed before going to Sandy Hook Elementary School where he murdered 20 children and six adults. Nancy Lanza is a good example of why Americans will lose their right to have such weapons, and she deserved every one of those rounds to her head.

In Australia if you want a gun you have to fill in many forms and jump through many hoops, and the great majority just can’t be bothered. People like Nancy Lanza are weeded out, because a good for nothing simpleton like her would probably fail some of those tests. Aside from that, she wouldn’t have the maturity or patience to go through all the paperwork. In America on the other hand, a halfwit like her has no problem getting hold of an arsenal of lethal weapons so her murderbrats can have a carte blanche gun buffet. People like her and her spawn are ticking time bombs and America is infested with them.



Most people follow the law, so yes, most will hand them in. The payment they receive for them makes this a lot easier. Obviously a minority won’t, as was the case here, but people get old and die, and their sons do the handing in.


While the perp is breaking in the neighbors are busy calling the cops. The alarm, the lights, the barking dog – they alert neighbors. If someone is home that person is calling the cops. Only the stupidest burglar would proceed after lights go on, dogs bark and cameras film, and of them, only the stupidest again would forget that everyone has cell phones.

Yea, Nancy Lanza should have had her weapons secured but her biggest failing was in not getting treatment for her troubled son. Your glee at her murder is also unseemly.


I love it. Let's make it so difficult to get a weapon that we've pretty much neutered the 2nd amendment. As I've said, we have laws that can weed out undesirables getting guns. They are unevenly enforced or not enforced at all. Also, shoddy and lax police work will not be legislated away. It can only be improved by replacing those who fail at their duties. There were three or four things that should have immediately sent authorities to look at Nicolas Cruz. They were all ignored. He in no way should have been in a position to buy a weapon nor should one have been sold to him. If we don't weed out that incompetence, we will not stop mass shootings, period.

Millions of people don't have alarm systems or dogs. If their home is invaded, they must be able to protect themselves. This idea that the cops will magically appear is nonsense. People have to be able to react. Thugs don't sit there while you calmly call the cops. They kill you. You may have no problem being a victim but it is the height of arrogance to suggest that others have to become one simply because you don't like guns. So, for these reasons, no, the vast majority will not hand over their firearms, no matter what the bribe is.

 

[vegas giants]

No, unless you have a country the size and density of the US, you have no comparables. You are comparing a pumpkin to a grape.

And you have NO PLACE ON EARTH that uses your plan successfully. Nowhere. Nada. Zip. It is hilarious

 

[veritas1]

This has gotta be one of the best posts I've seen :lol:

###



It sounds like you'd rather "violate" citizen's first, fourth and fifth amendment rights, than the second: To curtail their liberty not because of any crimes committed, but because you don't like the "early indicators" you perceive in their freedom of expression.


I imagine that for most reasonable folk outside America (and many Americans too) it's not an either/or proposition. Licensing and registration, probationary periods and restrictions on locations and types which can be used are supported by virtually everyone in the case of vehicles designed for utility and convenience; it beggars belief that in the case of tools whose explicit purpose is to wound or kill, they suddenly become such outrageous concepts in the minds of some folk. But none of that precludes a stronger focus on mental wellbeing as well.

It's just ironic that while the Bill of Rights is often fallaciously invoked in the manner of fundamentalist scripture in the case of the second amendment, the alternative prospect would even more clearly "violate" such broad readings of multiple other amendments.

Let's just be honest enough to acknowledge that with the way some Americans interpret their constitution, there really isn't a single damn thing you can do except rejoice in your "freedom" while cleaning up the blood afterwards.

People who openly talk of committing mass killings have made themselves the target of investigation. It has absolutely nothing to do with violating anything. That is a red herring. Nicolas Cruz should have been stopped. That was not a failure of gun laws but a failure of human beings in not doing their jobs. Cruz had had a mental evaluation in 2016. But that information was not forwarded properly so no red flags appeared when he went to buy a weapon. He had posted on social media that he was going to be a professional school shooter for God's sake. That isn't "freedom of expression", it is an announcement of coming mass murder. What the hell else do you need to go pick the guy up? This is catastrophic failure. Yet, the people who committed these mistakes still have their jobs. Similarly, the VA Tech shooter, who used handguns, btw, also had a history of mental issues. Again, it was missed. Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, was on a Federal terror watchlist but his name had been removed for some reason. So, he was able to buy weapons. Similar mistakes have been made in other cases.

If people don't like the 2nd amendment, we have a process for changing it. Of course, the people who don't like it know that they can never get the votes to water down or abolish it and that is why we have tens of thousands of other laws, many designed specifically to curtail people's right to own firearms. In the case of mentally ill people and criminals, that is not a problem, but those are not the people who are the focus of gun control efforts. The focus is on "gun nuts", the term they apply to law abiding gun owners.

 

[veritas1]

And you have NO PLACE ON EARTH that uses your plan successfully. Nowhere. Nada. Zip. It is hilarious

My "plan" is called the US Constitution. My plan is called diligent work checking people out and enforcing existing law. My plan is called freedom to protect yourself. My plan is called focusing on the criminal or potential criminal and not on the law abiding, responsible gun owner. That's my plan.

We've always had lots and lots of guns, including carbines and semi auto weapons of various varieties. In the past, we also had far fewer gun laws than today. However, in the 50 years up to the Texas Tower shooting in 1966, we only had 25 mass shootings (those involving 4 or more victims). Since 1966, we've had 127 of them. Now, why do you think that is? Gun violence overall has declined sharply since 1993. We have more gun laws than ever. Yet, mass shootings have increased. If you find the answer to what has happened to us between 1966 and now to account for this increase, you will have found out how to stop it.

 

[vegas giants]

My "plan" is called the US Constitution. My plan is called diligent work checking people out and enforcing existing law. My plan is called freedom to protect yourself. My plan is called focusing on the criminal or potential criminal and not on the law abiding, responsible gun owner. That's my plan.

We've always had lots and lots of guns, including carbines and semi auto weapons of various varieties. In the past, we also had far fewer gun laws than today. However, in the 50 years up to the Texas Tower shooting in 1966, we only had 25 mass shootings (those involving 4 or more victims). Since 1966, we've had 127 of them. Now, why do you think that is? Gun violence overall has declined sharply since 1993. We have more gun laws than ever. Yet, mass shootings have increased. If you find the answer to what has happened to us between 1966 and now to account for this increase, you will have found out how to stop it.

Yeah your plan sucks (its not the constitution) and it does not work anywhere on planet earth

 

[veritas1]

Yeah your plan sucks (its not the constitution) and it does not work anywhere on planet earth

Nice non-response. Is that really all you have? Are you incapable of addressing anything I said? You remind me of the drones who show up at assemblies where a conservative is going to speak and chant mindlessly so he can't talk. No rational debate, just childish disruption.


Again:

We've always had lots and lots of guns, including carbines and semi auto weapons of various varieties. In the past, we also had far fewer gun laws than today. However, in the 50 years up to the Texas Tower shooting in 1966, we only had 25 mass shootings (those involving 4 or more victims). Since 1966, we've had 127 of them. Now, why do you think that is? Gun violence overall has declined sharply since 1993. We have more gun laws than ever. Yet, mass shootings have increased. If you find the answer to what has happened to us between 1966 and now to account for this increase, you will have found out how to stop it.

 

[Moderate Right]

From CNN

Why Americans don't do anything about mass shootings
​

In October, 2017, the worst mass shooting in US history took place at a country music concert in Las Vegas. Fifty-eight people were killed and more than 500 people injured. Bill O'Reilly boiled the massacre down to six words: "This is the price of freedom."

I hate to say it, but he is right. Sunday, just 34 days after Vegas, 26 people were gunned down and about 20 others were wounded during a church service in Texas. And here's what is really sick -- we won't be surprised when there's another mass shooting next month. Maybe it'll be your church, your mall, your concert or your movie theater. That's the price of freedom.


In America, we are free to stockpile weapons. We are free to order ammo online. We are free to outfit our guns with bump stocks, like the Vegas shooter did. This is the price we pay for freedom, alright. The freedom to not give a damn.

COMMENT:-

Is the comment about "The freedom to not give a damn." COMPLETELY off base?​

You forgot one freedom - the left want criminals and thugs to roam around freely.

 

[vegas giants]

Nice non-response. Is that really all you have? Are you incapable of addressing anything I said? You remind me of the drones who show up at assemblies where a conservative is going to speak and chant mindlessly so he can't talk. No rational debate, just childish disruption.


Again:

We've always had lots and lots of guns, including carbines and semi auto weapons of various varieties. In the past, we also had far fewer gun laws than today. However, in the 50 years up to the Texas Tower shooting in 1966, we only had 25 mass shootings (those involving 4 or more victims). Since 1966, we've had 127 of them. Now, why do you think that is? Gun violence overall has declined sharply since 1993. We have more gun laws than ever. Yet, mass shootings have increased. If you find the answer to what has happened to us between 1966 and now to account for this increase, you will have found out how to stop it.

Just tell me someone who has found that answer, applied it and now has low gun deaths. You are chasing shadows. IT DOES NOT WORK ANYWHERE. What works is effective gun control. Its time to face reality

 

[vegas giants]

You forgot one freedom - the left want criminals and thugs to roam around freely.

You misspelled right

 

[veritas1]

Just tell me someone who has found that answer, applied it and now has low gun deaths. You are chasing shadows. IT DOES NOT WORK ANYWHERE. What works is effective gun control. Its time to face reality

What constitutes effective gun control for you? You have 300 million guns in circulation, including millions of semi auto rifles and pistols. You think people are handing those in? You think the government has the vaguest clue where all those guns are? Chasing after guns is like chasing your tail.

We have changed as a people. We are largely course, lazy, self indulgent, spoiled, seek instant gratification, have feelings of entitlement and mock God. While we've always had lots of guns, we haven't always been like this and had it reinforced by the media and popular culture. Pass all the laws you like. Shootings will continue until we change.

 

[vegas giants]

What constitutes effective gun control for you? You have 300 million guns in circulation, including millions of semi auto rifles and pistols. You think people are handing those in? You think the government has the vaguest clue where all those guns are? Chasing after guns is like chasing your tail. We have changed as a people. We are largely course, lazy, self indulgent, spoiled, seek instant gratification, have feelings of entitlement and mock God. While we've always had lots of guns, we haven't always been like this and had it reinforced by the media and popular culture. Pass all the laws you like. Shootings will continue until we change.

Is NYC a place where people are not largely course, lazy, self indulgent, spoiled, seek instant gratification, have feelings of entitlement and mock God?

Because they have very effective gun control and low gun deaths. NYC...the capital of polite people. LOL

 

[veritas1]

Is NYC a place where people are not largely course, lazy, self indulgent, spoiled, seek instant gratification, have feelings of entitlement and mock God?

Because they have very effective gun control and low gun deaths. NYC...the capital of polite people. LOL

Oh, and Chicago doesn't have tons of gun laws? St. Louis? Detroit? Baltimore? BTW, the murder rate in NYC was over 2,000 per year until Giuliani instituted his policies of aggressive and engaged policing in high crime areas. When he left, it was down to 300 a year. So, no, gun laws did not account for the reduction. Funny, Washington DC always had the nation's toughest gun laws yet led the nation in per capita murder year after year. Why was that?

 

[vegas giants]

Oh, and Chicago doesn't have tons of gun laws? BTW, the murder rate in NYC was over 2,000 per year until Giuliani instituted his policies of aggressive and engaged policing in high crime areas. When he left, it was down to 300 a year. So, no, gun laws did not account for the reduction. Funny, Washington DC always had the nation's toughest gun laws yet led the nation in per capita murder year after year. Why was that?

Guliani is not mayor and has not been for some time. They have a liberal democrat now. Yeah. It must be all to his credit now. Hilarious. Guiliani enforced GUN LAWS as part of his program. And NYC is surrounded bys areas that also have strict gun laws. Chicago has Indiana 20 minutes away and DC has Virginia.

 

[veritas1]

Guliani is not mayor and has not been for some time. They have a liberal democrat now. Yeah. It must be all to his credit now. Hilarious. Guiliani enforced GUN LAWS as part of his program. And NYC is surrounded bys areas that also have strict gun laws. Chicago has Indiana 20 minutes away and DC has Virginia.

Right. Giuliani's policies have been working for years. Bloomberg was a beneficiary of it. DeBlasio has been as well. Leave DeBlasio and similar leftists in there for awhile and you'll see the numbers head back up. Yea, what does Detroit have near by? Canada? The list of excuses for why gun laws fail is a marvel to behold. Why, it's that nefarious gun owner somewhere else. Yea, HE"S the problem, your honor. As you like to say.... hilarious.

 

[vegas giants]

Right. Giuliani's policies have been working for years. Bloomberg was a beneficiary of it. DeBlasio has been as well. Leave DeBlasio and similar leftists in there for awhile and you'll see the numbers head back up. Yea, what does Detroit have near by? Canada? The list of excuses for why gun laws fail is a marvel to behold. Why, it's that nefarious gun owner somewhere else. Yea, HE"S the problem, your honor. As you like to say.... hilarious.

And yet they have not headed up. It must just be a miracle. I offer no excuses. I have a plan that works in lots of places.

Exactly where does your plan work again? LOL

 

[veritas1]

And yet they have not headed up. It must just be a miracle. I offer no excuses. I have a plan that works in lots of places.

Exactly where does your plan work again? LOL

Giuliani's plan was only tangentially about gun control. He did come up with the idea of suing gun manufacturers but there was not much else that was new. What was new was his plan of having a visible police presence in high crime areas and engaging actively with those communities. He also pushed for much longer sentences for repeat offenders. THAT is what drove down murder rates in NYC, not changes in gun laws. So your "plan" is not what worked there.

Your plan has been used in lots of places like DC, Detroit, Chicago and elsewhere without the law enforcement components and IT HAS FAILED. So, you can LOL all you want but the fact is that your plan is not working in America. If it were, Chicago and Detroit should have a much lower per capita murder rate than Indianapolis, shouldn't they? After all, it's in the state that you blame for crime elsewhere. So, no, your plan isn't working. It never has.

 

[vegas giants]

Giuliani's plan was only tangentially about gun control. He did come up with the idea of suing gun manufacturers but there was not much else that was new. What was new was his plan of having a visible police presence in high crime areas and engaging actively with those communities. He also pushed for much longer sentences for repeat offenders. THAT is what drove down murder rates in NYC, not changes in gun laws. So your "plan" is not what worked there.

Your plan has been used in lots of places like DC, Detroit, Chicago and elsewhere without the law enforcement components and IT HAS FAILED. So, you can LOL all you want but the fact is that your plan is not working in America. If it were, Chicago and Detroit should have a much lower per capita murder rate than Indianapolis, shouldn't they? After all, it's in the state that you blame for crime elsewhere. So, no, your plan isn't working. It never has.

I must have missed it.


Where excactly does your plan work again? LOL

 

[veritas1]

I must have missed it.


Where excactly does your plan work again? LOL

When you don't read what is posted and instead rely on your canned, parrot-like response, of course you will miss it.