Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by Silent Master
I think it's a waste of time as I don't believe it will actually stop any crime and at best it'll only be a very miniscule help in investigating a small minority of gun crimes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree on the degree that you represent this point. I think, at worst, it will help solve more gun crimes. Again, that's still going after symptoms after the illness has happened rather than preventing the illness to begin with...so it's rather a waste of time unless the only objective is to have a faster or higher "solved case" list.

In what way will it help solve more gun crimes? because the only way I see it helping is if the crime is committed by the legal gun owner and the gun is either left at the crime scene or found after it was disposed of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree on the degree that you represent this point. I think, at worst, it will help solve more gun crimes. Again, that's still going after symptoms after the illness has happened rather than preventing the illness to begin with...so it's rather a waste of time unless the only objective is to have a faster or higher "solved case" stats.

Any idea what the numbers for how many crimes are committed with legally obtained firearms, where those firearms are then found before the police know who committed the crimes? I am willing to wager is in the less than 1-2% margin.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. If fully implemented, it would most likely cost billions for the whole nation. But millions for each state and hundreds of millions for very large states like CA and TX. Similar to the DMVs of each state.

You could propose we recoup some of the administrative costs of these programs by implementing licensing fees.

Yes, those ideas are rather terrible. They appeal to immature machismos, of course. Again, those ideas aim (no pun intended) to target (no pun intended) the symptoms after the illness has already happened rather than inoculating the population to prevent the illness to begin with.

Oh, controlled environment. Not possible for the US because no state is isolated and guns are brought in and out of each state by the hundreds or thousands, nearly daily (probably less so for HI).

Now licensing fees is a very good option, wouldn't have to be much, maybe base it like we do on car registration, the year and/or value of the gun. I like this, could pay for itself and there's no real reason why everyone else should pay for gun owners wanting their guns.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
your discriminating imagination doesn't create a burden of statistical proof for me to prove it's effectiveness, especially concerning a system which has not even implemented. its the same farce that prevented medical marijuana studies for decades: make the aquisition of supportive data impossible.

If you want implement a new system and make it a legal requirement, then yes. you do in fact have to provide proof of it's effectiveness. otherwise it's never going to pass.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
your discriminating imagination doesn't create a burden of statistical proof for me to prove it's effectiveness, especially concerning a system which has not even implemented. its the same farce that prevented medical marijuana studies for decades: make the aquisition of supportive data impossible.

How is this even fair? Progressives love to statistic the hell out of everything, yall always want to post, polls, data and graphs, yet now, the data for this argument is impossible to obtain, so we need to make a new law based on data that doesnt exist? If the data doesnt exist, it doesnt exist because there isnt a huge gaping problem with the current gun laws regarding registration and gun crime.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
your discriminating imagination doesn't create a burden of statistical proof for me to prove it's effectiveness, especially concerning a system which has not even implemented. its the same farce that prevented medical marijuana studies for decades: make the aquisition of supportive data impossible.

Silly, ain't it. "Show me the data!" while blocking the ability of the data to be gathered. They've been trying that fail for pages now.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you want implement a new system and make it a legal requirement, then yes. you do in fact have to provide proof of it's effectiveness. otherwise it's never going to pass.

Originally posted by Robtard
Silly, ain't it. "Show me the data!" while blocking the ability of the data to be gathered. They've been trying that fail for pages now.

Its on you to show the data exists for a new law, no one here has blocked you from your burden of proof.

This was Rob initially

this was bash having fun watching

then they came to the bridge to nowhere

then this is them on the bus home from school after being educated

and this is what it looked like to them in the beginning

Originally posted by Silent Master
In what way will it help solve more gun crimes? because the only way I see it helping is if the crime is committed by the legal gun owner and the gun is either left at the crime scene or found after it was disposed of.

Sure!

1. Stolen guns more easily recovered and returned to owners.

2. Legally owned gun crimes more readily tied to the owner.

3. Illegal gun trade easier to manage.

4. Easier to prevent illegal gun sales among honest people and increase legal gun sales among honest people (contrary to popular belief, almost every last person who owns a gun or wants to own one, wants to do it legally and aboveboard).

5. Gun homicides where registration doesn't exist may not have a registration and can help solve the homicide.

6. Forensics gets informed (cascades into #5, of course) with a ownership chain of ownership (this can get complex such as temporal ownership placement when putting together a timeline for prosecution - who owned what at which time may point to a guilty party or even acquit an accused party).

7. Accidental use of firearms could inform criminal prosecutions against grossly negligent parties. (which I child kills themselves with a gun, this can constitute gross negligence and when registration is missing or obfuscated, it's tough to figure out who really committed a negligence crime).

8. Registering unregistered guns that were obtained illegally could inform damn near everything on this list, too.

9. An mature gun registration system can act as a deterrent for some. Probably very few. But if this saves even one life...without costing more money...seems worth it.

10. Data aggregation can be used to find patterns that can point to crimes such as terrorism or to pinpoint terrorist cells (fighting crime with AI and Big Data which is becoming a thing).

Okay, so now start a cons list, please. I can think of quite a few cons off the top of my head. But I don't want to steal your thunder.

Originally posted by Blindside12
This was Rob initially

this was bash having fun watching

then they came to the bridge to nowhere

then this is them on the bus home from school after being educated

and this is what it looked like to them in the beginning

You stayed up all night planning this post, didn't you?

Took me 3-4 minutes🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure!

1. Stolen guns more easily recovered and returned to owners.

2. Legally owned gun crimes more readily tied to the owner.

3. Illegal gun trade easier to manage.

4. Easier to prevent illegal gun sales among honest people and increase legal gun sales among honest people (contrary to popular belief, almost every last person who owns a gun or wants to own one, wants to do it legally and aboveboard).

5. Gun homicides where registration doesn't exist may not have a registration and can help solve the homicide.

6. Forensics gets informed (cascades into #5, of course) with a ownership chain of ownership (this can get complex such as temporal ownership placement when putting together a timeline for prosecution - who owned what at which time may point to a guilty party or even acquit an accused party).

7. Accidental use of firearms could inform criminal prosecutions against grossly negligent parties. (which I child kills themselves with a gun, this can constitute gross negligence and when registration is missing or obfuscated, it's tough to figure out who really committed a negligence crime).

8. Registering unregistered guns that were obtained illegally could inform damn near everything on this list, too.

9. An mature gun registration system can act as a deterrent for some. Probably very few. But if this saves even one life...without costing more money...seems worth it.

10. Data aggregation can be used to find patterns that can point to crimes such as terrorism or to pinpoint terrorist cells (fighting crime with AI and Big Data which is becoming a thing).

Okay, so now start a cons list, please. I can think of quite a few cons off the top of my head. But I don't want to steal your thunder.

I suspect you'll be ignored or some deflection will be had. Hopefully I am wrong here.

While I give Surt a lot of shit (and it's 100% for the right reasons), he actually stated the real reason these people feel, sure it's a silly slippery-slope, but it's how they legit feel: "When the government comes to take our guns, it will be easier!"

Originally posted by BackFire
You stayed up all night planning this post, didn't you?

Took him all night, the following morning and bit of the afternoon. I was flattered

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure!

1. Stolen guns more easily recovered and returned to owners.

2. Legal gun crimes more readily tied to the owner.

3. Illegal gun trade easier to manage.

4. Easier to prevent illegal gun sales among honest people and increase legal gun sales among honest people (contrary to popular belief, almost every last person who owns a gun or wants to own one, wants to do it legally and aboveboard).

5. Gun homicides where registration doesn't exist may not have a registration and can help solve the homicide.

6. Forensics gets informed (cascades into #5, of course) with a ownership chain of ownership (this can get complex such as temporal ownership placement when putting together a timeline for prosecution - who owned what at which time may point to a guilty party or even acquit an accused party).

7. Accidental use of firearms could inform criminal prosecutions against grossly negligent parties. (which I child kills themselves with a gun, this can constitute gross negligence and when registration is missing or obfuscated, it's tough to figure out who really committed a negligence crime).

8. Registering unregistered guns that were obtained illegally could inform damn near everything on this list, too.

9. An mature gun registration system can act as a deterrent for some. Probably very few. But if this saves even one life...without costing more money...seems worth it.

10. Data aggregation can be used to find patterns that can point to crimes such as terrorism or to pinpoint terrorist cells (fighting crime with AI and Big Data which is becoming a thing).

Okay, so now start a cons list, please. I can think of quite a few cons off the top of my head. But I don't want to steal your thunder.

1. This doesn't have anything to do with solving a crime.
2. Which is how many?
3. How?
4. Honest people don't take part in illegal sales.
5. How?
6. Not sure I know what you talking about, can you give an example?
7. What?
8. Why would a criminal register an illegal gun?
9. No way to prove or disprove this point.
10. How?

Time stamps says your wrong Rob

Originally posted by Blindside12
Any idea what the numbers for how many crimes are committed with legally obtained firearms, where those firearms are then found before the police know who committed the crimes? I am willing to wager is in the less than 1-2% margin.

I like this question. Research has been done on this, recently.

Lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes, according to a novel analysis released this week by the University of Pittsburgh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.091ce2adc3fc

Firearms
During the study period a total of 893 firearms were recovered by the Pittsburgh Police. Fifty-seven firearms (6.4%) were found in the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) as having been used in prior incidents. For a large proportion of the firearms (n = 396, 44.3%), the police could not determine if the firearm had been stolen. After recovery and when police made contact with owners, more than 30 percent of the firearms were said to have been stolen (n = 292, 32.7%), yet only 169 of those (57.9%) had been officially reported stolen prior to recovery by police (Table 1). Of the 292 stolen firearms, the police could not always determine if the owner of the stolen firearm knew the thief. Forty-nine (16.8%) said they did and 33 (11.3%) said they did not. Police determined that in 88 cases the owner reported the theft to an insurance company, and in 74 cases they did not.

http://www.socialmedicine.info/index.php/socialmedicine/article/view/852/1649

Right on, so its 18% based on doing no fact checking and completly relying on WP sources and methods. So ill take it at face value, 18% isnt enough of anything to get a comprehensive gun registration, and based on the WP reporting gun advocates have been correct all along.

Also do we know if those numbers include suicide?