Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by Silent Master
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?

1. It does to literally every LEA in existence, though, as part of the SOP for stolen property involving firearms is returning to the proper owners after investigation is completed.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/mike-mcdaniel/human-nature-background-checks-recovery-stolen-guns/

The Stolen Guns article noted a recovery rate of from 15% to 17% according to federal DOJ statistics...

By the way, that is a very conservative leaning website. The whole article is worth a read.

2. You answer the question, not me.

3. Because far more registered. Duh.

4. They do, sorry. Happens all the time especially if you consider the regulations vary too much from state to state.

5. Simple: before - gun isn't registered. After - gun is now registered to a person. If you cannot figure out how that can assist in solving a crime, you're too much of a retard to have a conversation with or you're trolling.

6. It's easy to understand. No. I won't explain.

7. You weren't aware of this?

8. Irrelevant to the point. Try again.

9. Very easily provable: gun crimes over time and controlling for specific variables. More strictly enforced gun registration that also is a mature solutions (not letting things fall through the cracks like our Texas Church Shooter) would most definitely deter people from obtaining guns.

10. By aggregating data and analyzing it. 😐 If you want me to provide you a hadoop training course so you can understand how big data analysis is done, you need to pay me $250 an hour + T&E. I'm not joking. I'm not going to spoon-feed this answer and you must pay me for it.

Where's your list. Provide it. Don't just pick apart the list I put together that's very easy to understand. Don't ask questions about my list: provide your cons list.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like this question. Research has been done on this, recently.

Really? because I asked that question earlier and nobody answered it.

So, 18% of gun crimes are committed by the legal owner. do you know how many of those 18% involve the gun being found before the police knew the Id of the person who committed the crime?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Really? because I asked that question earlier and nobody answered it.

Why didn't you look for the answer yourself? Answer this question and do not dodge it. You could have easily looked this up yourself but yet you refused. I don't buy into the "burden of proof" bullshit. That's just stupid-ass retarded internet anti-intellectualism. It's bullshit posturing from retards who don't actually care about the argument they are in. You want evidence for or against something, you look it up yourself And prove or disprove your idea about something. Don't just demand proof all the time.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do you know how many of those 18% involve the gun being found before the police knew the Id of the person who committed the crime?

Ask a different question. Why do you want to know this question? Why is the goal of asking this question? What does it inform, in context with this conversation?

Because I don't know why you'd ask that question. It makes no sense.

Originally posted by Robtard
Once again thank you for actually responding with logic and reason, instead of logical fallacies, distractions and rants like the others here have done for pages. Rather shameful, imo. Anywho.

But it might stop some, there's a possibility.

Overall agreed, it would serve more as a justice deliverer than deterrent, but see above.

No one said this has to be the only change in gun reform laws, it could also work in concert with others potentially. I don't see it as being hard to do, both in 'political capital' and logistics of carrying it out. We register cars; that's a fairly easy and painless process and that's done on a yearly basis. Sure the NRA will cry "but muh 2nd!!!1!", but they always do and they have no real legal ground to stand on here against federally mandated gun registration.

The problem with bills is that the entire bill won’t be passed until every clause is approved. If one becomes an issue, the whole thing gets bogged down within the process. It was hard enough trying to get ACA (I mean who hates free healthcare, amirite!?) thru, not sure how easily a comprehensive gun reform law would go down. It would certainly not be easy or cheap (in “political capital”). Especially in a repub government. Might be a lot easier if it was during a democrat supermajority, tho.

An argument can be made by the opposition for ease/difficulty of implementation as well as effectiveness and feasibility. Car reg is easier/cheaper since we might maybe own 1 or 2 cars at any one time. Some ppl could own dozens of guns. Would registering each individual gun be done at point of purchase then renewed annually? If so, how about guns already purchsed of which there are already millions out there? Would certain tests/checks be needed (w/c would mean annual fees/costs)? How would registration be done (seeing as there would be an initial lack of infrastructure to accomodate gun owners)? Etc., etc. Bottom line, I can already see gun owners throwing a stink about how gun registration would be an ineffectual but costly measure that would only effectively stifle (thru costs and red tape) their 2nd amendment rights of gun ownership (it’s a stupid position, I know) and parallela between gun registration and voter ID laws would be made. Ultimately, gun control lawmakers would be hard pressed to keep it in their bill without it getting bogged down by the opposition. I dunno, maybe I just have a cynical view of politics in general. p

I do agree that the idea has merit and perhaps a smaller scale controlled test sample population would be interesting. Particularly in areas where gun reg would have a high approval rate. If it works you can maybe slowly scale it up later.

Originally posted by Blindside12
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.

You didn't read my entire post.

The original research is linked in my post which Washington Post referred to. If you don't like Wa-Po, great. Forget about them. Go to the actual research and find it for yourself and come to your own conclusions. But the numbers don't lie.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Also do we know if those numbers include suicide?

They don't. Suicide isn't tracked as a homicide or violence in most LEA data sets. It's tracked as suicide. Those numbers were specific to gun crimes.

I dont believe that is accurate, suicide is tallied the the gun violence numbers. I am 100% sure of it. If they were not in this particular study thats one thing, but suicide has always been tallyed with gun violence.

Two studies here says gun suicides cause more death then gun homocides.

"Suicides from guns make up nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths in the United States, and they overwhelmingly affect white men. That is according to a report by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/30/554789675/report-finds-suicides-are-even-more-common-than-gun-homicides

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_10.pdf#page=17

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why didn't you look for the answer yourself? Answer this question and do not dodge it. You could have easily looked this up yourself but yet you refused. I don't buy into the "burden of proof" bullshit. That's just stupid-ass retarded internet anti-intellectualism. It's bullshit posturing from retards who don't actually care about the argument they are in. You want evidence for or against something, you look it up yourself And prove or disprove your idea about something. Don't just demand proof all the time.

Ask a different question. Why do you want to know this question? Why is the goal of asking this question? What does it inform, in context with this conversation?

Because I don't know why you'd ask that question. It makes no sense.

The goal of asking the questions is because I feel that a gun registry isn't a very efficient way of preventing gun crimes. thus I don't care about things like how having one could help in returning stolen property as that isn't relevant to preventing gun crimes. which is the only part I'm interested in right now.

Now, if poeple want to argue it's a good idea for other things. I'd might actually agree.

This will prolly be post of the year.

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

Originally posted by Blindside12
I dont believe that is accurate, suicide is tallied the the gun violence numbers. I am 100% sure of it. If they were not in this particular study thats one thing, but suicide has always been tallyed with gun violence.

Gun deaths is what you're thinking of.

Gun homicides, however, does not include suicides. Gun Deaths includes accidental gun deaths, homicides, and suicides.

I hope that clears it up. Often, lefties will try to use "gun deaths" synonymously as "homicides" to dishonestly spin their logical fallacies (known as the "appeal to emotion"😉 against guns. So I know why you're going with this angle. It is important to distinguish the two, for sure.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Two studies here says gun suicides cause more death then gun homocides.

"Suicides from guns make up nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths in the United States, and they overwhelmingly affect white men. That is according to a report by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/30/554789675/report-finds-suicides-are-even-more-common-than-gun-homicides

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_10.pdf#page=17

Looks like a "White Male Lives Matter" movement should start.

Originally posted by Blindside12
This will prolly be post of the year.

Considering you took all night, the following morning and part of the afternoon to make it, it'll be a shame if it's not. I voted.

Also, have you finally found a way to sell me on why gun registration is a bad idea, using logic and reason?

Originally posted by Silent Master
The goal of asking the questions is because I feel that a gun registry isn't a very efficient way of preventing gun crimes. thus I don't care about things like how having one could help in returning stolen property as that isn't relevant to preventing gun crimes. which is the only part I'm interested in right now.

Now, if poeple want to argue it's a good idea for other things. I'd might actually agree.

We agree: I think a national, robust, gun registry system does not really tackle the issue of reducing violent crime. Like all poor leftist ideas on guns, it goes after a symptom, not solving the problem.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering you took all night, the following morning and part of the afternoon to make it, it'll be a shame if it's not.

The time stamps say otherwise.

Originally posted by Robtard

Also, have you finally found a way to sell me on why gun registration is a bad idea, using logic and reason?

I would ask DDM to step in here for a sec because hes better with internet fallacies and calling them out then I am, they just irritate me tbh.

DDM please address why Rob is in the wrong for putting the burden of proof on me to prove him wrong.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Gun deaths is what you're thinking of.

Gun homicides, however, does not include suicides. Gun Deaths includes accidental gun deaths, homicides, and suicides.

I hope that clears it up. Often, lefties will try to use "gun deaths" synonymously as "homicides" to dishonestly spin their logical fallacies (known as the "appeal to emotion"😉 against guns. So I know why you're going with this angle. It is important to distinguish the two, for sure.

Ah yes, another fallacy I forgot about, since you are good with these please step in for me above with Robs annoying fallacy he keeps repeating.^

You're once again ignoring that positive reasons have been provided. I did. Bash did and DDM went OCD on them with his list. So that's not a burden of proof shift, it's asking to you support your own stance.

Provide Data, not a make me goo look for the bridge to terebitha please.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We agree: I think a national, robust, gun registry system does not really tackle the issue of reducing violent crime. Like all poor leftist ideas on guns, it goes after a symptom, not solving the problem.

Agreed. I would also like to apologize for my mostly one word responses to your points as I was looking at your list through the lens of "how would this prevent gun crimes" and thus I was being a little dickish in my responses.