Originally posted by Beniboybling
don't know what u mean
I know this is off topic. When I showed my graph showing the sheer amount of public mass-shootings which transpire in gun-free zones you claimed this was due to these shootings occurring on school campuses. When Lott refers to gun-free zones, he means the general area. Nigh all public places are gun-free zones, so I was a bit confused by your argument there.
And that's just expected. Mass shootings tend to happen in public spaces because they are public, and public spaces tend to be places where carrying a gun is unnecessary and/or poses a safety risk - like in a school, or a club, or an airport.
In short, I see the argument as a total red herring.
Originally posted by dadudemonIt's not a catch-all-solution no, but that doesn't mean its not worth instituting. I would also advocate universal background checks however, in fact it should be a prerequisite.
This still does not address the private gun sale issue. We can't really stop private drug sales. If you have vicodin and you want to sell it to me, you can. No one will know. The sale happens. You commit a felony, I commit a crime that lands me jail time.But we aren't in trouble if we don't get caught.
This applies to guns, as well.
How do we address the 99% of gun homicides that are not included in these mass-shootings?
And the broader problem of dangerous, unstable, unqualified or simply incompetent people getting hold of guns is implicit in that 99%.
Originally posted by SquallX"you are wrong, now tell me again what u already told me"
And again you fail to see the real problem.The police went to his 39 times, the FBI knew about him, yet both organizations did nothing.
Now tell me again, what new gun laws that would have stopped this tragedy from happening?
A law is nothing if it’s not enforce. Pretty cut and dry.
ok man.
And that's just expected. Mass shootings tend to happen in public spaces because they are public, and public spaces tend to be places where carrying a gun is unnecessary and/or poses a safety risk - like in a school, or a club, or an airport.In short, I see the argument as a total red herring.
Yes, but in America, we have certain states/cities which disallow guns. Mass shootings are far more common in those areas. When a mass-shooting does happen in a zone that allows guns there tend to be fewer homicides and faster apprehension.
It's not a catch-all-solution no, but that doesn't mean its not worth instituting. I would also advocate universal background checks however, in fact it should be a prerequisite.And the broader problem of dangerous, unstable, unqualified or simply incompetent people getting hold of guns is implicit in that 99%.
But, Universal Background checks have failed not been shown to reduce homicides. To quote John Lott,
Since 2000, all of our mass shooters obtained their weapons without using private transfers. Attacks such as the San Bernardino massacre in California and the Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon occurred in states that already have universal background checks. Indeed, mass public shootings have recently occurred in France, Belgium, Norway, Germany and other European countries where these background checks also exist.
And background checks have no effect on violent crime, as found in this recent 2017 study: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1043958/McCarthy_georgetown_0076M_13603.pdf?sequence=1
A 2012 metaanalysis that looked at studies from 1983 and 2005 found that,
Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks were shown to have no statistical effects on gun crimes.
As of 2000, the Department of Justice found that only 2% of crimes are committed with guns bought at gun shows and most of those are purchased legally. There is also a huge number of false positives found in background checks which incomber gun ownership thereby increasing crime.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
"you are wrong, now tell me again what u already told me"ok man.
You can’t refute anything, so am automatically wrong huh? Good job. Way to change the system.
So again, what’s the use of a law of if it’s enforce?
The cops went to his house 39 times, nothing happen. Because the laws on the book weren’t enforce.
The FBK knew about him, nothing was done. Why? Because the laws on the books weren’t enforce.
But continue to say am wrong, if it help you’re cause.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
But, Universal Background checks have failed not been shown to reduce homicides. To quote John Lott,And background checks have no effect on violent crime, as found in this recent 2017 study: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1043958/McCarthy_georgetown_0076M_13603.pdf?sequence=1
A 2012 metaanalysis that looked at studies from 1983 and 2005 found that,
As of 2000, the Department of Justice found that only 2% of crimes are committed with guns bought at gun shows and most of those are purchased legally. There is also a huge number of false positives found in background checks which incomber gun ownership thereby increasing crime.
^^Stop using facts please. Don't take kindly to it. Pour some emotion into it. It wouldn't hurt to shout "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING" at the top of your lungs. That helps.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0I'm familiar with states where you're not allowed to openly carry, not ones where guns are disallowed altogether though. Regardless any advocacy for getting rid of gun free zone needs to be tempered against the public safety risk this may pose, especially in regards to the legislation that typically makes the headlines, which advocate people carry guns where it would pose a serious hazard to do so.
Yes, but in America, we have certain states/cities which disallow guns. Mass shootings are far more common in those areas. When a mass-shooting does happen in a zone that allows guns there tend to be fewer homicides and faster apprehension.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0Right, I said as a prerequisite, namely, to better background checks. Not what are currently passed off as checks that allow mentally unstable 19 year olds with a history with the police to acquire an assault rifle. A multiple of zero is still zero. All you've provided is a damning report for why current background checks aren't working.
But, Universal Background checks have failed not been shown to reduce homicides. To quote John Lott,And background checks have no effect on violent crime, as found in this recent 2017 study: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1043958/McCarthy_georgetown_0076M_13603.pdf?sequence=1
A 2012 metaanalysis that looked at studies from 1983 and 2005 found that,
As of 2000, the Department of Justice found that only 2% of crimes are committed with guns bought at gun shows and most of those are purchased legally. There is also a huge number of false positives found in background checks which incomber gun ownership thereby increasing crime.
However the effectiveness of a rigorous background check is obviously going to be undermined if it isn't applied universally.
You can't refute anything, so am automatically wrong huh?Apparently so, as that's exactly what you did, and I'm not interested. 👆
Now if in future you feel like addressing my response directly, it's right here: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16520364#post16520364
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Yes, but in America, we have certain states/cities which disallow guns. Mass shootings are far more common in those areas. When a mass-shooting does happen in a zone that allows guns there tend to be fewer homicides and faster apprehension.
This is something I would love to argue with when the gun debate comes up.
Do you have a credible citation that does not require questionable mental gymnastics to prove?
To clarify my position so you know I am being honest in my question: I think it is stupid, for the most part, to blame guns for homicides. Not only is it stupid, it's actually harmful because it fails to address the actual problem but addresses a symptom of the problem.