Thoughts after the mass shooting

[OceanSpray]

Because most reasons become applicable for semi-automatic non-hunting rifles with that one point.

If we made them as scarce as fully automatic weapons

1. They’d become very easy to trace and there wouldn’t be very many in circulation

2. They’d come with increased risk (as not many people would own them to buy off)

3. The price would increase due to rarity.

In fact, you made a very compelling argument on how difficult they’d be to get if we made them illegal just like fully automatic weapons.

It's a state issue for me. I don't support guns in metro cities but I 100% support them in some states where people should have the right to defend themselves. So if your case is there should be a federal gun ban, I disagree with it. There's way too many semi's out that could be purchased in the blackmarket as it is. Where do you think most criminals get their weapon from? Finding a fully automatic is more difficult since there are what? Fewer than 800,000? How many semi's? Easily in the tens of millions with many already in the hands of individuals who shouldn't have them.

We can do stricter gun laws but I believe mental health is the largest reason for gun violence. Many mass shooters are dealing with mental issues and America is very poor at offering treatment. I don't support banning guns at a federal level but do support the banning of guns in high metro areas such as NYC, Los Angeles, etc.,

It's already too late to issue a ban. Maybe decades ago, it would've worked. Right now, the amount of weapons and the fact that every country can smuggle them in makes it very difficult to regulate.

[valade16]

It's a state issue for me. I don't support guns in metro cities but I 100% support them in some states where people should have the right to defend themselves. So if your case is there should be a federal gun ban, I disagree with it. There's way too many semi's out that could be purchased in the blackmarket as it is. Where do you think most criminals get their weapon from? Finding a fully automatic is more difficult since there are what? Fewer than 800,000? How many semi's? Easily in the tens of millions with many already in the hands of individuals who shouldn't have them.

We can do stricter gun laws but I believe mental health is the largest reason for gun violence. Many mass shooters are dealing with mental issues and America is very poor at offering treatment. I don't support banning guns at a federal level but do support the banning of guns in high metro areas such as NYC, Los Angeles, etc.,

It's already too late to issue a ban. Maybe decades ago, it would've worked. Right now, the amount of weapons and the fact that every country can smuggle them in makes it very difficult to regulate.

Nobody is smuggling guns into the US (in fact, people are smuggling them out of the US and into places like Mexico). Also, the black market of gun sales is from 99.9% originally legally purchased guns. The guns bought illegally were initially sold to someone legally and they then sell them illegally. A national database would solve that because it would find who is buying these guns and re-selling them.

Also, banning guns in a place like NYC and LA isn’t super effective because gun runners simply go to a state where it’s legal to buy them (Arizona) and transport the guns. It’s what happened in Chicago, the majority of guns confiscated in crimes in Chicago came from Nebraska, Kansas. Missouri, etc.

I believe it was Wes who made a good point. Supposing mental health is the issue, how does a gun in their hands help the situation at all? Even if it is a mental health issue, those with mental health issues probably shouldn’t have firearms

[OceanSpray]

Nobody is smuggling guns into the US (in fact, people are smuggling them out of the US and into places like Mexico). Also, the black market of gun sales is from 99.9% originally legally purchased guns. The guns bought illegally were initially sold to someone legally and they then sell them illegally. A national database would solve that because it would find who is buying these guns and re-selling them.

Also, banning guns in a place like NYC and LA isn’t super effective because gun runners simply go to a state where it’s legal to buy them (Arizona) and transport the guns. It’s what happened in Chicago, the majority of guns confiscated in crimes in Chicago came from Nebraska, Kansas. Missouri, etc.

I believe it was Wes who made a good point. Supposing mental health is the issue, how does a gun in their hands help the situation at all? Even if it is a mental health issue, those with mental health issues probably shouldn’t have firearms

They aren't smuggling guns because they have no reason to considering domestically, there isn't any reason to do so. I don't need to tell you that. You're proving my point with the black market of gun sales being legally purchased. Those guns are going to be in the circulation and that is why you need stricter gun laws. Bad people will find a way to get those guns so trying to regulate it now is moot. If a bad person has a gun, why can't I? Good luck arguing why someone can't become a gun owner to defend themselves against someone who has access to a gun illegally.

1) Carrying guns across states is more difficult and something I'm willing to have than simply 13 million citizens having the ability of owning a gun. It makes it more difficult even if it does happen, although, I like how you acknowledge that bad people find a way to do bad things while also trying to counter my argument.

2) Those with mental health issues can develop those mental health issues after they were given the gun. Mental health issues can be developed at any given point in someone's life. Maybe they were bullied, fired, or dealing with a traumatic experience in their life. But it all plays into stricter gun laws Stricter background checks where the system is updated perpetually, increasing the age limit, tighter restrictions on secondhand sales of firearms.

There are solid arguments on both sides as to why guns should or shouldn't be banned federally which is why it is a highly contested political issue so there is no right/wrong answer. The best way, IMO, is to create stricter gun laws and to find ways to improve mental illness access and uplift individuals in poverty which is where most of the shootings happen in the first place.

[spliff(TONE)]

Why? I have a kid in middle school. Why is she not allowed the same protection as Biden or Trump?

Is this a real question?

[valade16]

They aren't smuggling guns because they have no reason to considering domestically, there isn't any reason to do so. I don't need to tell you that. You're proving my point with the black market of gun sales being legally purchased. Those guns are going to be in the circulation and that is why you need stricter gun laws. Bad people will find a way to get those guns so trying to regulate it now is moot. If a bad person has a gun, why can't I? Good luck arguing why someone can't become a gun owner to defend themselves against someone who has access to a gun illegally.

1) Carrying guns across states is more difficult and something I'm willing to have than simply 13 million citizens having the ability of owning a gun. It makes it more difficult even if it does happen, although, I like how you acknowledge that bad people find a way to do bad things while also trying to counter my argument.

2) Those with mental health issues can develop those mental health issues after they were given the gun. Mental health issues can be developed at any given point in someone's life. Maybe they were bullied, fired, or dealing with a traumatic experience in their life. But it all plays into stricter gun laws Stricter background checks where the system is updated perpetually, increasing the age limit, tighter restrictions on secondhand sales of firearms.

There are solid arguments on both sides as to why guns should or shouldn't be banned federally which is why it is a highly contested political issue so there is no right/wrong answer. The best way, IMO, is to create stricter gun laws and to find ways to improve mental illness access and uplift individuals in poverty which is where most of the shootings happen in the first place.

The problem with the idea that bad guys will get guns anyway is they aren’t getting them in other countries that banned most types of firearms. If bad guys will get guns no matter what, how come they aren’t in Europe?

[OceanSpray]

The problem with the idea that bad guys will get guns anyway is they aren’t getting them in other countries that banned most types of firearms. If bad guys will get guns no matter what, how come they aren’t in Europe?

I don't know the various laws regarding guns in those countries so I can't really make a comment on something that seems far more complicated than any generic statement I can offer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-use...re-11546857000

But guns do exist in Europe. How far deep you want to get into researching it is up to you but I particularly am not going to do it at this specific time.

I think the history of how Americans became gun loving is precisely due to Europe's obsession with war in the first place. America's gun defenders will always state that they want to protect themselves against government tyranny. Tyranny which began with Britain and the French.

Europe, largely responsible for both World Wars and many other wars in other regions (even today, the lasting impact).

How those gun laws came to place is directly related to the history of the world as to why one country is more gun crazed than an entire continent which history has shown, has suffered from very radical governments at one point in time.

You and I both know that there are a multitude of reasons and categories we can separate gun homicides. Gang violence is a huge part in that. Gun deaths per capita is also far below what it was in the 1970's. The rates are also far lower than some Latin American countries as well. It's not perfect but like I've stated, a ton of room for improvement. We're advocating for the same thing at the end of the day: We want fewer deaths by guns. We just disagree on how to get there.

[valade16]

I don't know the various laws regarding guns in those countries so I can't really make a comment on something that seems far more complicated than any generic statement I can offer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-use...re-11546857000

But guns do exist in Europe. How far deep you want to get into researching it is up to you but I particularly am not going to do it at this specific time.

I think the history of how Americans became gun loving is precisely due to Europe's obsession with war in the first place. America's gun defenders will always state that they want to protect themselves against government tyranny. Tyranny which began with Britain and the French.

Europe, largely responsible for both World Wars and many other wars in other regions (even today, the lasting impact).

How those gun laws came to place is directly related to the history of the world as to why one country is more gun crazed than an entire continent which history has shown, has suffered from very radical governments at one point in time.

You and I both know that there are a multitude of reasons and categories we can separate gun homicides. Gang violence is a huge part in that. Gun deaths per capita is also far below what it was in the 1970's. The rates are also far lower than some Latin American countries as well. It's not perfect but like I've stated, a ton of room for improvement. We're advocating for the same thing at the end of the day: We want fewer deaths by guns. We just disagree on how to get there.

I've done that.

We are advocating for the same thing, the difference is I'm basing my solutions on what the evidence, science, and studies all say.

Anyone who thinks that a reduction in guns won't lead to a reduction in deaths is simply not following the data.

[OceanSpray]

I've done that.

We are advocating for the same thing, the difference is I'm basing my solutions on what the evidence, science, and studies all say.

Anyone who thinks that a reduction in guns won't lead to a reduction in deaths is simply not following the data.

When did I say I didn't want a reduction in guns? I've been on record stating that metro cities should outright ban them and that stricter gun laws need to be enforced which in turn, reduces the amount of guns available. "Evidence, science, and studies." Uhm, no. That is your interpretation of it and that doesn't make it definitive.

[valade16]

When did I say I didn't want a reduction in guns? I've been on record stating that metro cities should outright ban them and that stricter gun laws need to be enforced which in turn, reduces the amount of guns available. "Evidence, science, and studies." Uhm, no. That is your interpretation of it and that doesn't make it definitive.

No, it is not my interpretation, it's literally the data. This is a meta study into guns, which found:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/

Where there are more guns there is more homicide

Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide

Across states, more guns = more homicide

More guns = more homicides of police

Here's another study:

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/111201...ional-evidence

A 2016 study, published in the academic journal Epidemiologic Reviews... systematically reviewed the evidence from around the world on gun laws and gun violence, looking to see if the best studies come to similar conclusions.

they did find a compelling trend whereby new restrictions on gun purchasing and ownership tended to be followed by a decline in gun deaths.

"Across countries, instead of seeing an increase in the homicide rate, we saw a reduction," Julian Santaella-Tenorio, a doctoral student in epidemiology at Columbia University and the study's lead author, told me in an interview shortly after publication.


Here's a recent study submitted to the National Academy of Sciences:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14906

Looking at three classes of laws that regulate children’s access to firearms, the carrying of a concealed firearm, and the use of a firearm in self-defense, we found that state laws restricting firearm storage and use are associated with a subsequent 11% decrease in the firearms-related death rate.

Our findings suggest that a small but meaningful decrease in firearm-related deaths may be associated with the implementation of more restrictive gun policies.

In a hypothetical situation in which there are 39,000 firearms deaths nationally under the permissive combination of these three laws, we expect 4,475 (80% CI, 1,761 to 6,949) more deaths nationally than under the restrictive combination of these laws.

Here's another study, which found:

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/stat...ce-gun-deaths/

“The main lesson that comes out of this research is that we know which laws work. Despite the fact that opponents of gun regulation are saying, ‘We don’t know what’s going on, it’s mental health issues, it’s these crazy people,’ which doesn’t lend itself to a solution—the truth is that we have a pretty good grasp at what’s going on. People who shouldn’t have access to guns are getting access.”

Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.



This isn't my interpretation of the data, it's what the data is saying. I actually did a deep dive into this subject for college. The data has been studied many times it always comes back with the same conclusions. In fact, gun advocates know this, which is why they don't want the CDC funding any research into firearms, because they know what it will say.


If this is simply your ignorance on the issue, I implore you to read some of the links I posted. The evidence is clear: more guns generally results in more deaths.

[OceanSpray]

No, it is not my interpretation, it's literally the data. This is a meta study into guns, which found:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/

Where there are more guns there is more homicide

Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide

Across states, more guns = more homicide

More guns = more homicides of police

Here's another study:

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/111201...ional-evidence

A 2016 study, published in the academic journal Epidemiologic Reviews... systematically reviewed the evidence from around the world on gun laws and gun violence, looking to see if the best studies come to similar conclusions.

they did find a compelling trend whereby new restrictions on gun purchasing and ownership tended to be followed by a decline in gun deaths.

"Across countries, instead of seeing an increase in the homicide rate, we saw a reduction," Julian Santaella-Tenorio, a doctoral student in epidemiology at Columbia University and the study's lead author, told me in an interview shortly after publication.


Here's a recent study submitted to the National Academy of Sciences:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14906

Looking at three classes of laws that regulate children’s access to firearms, the carrying of a concealed firearm, and the use of a firearm in self-defense, we found that state laws restricting firearm storage and use are associated with a subsequent 11% decrease in the firearms-related death rate.

Our findings suggest that a small but meaningful decrease in firearm-related deaths may be associated with the implementation of more restrictive gun policies.

In a hypothetical situation in which there are 39,000 firearms deaths nationally under the permissive combination of these three laws, we expect 4,475 (80% CI, 1,761 to 6,949) more deaths nationally than under the restrictive combination of these laws.

Here's another study, which found:

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/stat...ce-gun-deaths/

“The main lesson that comes out of this research is that we know which laws work. Despite the fact that opponents of gun regulation are saying, ‘We don’t know what’s going on, it’s mental health issues, it’s these crazy people,’ which doesn’t lend itself to a solution—the truth is that we have a pretty good grasp at what’s going on. People who shouldn’t have access to guns are getting access.”

Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.



This isn't my interpretation of the data, it's what the data is saying. I actually did a deep dive into this subject for college. The data has been studied many times it always comes back with the same conclusions. In fact, gun advocates know this, which is why they don't want the CDC funding any research into firearms, because they know what it will say.


If this is simply your ignorance on the issue, I implore you to read some of the links I posted. The evidence is clear: more guns generally results in more deaths.

I'm referring to you claiming your solutions are definitive regarding gun laws in the country. I don't disagree with the raw data in face value because I've already stated that gun violence is an issue. But you have to break it down to suicides, mental illness, gang violence, etc., Solving these issues internally will decrease the amount of gun violence drastically. I'm not a fan of federally banning guns which you seem to be proposing (I assume) so if that's your solution, I simply disagree. Your sources doesn't suggest that there would be 0 deaths caused by guns if guns were banned. It just states that more guns = easier access to fatally hurt or kill someone which is quite obvious. More cars = more car deaths. Should we stop driving cars? How you perceive the data to support your narrative doesn't generate a definitive solution which you seem to think you have.

[joeyc77]

Bc she is no where near as important to people that aren’t you. No offense but really? The things parents say are crazy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The president is just a person. It's no different.

[spliff(TONE)]

Funny stuff, joey.

[joeyc77]

Is this a real question?

Maybe i should have used the orange man as the example. Cause we all know orange man bad grrrrrr!!!

[spliff(TONE)]

Very intelligent and relevant response.

[spliff(TONE)]

Keep arguing that your kid deserves Secret Service level protection while at school. Really highlights your next level intelligence and pulse on reality.