Shooting in florida

Captain Obvious

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

Friends and family of the deceased. People in the gaming community. Common decent people.

Pretzeluck

I respect American resilience. In this nation, there would be massive knee jerk reactions.
Got beaten by a baseball bat? Ban all baseball bats.
Stabbed with a sword? Ban all swords because you can't ****ing stab with a long knife.
Ban ban ban because if someone wants to kill someone they'll just give up because they don't have an access to a sword. I love Americans and their constitution protecting their rights not retarded knee jerk reactions which do nothing.

Duckworth_Luas

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

I know one person who would have cared.

A legendary former poster called KeithAFC.

Sadly he's no longer with us, but his spirit briefly lived on through another poster Patrick_Cleburne, who is also no longer with us.

Thankfully you are here to remind us of these fallen legends.

yerwanthere123

Pretzeluck wrote: »

I respect American resilience. In this nation, there would be massive knee jerk reactions.
Got beaten by a baseball bat? Ban all baseball bats.
Stabbed with a sword? Ban all swords because you can't ****ing stab with a long knife.
Ban ban ban because if someone wants to kill someone they'll just give up because they don't have an access to a sword. I love Americans and their constitution protecting their rights not retarded knee jerk reactions which do nothing.

NOVA MCMXCIV

Pretzeluck wrote: »

I respect American resilience. In this nation, there would be massive knee jerk reactions.
Got beaten by a baseball bat? Ban all baseball bats.
Stabbed with a sword? Ban all swords because you can't ****ing stab with a long knife.
Ban ban ban because if someone wants to kill someone they'll just give up because they don't have an access to a sword. I love Americans and their constitution protecting their rights not retarded knee jerk reactions which do nothing.

OldMrBrennan83

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

NOVA MCMXCIV wrote: »

Errrrr.

NOVA MCMXCIV

Patww79 wrote: »

Errrrr.

There was a GIF in those now blank posts. It was: I'm going to say something, my mouth is moving – STOP! Hesitation – ending in the realisation of it being likely better – to say nothing at all, kind of thing...

YFlyer

Patww79 wrote: »

Errrrr.

It is called a Copycat Reply.

take everything

What the **** is wrong with these "shooters".

Seriously lost little ****ers who don't have an ounce of humanity in them.

Arseholes.

NOVA MCMXCIV

YFlyer wrote: »

It is called a Copycat Reply.

Didn't know that! It should have been just mine that was deleted then... My bad.

It's hardly newsworthy. But if we are to talk about, I guess date and location should be added to the thread title so we know which one is being discussed.

cloudatlas

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Just watched the clip on MSNBC. They beeped out the swears but not the gunshots. That's US priorities for you. Listen to someone die is fine, swearing is a no no.

But... you still clicked on it, surely you knew there was a chance you'd be listening to or seeing something that would be connected to the death of someone?

YFlyer

cloudatlas wrote: »

But... you still clicked on it, surely you knew there was a chance you'd be listening to or seeing something that would be connected to the death of someone?

Obviously. He didn't expect the swear words be muted.

cloudatlas

YFlyer wrote: »

Obviously. He didn't expect the swear words be muted.

of course he had his priorities straight.

YFlyer

cloudatlas wrote: »

of course he had his priorities straight.

Watching Tommy Tierney US standup would let you know how the Yanks roll.

dublinman1990

I shouldn't have listened to that Twitter video with the sound on before I will get to bed soon. Christ almighty; that young shooter is one disturbed f**king lunatic.

The BBC were saying that this stuff was unexpectedly put on a live Twitch stream for all to hear online during the tournament.

It feels like life is so fragile with these scumbags going around the world today increasing further fear while killing more innocent people without fear nor consequence.

R.I.P. to all the victims killed in this tragedy.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Apparently the shooter was a gamer who lost according to the news. I guess video games can kill.

VinLieger

cloudatlas wrote: »

of course he had his priorities straight.

I think you missed the point of the post, they bleeped out swear words but left in the sounds of gunshots and people dying, which would you say is more traumatic or worrying to hear?



Its emblematic of the problem the us has with guns.

Wibbs

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Just watched the clip on MSNBC. They beeped out the swears but not the gunshots. That's US priorities for you. Listen to someone die is fine, swearing is a no no.

As Col. Kurtz said in the flic Apocalypse Now:"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won’t allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because that’s obscene". That odd cognitive dissonance and crazy contrasts has long been a feature of US culture.

Wibbs

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Christ almighty; that young shooter is one disturbed f**king lunatic.

He's being described as weird, emotionless and nerdy by other competitors. And he had access to firearms. Not a great mix.

Wanderer78

It's gonna be difficult to remove the sociopaths and psychopaths that rule the roast over there, along with their deranged policies, it's a warning for the rest of us.

Wanderer78

Wibbs wrote:

He's being described as weird, emotionless and nerdy by other competitors. And he had access to firearms. Not a great mix.

Sounds like he may have been on the autism spectrum

punisher5112

It seems one can be completely retarded to get a gun in the states and that's the legal way of buying.

Captain Obvious

cloudatlas wrote: »

But... you still clicked on it, surely you knew there was a chance you'd be listening to or seeing something that would be connected to the death of someone?

I think you missed the point. I have no issue with either being shown. I have an issue with choosing to censor the swear words over the sound of people being shot and killed. What's the point in it? Is murder not worse than swearing?

Gwynplaine

'Thoughts and Prayers' obviously don't work.

VinLieger

Gwynplaine wrote: »

'Thoughts and Prayers' obviously don't work.

Not yet but sure the GOP will keep trying, sure what other solution could there be?

steddyeddy

Shooting in America? Are you sure?

Korvanica

Very sad day for the Madden community and the families of the deceased.

Murica gonna Murica i guess. Have the law abiding Gun toting idiots of the USA started blaming video games for this yet?

Gunmonkey

VinLieger wrote: »

Not yet but sure the GOP will keep trying, sure what other solution could there be?

Good guys with guns to shoot the bad guys...except for President Trump, he would have run at him bare-handed if he was there!

As for why they censored the swear words, have to as per broadcast regs. yeah the sounds of people being shot are far worse but there would be one person who writes a complaint over the "potty mouth", so the news service would get fined...just far easier to bleep it out.

VinLieger

Gunmonkey wrote: »

As for why they censored the swear words, have to as per broadcast regs. yeah the sounds of people being shot are far worse but there would be one person who writes a complaint over the "potty mouth", so the news service would get fined...just far easier to bleep it out.

Thats 100% the reason its just absolutely arseways that theres more concern about people hearing swear words than gunshots and people dying

Manic Moran

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Surely someone had a gun on them to shoot back? No?

Unlikely. Firearms are strictly prohibited in the facility unless carried by law enforcement personnel. Apparently the shooter didn't see the signs.

Thats 100% the reason its just absolutely arseways that theres more concern about people hearing swear words than gunshots and people dying

There was a similar case a few years back of a Swiss woman investigated for taking risque selfies of herself in the parliament building. The police released one of the tamer photographs to the media. Swiss media blurred out her face so she could not be identified. American media left the face unblurred, but blurred out the barely visible nipple.

I believe breast feeding in public only became legal in all fifty states last month, because, omergawd, visible breasts.... There are some things that the US really needs to catch up on.

pleas advice

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was a similar case a few years back of a Swiss woman ...

For the sake of Privacy Let's call her Lisa S... No That's too Obvious, let's say L. Simpson.

Gwynplaine wrote: »

'Thoughts and Prayers' obviously don't work.

maybe we should start praying to Allah...

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are some things that the US really needs to catch up on.

Oh the irony... but I suppose gun ownership / availability is not one of them?

Manic Moran

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Oh the irony... but I suppose gun ownership / availability is not one of them?

Could do with a little tightening, but I'm OK with the general principle given the realities on the ground. There are positive uses to firearms. I'm at a bit of a loss to think of any significant positive benefits to banning public breast feeding.

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Could do with a little tightening, but I'm OK with the general principle given the realities on the ground. There are positive uses to firearms. I'm at a bit of a loss to think of any significant positive benefits to banning public breast feeding.

There are positive uses to firearms. I'm not sure anyone would disagree. But the negative results of such prolific gun ownership and liberal laws would seem to far outweigh the positive. There's 19 children a day injured by firearms in America. "Could do with a little tightening" seems a bit tame does it not?

Wanderer78

Captain Obvious wrote:

There are positive uses to firearms. I'm not sure anyone would disagree. But the negative results of such prolific gun ownership and liberal laws would seem to far outweigh the positive. There's 19 children a day injured by firearms in America. "Could do with a little tightening" seems a bit tame does it not?

Wasting your time I'm afraid, the pro gun lobbyists are ruling the roast over there, it's an unresolveable issue in that country, it's just best we all learn from the dangers of such movements, and prevent them from occurring within our own

Manic Moran

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There are positive uses to firearms. I'm not sure anyone would disagree. But the negative results of such prolific gun ownership and liberal laws would seem to far outweigh the positive. There's 19 children a day injured by firearms in America. "Could do with a little tightening" seems a bit tame does it not?

Nobody has as yet come up with a less tame solution which has a possibility of working. Magic hand-waving away of a quarter-billion untraceable firearms, with more being added every day as it becomes easier to make them is not a viable policy, even before the likelihood of a legal change which would allow it in the first place is considered.

If a location like the GLHF bar (or my office) is going to declare itself a gun-free zone, then enforce it. They are private entities, they are permitted to do so. Instead, they just put up a sign and hope that someone who is unhinged enough to commence a spree shooting will obey it. And it keeps happening that way. What's easier, ban access to firearms across the country, or do a search at the door? I was at an event in the UK in June, all 20,000 folks entering were wanded and bags checked. It's not that hard. If you don't want to enforce it, then assume that someone will be armed regardless of what your signage says. We have ample evidence by now to support such a presumption.

Of those 19 children a day, a wonderfully emotive description, about 2/3 were intentional assaults, overwhelmingly black. The problem with just throwing out 'children' is that it includes gang members in Chicago, DC, or New Orleans of an age who know better deliberately shooting each other, usually with illegally held firearms. That's not a gun problem which can be addressed, that's a social problem which needs to be addressed regardless. The rest, the 38% of deaths which were suicides, the 6% which were accidents, can be quite easily addressed with less intrusive regulation, education, and downright caring for other people.

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

Friends and family of the deceased. People in the gaming community. Common decent people.

Why the big thread as if it's a big story when we all know it's not because it happens so often and that the US does nothing about it. You can't expect people to get so emotional over something which the US inflict on themselves with the gun laws they have.

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

I know one person who would have cared.

A legendary former poster called KeithAFC.

Sadly he's no longer with us, but his spirit briefly lived on through another poster Patrick_Cleburne, who is also no longer with us.

Thankfully you are here to remind us of these fallen legends.

Sorry I'm not following what you mean by this?

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

Friends and family of the deceased. People in the gaming community. Common decent people.

Why the big thread as if it's a big story when we all know it's not because it happens so often and that the US does nothing about it. You can't expect people to get so emotional over something which the US inflict on themselves with the gun laws they have.

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Who cares at this point.

I know one person who would have cared.

A legendary former poster called KeithAFC.

Sadly he's no longer with us, but his spirit briefly lived on through another poster Patrick_Cleburne, who is also no longer with us.

Thankfully you are here to remind us of these fallen legends.

Sorry I'm not following what you mean by this?

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nobody has as yet come up with a less tame solution which has a possibility of working. Magic hand-waving away of a quarter-billion untraceable firearms, with more being added every day as it becomes easier to make them is not a viable policy, even before the likelihood of a legal change which would allow it in the first place is considered.

Most of the first world has come up with a solution. Australia introduced it after a massacre. There was no magic involved. I'll leave you with a question put by Toby Ziegler that I've yet to hear an answer to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFIYLimyRHU

Manic Moran wrote: »

If a location like the GLHF bar (or my office) is going to declare itself a gun-free zone, then enforce it. They are private entities, they are permitted to do so. Instead, they just put up a sign and hope that someone who is unhinged enough to commence a spree shooting will obey it. And it keeps happening that way. What's easier, ban access to firearms across the country, or do a search at the door? I was at an event in the UK in June, all 20,000 folks entering were wanded and bags checked. It's not that hard. If you don't want to enforce it, then assume that someone will be armed regardless of what your signage says. We have ample evidence by now to support such a presumption.

What has a sign got do do with anything? If the sign were replaced by a law it still wouldn't affect someone who had the intent of a mass shooting. The solution is to make it harder for them to get weapons in the first place. You do that with gun control. What do you think would have happened in the UK if one of those 20,000 had a weapon and wanted to kill people? You think a security guard with a wand would have foiled their plan or would they simply have started by shooting him? Nobody is arguing that a ban on possession in a particular location will stop someone like this from deciding to do what they did out of a fear of the law. That's not the purpose of such a law or rule.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of those 19 children a day, a wonderfully emotive description, about 2/3 were intentional assaults, overwhelmingly black. The problem with just throwing out 'children' is that it includes gang members in Chicago, DC, or New Orleans of an age who know better deliberately shooting each other, usually with illegally held firearms.

You can try and downplay the number all you want, it doesn't change it.

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's not a gun problem which can be addressed, that's a social problem which needs to be addressed regardless. The rest, the 38% of deaths which were suicides, the 6% which were accidents, can be quite easily addressed with less intrusive regulation, education, and downright caring for other people.

It is a gun control problem though. Do you not think in a society that is flooded with guns and has such lax gun control laws it is easier to obtain a firearm illegally?

Woke Hogan

The vast majority of gun crime in the USA is committed by members of the black community with illegally held weapons. Restrictions on gun ownership won't change that if the mass inequality in the US isn't addressed, which it never will be.

Irish Praetorian

Woke Hogan wrote: »

The vast majority of gun crime in the USA is committed by members of the black community with illegally held weapons. Restrictions on gun ownership won't change that if the mass inequality in the US isn't addressed, which it never will be.

That's a possibility I had considered, but if you cross reference the murder rates of the individual states, even those with the whitest of populations have murder rates considerably in excess of Western European ones.

James Brown

The other scary thing was the Mayor or whom ever suggesting lack of religious faith was the cause of all these killings.

Captain Obvious

Woke Hogan wrote: »

The vast majority of gun crime in the USA is committed by members of the black community with illegally held weapons. Restrictions on gun ownership won't change that if the mass inequality in the US isn't addressed, which it never will be.

Where do they get their guns?

Woke Hogan

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Where do they get their guns?

I would assume most of them are stolen or have been bought from illegal dealers. I don't know the statistics but I would guess that most of the murderers who commit gun crimes in urban areas wouldn't be legal gun owners.

StinkyMunkey

It's the same old arguments:

Cars kill, ban cars.
If everyone had a gun, this wouldn't happen.
Point out that people in other countries die from gun deaths.
Knives kill, ban knives.
Only criminals kill with guns (or blacks according to some genius in this thread).
Etc etc etc........

The gun nuts totally ignore the fact:

The 2nd amendment is archaic, and most country update their constitution to catch up with modern times.
More guns = more deaths.
Just like more cars on the road = more road deaths (traffic laws are constantly being updated).
Stricter gun laws will saves lives, but the right to bear arms supersedes someone right to live.

I could go on all day about why Americans problem with gun deaths won't change until their laws regarding ownership will. But the gun nuts will bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge what the problem with gun deaths is - guns ��

Manic Moran

Most of the first world has come up with a solution. Australia introduced it after a massacre. There was no magic involved. I'll leave you with a question put by Toby Ziegler that I've yet to hear an answer to.

To answer the question, "both". We are more homicidal by nature. And, yes, we have more access to firearms. It's about as easy to buy a firearm in the Czech Republic (About one in thirty Czechs have a license to carry a concealed firearm, just behind the rate in Texas) as it is in California, but the Czechs aren't killing each other at the same rate.

They did, but there are several significant caveats to the Australian situation which keep getting missed.
1) They weren't particularly prone to mass shootings to begin with. It is true, there has never been a shooting to equate with Port Arthur's since the gun buyback. Neither was there one prior either. One can look at neighboring New Zealand, which has not restricted firearms like Australia has, they also have a lack of notable mass shootings. Indeed, the old Brookings Institute paper from 2003 on the subject (http://www.popcenter.org/problems/gun_violence/PDFs/Reuter_Mouzos_2003.pdf) noted "New Zealand participated in the Australasian Police Ministers Council but chose not to implement the NAF. It is of some interest to compare changes in homicide and gun-related homicide rates in New Zealand with those in Australia. In New Zealand, there was no decline in the total number of homicides, but a significant decline occurred in the fraction committed with a firearm." So, it seems from the evidence of New Zealand that it is possible to have an effect on firearms deaths without actually changing firearms law.
2) The Buyback is estimated to have only removed no more than 1/3 of eligible firearms, the rest went underground. If a similar "American" solution imposed were to have success rates similar to Australia's or the attempt in Canada to merely register rifles, you're still looking at over 200 million firearms remaining in circulation.
3) There are more guns in Australia today than there were at the time of Port Arthur, it is the world's 7th largest importer of firearms. They include semi-autos such as are often used in American mass shootings. Cho's Glock is available for under $1,000 AUS: https://www.acme-firearms.com.au/Glock/glock-pistols.html . They have plenty of firearms out there which can be used.
4) There is ample question of a causal link between the reduction in Australian deaths and the gun buyback. That deaths are going down is a given. Whether it was a factor of better policing, social programs, or gun laws, is not so clear, and few articles attempt to differentiate between correlation and causation:
University of Sydney, as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 2016 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362 : "Following the enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997, but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms."
University of Melbourne, 2008 https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf: "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."
Or this one, from Griffiths University 2016 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178916300258?via%3Dihub : "Australian studies have not found evidence of changes in lethal violence following gun law reform. Empirical findings about Australian gun law reform contradict ‘popular’ views about those laws."

What do you think would have happened in the UK if one of those 20,000 had a weapon and wanted to kill people? You think a security guard with a wand would have foiled their plan or would they simply have started by shooting him?

I always thought it was a bit stupid that our armed security guard in the office was stationed at the front desk, for just that reason. However, given that this event was on a military base, I don't think it's the security guy with the wand who they needed to worry about, more the other blokes carrying guns who were standing around nearby. I went through Munich airport last week, same thing. The guys with the metal detectors were unarmed. There were a number of folks standing further back carrying submachine guns though.

Nobody is arguing that a ban on possession in a particular location will stop someone like this from deciding to do what they did out of a fear of the law. That's not the purpose of such a law or rule.

Then why does it exist? What is the purpose of a prohibition which is unenforced and ineffective? Major League Baseball now has metal detectors and bag checks at all its stadiums. If they want to make their stadia gun free zones, that's up to them. At least they are enforcing it. It is something which can be realistically done. Putting up a sign at The Landing saying "No guns permitted" will achieve... what? If, somehow (and there's more chance of my visiting the moon as a tourist in my lifetime) an Australian-style prohibition on semi-auto rifles were passed by Congress tomorrow, what would it achieve on the ground in the US? Yes, Australia has a licensing regimen, but they had one before the 1996 law as well.

It is a gun control problem though. Do you not think in a society that is flooded with guns and has such lax gun control laws it is easier to obtain a firearm illegally?

In a country flooded with guns and -with- tighter control it's pretty easy to obtain firearms illegally. By definition, they aren't following the controls to begin with. But certainly it can be addressed. How about simply starting with something easy like a campaign for "If your firearm is unattended, lock it up?" It's not dramatic, but without banning guns or prohibiting people from using them, would you not agree that it would still go a long way to reducing the number of accidental deaths, thefts (which then end up in criminal use) and the likes? Hell, give every household a $200 lockbox and make it easy for them. Under a quarter billion dollars if every household gets one, regardless of if they have a firearm or not.

Wibbs

Manic Moran wrote: »

To answer the question, "both". We are more homicidal by nature. And, yes, we have more access to firearms. It's about as easy to buy a firearm in the Czech Republic (About one in thirty Czechs have a license to carry a concealed firearm, just behind the rate in Texas) as it is in California, but the Czechs aren't killing each other at the same rate.

Food for thought MM. It seems obvious to call for fewer guns and no doubt it would have some effect, but as you point out US culture for some reason does seem more likely to foster mass shootings.

And it's a relatively recent thing with it. Yes they happened in the past, when gun control laws were laxer, but at a much lower rate. There was a definite upswing in the 90's. If we look at the US in the 20th century the trend has been towards more gun control over time, but the trend has also been more mass shootings and more deaths by firearms overall. Even if we account for population increase that still holds. I remember reading a stat that was along the lines of for young men the risk of death by shooting was 80 times higher in the US than in the UK.

What has changed since the 90's? In mass shootings the demographic is majority young White men. In general gun deaths it's heavily skewed towards minorities. So different factors at work there. I would suspect the copycat effect is in play in the first demographic. It's seen among a minority as an option. An upswing in mental illness and higher expectations not being met another. Those factors are in nearly every western culture, so something else appears to be going on in the US.

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

To answer the question, "both". We are more homicidal by nature. And, yes, we have more access to firearms. It's about as easy to buy a firearm in the Czech Republic (About one in thirty Czechs have a license to carry a concealed firearm, just behind the rate in Texas) as it is in California, but the Czechs aren't killing each other at the same rate.

To get a gun in Czech Republic you have to pass a proficiency exam, medical check and criminal background check. The ownership rate is about 12.5%. I think the US is about 120%. About 3% of the population own guns compared to the US 46%. In Czech Republic the police can object to your firearm licence on the basis of reliability. I'm not really sure how you can compare the US to Czech Republic. They have major gun control.

Manic Moran wrote: »

They did, but there are several significant caveats to the Australian situation which keep getting missed.
1) They weren't particularly prone to mass shootings to begin with. It is true, there has never been a shooting to equate with Port Arthur's since the gun buyback. Neither was there one prior either. One can look at neighboring New Zealand, which has not restricted firearms like Australia has, they also have a lack of notable mass shootings. Indeed, the old Brookings Institute paper from 2003 on the subject (http://www.popcenter.org/problems/gun_violence/PDFs/Reuter_Mouzos_2003.pdf) noted "New Zealand participated in the Australasian Police Ministers Council but chose not to implement the NAF. It is of some interest to compare changes in homicide and gun-related homicide rates in New Zealand with those in Australia. In New Zealand, there was no decline in the total number of homicides, but a significant decline occurred in the fraction committed with a firearm." So, it seems from the evidence of New Zealand that it is possible to have an effect on firearms deaths without actually changing firearms law.

Port Arthur was to Australia what Columbine was to the US. Australia reacted with gun control, the US did not. Sure, you can argue gun control is not really the reason Australia had few other similar shootings but 51,000 illegal firearms were handed in and gun death rates went from 2.9 per 100,000 to 0.9 in the two decades after. Some argue that this was a trend before the reforms but it accelerated afterwards.

Manic Moran wrote: »

2) The Buyback is estimated to have only removed no more than 1/3 of eligible firearms, the rest went underground. If a similar "American" solution imposed were to have success rates similar to Australia's or the attempt in Canada to merely register rifles, you're still looking at over 200 million firearms remaining in circulation.

And? Less guns is still a good thing. You're arguing there is no point in doing it because it would only remove 100 million firearms?

Manic Moran wrote: »

3) There are more guns in Australia today than there were at the time of Port Arthur, it is the world's 7th largest importer of firearms. They include semi-autos such as are often used in American mass shootings. Cho's Glock is available for under $1,000 AUS: https://www.acme-firearms.com.au/Glock/glock-pistols.html . They have plenty of firearms out there which can be used.

There are more guns and there are more people so the gun ownership rate has dropped. Australia established a national framework for gun control to ensure, like most first world countries do, that only responsible and legal people can purchase firearms. Individual states have started to reduce compliance with this legislation which might explain the increase in gun ownership you referred to.

Manic Moran wrote: »

4) There is ample question of a causal link between the reduction in Australian deaths and the gun buyback. That deaths are going down is a given. Whether it was a factor of better policing, social programs, or gun laws, is not so clear, and few articles attempt to differentiate between correlation and causation:
University of Sydney, as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 2016 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362 : "Following the enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997, but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms."
University of Melbourne, 2008 https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf: "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."
Or this one, from Griffiths University 2016 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178916300258?via%3Dihub : "Australian studies have not found evidence of changes in lethal violence following gun law reform. Empirical findings about Australian gun law reform contradict ‘popular’ views about those laws."

Nobody disagrees that gun deaths went down after the reforms. The disagreement is over they went down faster than before.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I always thought it was a bit stupid that our armed security guard in the office was stationed at the front desk, for just that reason. However, given that this event was on a military base, I don't think it's the security guy with the wand who they needed to worry about, more the other blokes carrying guns who were standing around nearby. I went through Munich airport last week, same thing. The guys with the metal detectors were unarmed. There were a number of folks standing further back carrying submachine guns though.

How much armed security do you think a Madden tournament should have?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Then why does it exist? What is the purpose of a prohibition which is unenforced and ineffective? Major League Baseball now has metal detectors and bag checks at all its stadiums. If they want to make their stadia gun free zones, that's up to them. At least they are enforcing it. It is something which can be realistically done. Putting up a sign at The Landing saying "No guns permitted" will achieve... what? If, somehow (and there's more chance of my visiting the moon as a tourist in my lifetime) an Australian-style prohibition on semi-auto rifles were passed by Congress tomorrow, what would it achieve on the ground in the US? Yes, Australia has a licensing regimen, but they had one before the 1996 law as well.

Well if you are in a place that has a prohibition on guns and you see a person with a gun you can call the police and inform them. They can then come and arrest that person for possession of said gun in a prohibited place. But like I said, those kinds of prohibitions aren't there to get a mass shooter to consult his conscience. They are about as effective as "Shoplifters will be prosecuted" signs are on a serial shoplifter. They are targeted at different kinds of people.

Manic Moran wrote: »

In a country flooded with guns and -with- tighter control it's pretty easy to obtain firearms illegally. By definition, they aren't following the controls to begin with. But certainly it can be addressed. How about simply starting with something easy like a campaign for "If your firearm is unattended, lock it up?" It's not dramatic, but without banning guns or prohibiting people from using them, would you not agree that it would still go a long way to reducing the number of accidental deaths, thefts (which then end up in criminal use) and the likes? Hell, give every household a $200 lockbox and make it easy for them. Under a quarter billion dollars if every household gets one, regardless of if they have a firearm or not.

Funny that, I suggested to a pro gun person before that a lockbox be required for ownership and they were completely opposed to it because some people may not be able to afford to secure their firearm. You appear to be suggesting the state should pay for a person to secure their firearm. How many lockboxes should each person be entitled to? It seems that personal responsibility is simply not a consideration for pro gun Americans.

Wibbs

I still think MM has a point regarding a trend that is particular to US culture of the last 20-30 years. When guns were far easier to get in the US, the rates of mass shootings were tiny. There's definitely a cultural factor at play.

Closer to home, look at London and the recent crazy wave of stabbings that are killing someone on a near daily basis. Five years ago there were stabbings in London at the rate you'd expect for a major city, but look at the near overnight peak going on at the moment. Knives haven't become any more common, but stabbing has. There's a cultural "meme" in play. Maybe kicks off as copycat, then it becomes a fear among some, so they carry their own knives, then it becomes accepted and then you get increased rates of stabbings. Before you'd beat a guy up, now you stab them. It becomes normalised. In very simplistic terms of course. Ditto for the massive rise in acid attacks. I remember buying battery acid many moons ago in a motor factors. It was easy to get, yet no acid attacks.

I suspect some sort of cultural "meme" is play in the US too(different ones for different groups of course). I recall reading a few years back - and I dunno if this still holds - but that if you took (IIRC) 8 US cities out of the stats and risk factors the rest of the US is actually safer, with lower murder rates than many other western nations. Naturally cities concentrate such things, but a fair number of large cities in the US were as safe as similar sized cities in Europe. Also IIRC those 8 cities with the mad gun death rates had some of the highest barriers to gun ownership.

Don't get me wrong Capt' O, I do think the US gun ownership level is mad and their cultural attachment to them equally so, but it's only one part of the story. And because there are so many firearms in the mix, even if they tried the Aussie model 1) they'd get a lot more kickback and 2) the numbers of guns in the society would not drop so much and dodgy people would still have them, or be able to get them. The horse has long bolted from the stable in the US. However if more active research was aimed at the lone gunman mass shooting phenomenon and the causes and signs were more understood, it could save more lives. Ditto for more attention towards the level of gun crime among some minorities.