Shooting in florida

suicide_circus · 29-08-2018 7:51pm

Mass shootings in the US are like tsunami in Japan or hurricanes in the Caribbean or wild fires in the Outback.

Captain Obvious · 29-08-2018 8:25pm

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

There are societal issues at play. People moving to more extreme political position, poverty, poor mental health treatment, inequality, a completely corrupt political system. But the idea that gun control isn't worth addressing because there are other factors at play is simply not logical.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Police numbers in London are their lowest in 20 years. I think that has played a major role in the increase in violence. If London had the same civilian gun ownership rate as the US, do you think many of those stabbing and acid attacks would have been shootings?

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I would bet my bottom dollar those have high poverty stricken populations. But the reality is gun control will not work on a city by city basis if you can just drive a few kilometers to buy a gun legally and bring it back.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Well the problem is that the NRA backed Dickie amendment prevents the CDC engaging in the kind of research your are suggesting. And you are right, it is only one part of the story, it doesn't mean it cannot be addressed on it's own instead of only as part of a wider approach.

Wanderer78 · 29-08-2018 9:35pm

Bootlegger wrote:

America has a problem with poor and crazy people, not guns.

Maybe increasing worker insecurity and rising inequality are causing the poor and crazy people?

Captain Obvious · 29-08-2018 9:47pm

Bootlegger wrote: »

Blacks kill each other every day in Chicago and no one gives a ****.

America has a problem with poor and crazy people, not guns.

Plenty of people give a ****.

America has a problem with poverty and with crazy people having access to guns alright.

BattleCorp · 29-08-2018 9:51pm

But the idea that gun control isn't worth addressing because there are other factors at play is simply not logical.

Firstly, I do think there needs to be tightening up of gun laws in the States but realistically how is that going to be done?

Try ban guns and people will want them all the more.

You might get some small concessions but nothing effective.

Itssoeasy · 29-08-2018 9:53pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There are societal issues at play. People moving to more extreme political position, poverty, poor mental health treatment, inequality, a completely corrupt political system. But the idea that gun control isn't worth addressing because there are other factors at play is simply not logical.

Police numbers in London are their lowest in 20 years. I think that has played a major role in the increase in violence. If London had the same civilian gun ownership rate as the US, do you think many of those stabbing and acid attacks would have been shootings?

I would bet my bottom dollar those have high poverty stricken populations. But the reality is gun control will not work on a city by city basis if you can just drive a few kilometers to buy a gun legally and bring it back.

Well the problem is that the NRA backed Dickie amendment prevents the CDC engaging in the kind of research your are suggesting. And you are right, it is only one part of the story, it doesn't mean it cannot be addressed on it's own instead of only as part of a wider approach.

The fact that the CDC can't research gun violence is nuts. I recall an obama townhall on PBS I think it was and he was asked why he wanted to punish responsible gun owners. He said he didn't and as president couldn't take people's guns away. He also said something that baffled me. He as president can't stop a known ISIS sympathiser from buying a gun. He could put him on a no fly list but not ban him from buying a gun. How daft is that ?

Wanderer78 · 29-08-2018 9:53pm

BattleCorp wrote:

Try ban guns and people will want them all the more.

Maybe Chris rock is right, charge 5000 dollars per bullet

Korvanica · 30-08-2018 8:36am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Firstly, I do think there needs to be tightening up of gun laws in the States but realistically how is that going to be done?

Try ban guns and people will want them all the more.

You might get some small concessions but nothing effective.

Apparently after every mass shooting, sales of guns, attachments and ammunition sky rockets as people think this might be the one that causes the ban. Never happens.

Read this on an AskReddit thread last night.

Edit: Found it, its reddit so few grains of salt maybe.

Wibbs · 30-08-2018 9:59am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The fact that the CDC can't research gun violence is nuts.

+1000 When I read that first I had a major WTF is going on with that.

Hitman3000 · 30-08-2018 10:15am

Mass shooting in America? I'm shocked. Nah just joking, be more when the schools are fully open again. Almost forgot... Thoughts and Prayers.

Pedro K · 30-08-2018 10:18am

Bootlegger wrote: »

Blacks kill each other every day in Chicago and no one gives a ****.

America has a problem with poor and crazy people, not guns.

Perhaps the crazy people should be prevented from getting guns...

cloudatlas · 31-08-2018 12:03am

VinLieger wrote: »

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.

I think you have missed the irony of complaining about the bleeped swear words when we live in a society where voyeurism compels us to click on something so that we can witness the last tormented moments of the life of a human and how numbing that is. Black mirror deals with these kinds of topics. Should these clips be available for us to watch?

It's emblematic of the problem we have as humans?

cloudatlas · 31-08-2018 12:06am

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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?

Why did you click on the clip when you knew what you would hear? You've missed the point.

31-08-2018 6:14am

cloudatlas wrote: »

Why did you click on the clip when you knew what you would hear? You've missed the point.

It's quite clear you've missed his.

cloudatlas · 31-08-2018 10:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's quite clear you've missed his.

Nah just enjoyed the irony of him clicking on it in the first place.

Captain Obvious · 01-09-2018 6:44pm

cloudatlas wrote: »

Nah just enjoyed the irony of him clicking on it in the first place.

You definitely missed the point if you think that was irony.

Manic Moran · 01-09-2018 7:32pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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.

The Czech licensing regimen is non-discretionary and fairly simple to pass. The reason fewer Czechs overall own firearms is because fewer have chosen to, not because of gun control. Even the 'reliability' criterion is specifically laid out with verifiable things like "History of DUI", it's not like in Ireland where the local super can just arbitrarily decide "I'm not convinced by this guy". About the only extra step required in Czechia which does not exist here in California before you can carry a pistol down the street is a note from the doctor and, realistically, what are they going to look for?

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?

I believe the estimate is 40-60million. Then the questions are "which 40-60 million" (I suspect not the ones normally being criminally misused), followed by "How long before those 40-60 million are replaced by other firearms?" Australia passed that mark a couple years ago.

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

One of the quotes I made above of the most recent study accepted that gun deaths went down faster than before. The problem is that since all deaths went down faster than before, there is no cause to believe that the firearms laws had much to do with it.

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

If only one entrance, one or two blokes with sidearms ought to be fine. They're easy to find in Florida, it's a shall-issue State. Chances are some of your employees already have a license.

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

If they're co-operative enough to display the weapon ahead of time, sure. But if they person has enough brain cells to not pull out the pistol until he decides he wants to start shooting?

They are targeted at different kinds of people.

Who? Law abiding folks who are less likely to randomly shoot people? We're not talking about grabbing a fistful of ten-penny sweets, here, there's a fairly significant cognitive jump between someone who isn't considering being a threat with a firearm, and someone who is.

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.

Yes, I am suggesting that the State provide the lockbox. Mandating prior purchase is an unreasonable limitation on the exercise of the right, and increases the cost barrier to entry for it (Look at the fun we're having over something as simple as voter registration). As one US court said, there is no obligation on the State to provide firearms to people, but neither can they arbitrarily increase the barriers to ownership of one.

One is fine. If you can afford more firearms than will fit into one lockbox, the chances are you can afford additional security measures like a bigger safe. The idea is that many households only have one firearm and if they have a storage facility given to them, they are more far more likely to use one.

Captain Obvious · 01-09-2018 7:46pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Czech licensing regimen is non-discretionary and fairly simple to pass. The reason fewer Czechs overall own firearms is because fewer have chosen to, not because of gun control. Even the 'reliability' criterion is specifically laid out with verifiable things like "History of DUI", it's not like in Ireland where the local super can just arbitrarily decide "I'm not convinced by this guy". About the only extra step required in Czechia which does not exist here in California before you can carry a pistol down the street is a note from the doctor and, realistically, what are they going to look for?

A history of mental health. I wasn't aware that California required a weapons proficiency test. Good to know.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I believe the estimate is 40-60million. Then the questions are "which 40-60 million" (I suspect not the ones normally being criminally misused), followed by "How long before those 40-60 million are replaced by other firearms?" Australia passed that mark a couple years ago.

Surel;y that would depend on what gun control measures were in place after the amnesty. And Australia still has a lower ownership per capita than it did doesn't it?

Manic Moran wrote: »

One of the quotes I made above of the most recent study accepted that gun deaths went down faster than before. The problem is that since all deaths went down faster than before, there is no cause to believe that the firearms laws had much to do with it.

That depends on what academic you listen to.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-did-government-gun-buybacks-reduce-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836

Manic Moran wrote: »

If only one entrance, one or two blokes with sidearms ought to be fine. They're easy to find in Florida, it's a shall-issue State. Chances are some of your employees already have a license.

You're talking about a computer game tournament having multiple armed guards like it's no big deal.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If they're co-operative enough to display the weapon ahead of time, sure. But if they person has enough brain cells to not pull out the pistol until he decides he wants to start shooting?

Negligent moreso than co-operative. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that such a law would not be intended to prevent a mass shooting though.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Who? Law abiding folks who are less likely to randomly shoot people? We're not talking about grabbing a fistful of ten-penny sweets, here, there's a fairly significant cognitive jump between someone who isn't considering being a threat with a firearm, and someone who is.

Exactly.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, I am suggesting that the State provide the lockbox. Mandating prior purchase is an unreasonable limitation on the exercise of the right, and increases the cost barrier to entry for it (Look at the fun we're having over something as simple as voter registration). As one US court said, there is no obligation on the State to provide firearms to people, but neither can they arbitrarily increase the barriers to ownership of one.

]One is fine. If you can afford more firearms than will fit into one lockbox, the chances are you can afford additional security measures like a bigger safe. The idea is that many households only have one firearm and if they have a storage facility given to them, they are more far more likely to use one.

but now you have just restricted the right to own multiple firearms. Does the 2nd amendment not apply to multiple firearms?

Manic Moran · 01-09-2018 9:57pm

A history of mental health.

Also fairly categorical. The law is here. https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2002-493

The disorders are clearly defined and an applicant either has been diagnosed or is not. It's not as if the doctor is going to be giving you an assessment on the spot when you hand him the certification form.

Surel;y that would depend on what gun control measures were in place after the amnesty. And Australia still has a lower ownership per capita than it did doesn't it?

US gun ownership per capita has dropped over the same time period, I don't think the laws regarding firearms have much to do with it.

You're talking about a computer game tournament having multiple armed guards like it's no big deal.

Well, yes. It's the US, armed guards are everywhere. You make it seem like armed security is a big deal in the US. My civilian employer makes computer games, we have armed security at the office (Plus I have a very strong suspicion that one or two members of senior management have their own firearms, but it's not officially advertised.).

I'm not sure how many times I have to say that such a law would not be intended to prevent a mass shooting though.

What would it be intended to prevent, though? Again, the chances are that anyone likely to obey the sign is also quite likely to not make the sudden leap to the use of lethal force for anything without cause. Recall that those with carry permits are overall one of the most law-abiding parts of society as evidenced by their conviction rates.

but now you have just restricted the right to own multiple firearms. Does the 2nd amendment not apply to multiple firearms?

Perhaps you mis-interpreted my idea of issuance of lockboxes and a campaign to use them as a law mandating their use. The latter is unenforceable (Though a 'consequence law', such as we have in California would be handy, and enforceable). The point is that if we make it easy for folks to store their first firearm securely, they are more likely to actually do it. You don't always need an actual law to change behaviour, it's merely one out of a set of possible tools.

Captain Obvious · 02-09-2018 6:51am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Also fairly categorical. The law is here. https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2002-493

The disorders are clearly defined and an applicant either has been diagnosed or is not. It's not as if the doctor is going to be giving you an assessment on the spot when you hand him the certification form.

You are missing the point. You can downplay the requirements but they are still vastly more controlling than most of the US.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, yes. It's the US, armed guards are everywhere. You make it seem like armed security is a big deal in the US. My civilian employer makes computer games, we have armed security at the office (Plus I have a very strong suspicion that one or two members of senior management have their own firearms, but it's not officially advertised.).

I'm not acting like it is unusual in the US. That's the point. It is usual in the US. It is unusual for the rest of the first world.

Manic Moran wrote: »

What would it be intended to prevent, though? Again, the chances are that anyone likely to obey the sign is also quite likely to not make the sudden leap to the use of lethal force for anything without cause. Recall that those with carry permits are overall one of the most law-abiding parts of society as evidenced by their conviction rates.

There are all manner of shootings. Among them are accidental, negligent and heat of the moment stupid. I would guess that gun free zones are mainly focused on those kinds of weapons. Where the person carrying the gun may not be doing so with criminal intent and may take heed of such a prohibition.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps you mis-interpreted my idea of issuance of lockboxes and a campaign to use them as a law mandating their use. The latter is unenforceable (Though a 'consequence law', such as we have in California would be handy, and enforceable). The point is that if we make it easy for folks to store their first firearm securely, they are more likely to actually do it. You don't always need an actual law to change behaviour, it's merely one out of a set of possible tools.

It's not a bad idea, I just see at as having an extremely limited effect. Like putting a sandbag at your front door during a tsunami. Not to say it shouldn't be done though.

Shooting in florida

Comments