You never actually say anything.
Use more one-liners.
Retard.
Er… you realise that mentioning 400 murders per year and mentioning 1 murder per 10 years is mathematically equivalent to 4000 times more murders? So yes he did mention 4000 times more murders per year (taking into account only ONE relevant variable).
45 times more likely would still be a lot worse, yes, which is what it would seem like with only TWO of many relevant variables. With more than TWO relevant variables, it may very well be far less than 45 - it could even be the case that it’s actually safer in Chicago with their stricter gun laws.
Gang on gang crime would be a factor to me? As a THIRD relevant factor, it would affect the stats for the average non-gang-affiliated resident of Chicago, never mind me. I’m not important here, the objective stats are important when they take into account as many relevant variables as possible.
Using just our THIRD factor of gang on gang crime, you adjust the number of murders for the average citizen in both places by deducting gang on gang murders from the total in each place respectively. I am imagining you don’t need to deduct much from Kennesaw, but for all I know the town is just as plagued by gang violence as Chicago, eh?
I am not getting the feeling that you’re following any of this logic. Not sure I really want to spell this one out in more and more basic terms each time. If you still aren’t understanding it might be more respectful to the flow of the thread to PM me.
The murder of adult gang members is not comparable to the mass-murder of children.
The spree-shooting phenomenon must be analyzed for what it is. The goal of spree-shooters is to cause as much damage, death, and harm as possible, with little to no hope for redemption. Thus it is a suicidal-homicidal tendency.
To compare them to other types of murder, or car accidents (as one moron tried to do), is plain dishonest and unintelligent.
If anybody is serious about further discussion then focus on the nature of spree-shooting suicidal tendencies. Spree-shooters have a state-of-mind where they have lost all hope in their own future. Some want revenge. Some want fame. Or both. But the catalysts can be investigated pretty easily. The general public is reactionary. They talk about what to do after the crime has already taken place. Very few people, or nobody, is really talking about Prevention, or whether acts of mass violence can truly be prevented in the long run. Maybe they can’t, but that would mean, mitigation should be the focal point of the matter.
Silhoutte, you have gained some respect from me for your participation in this thread. Good to see somebody with a brain and interest, applying it to relevant matters for once. Everybody else in this thread, massive loss of respect.
The leftist-liberal response is obvious, “take away everybody’s guns!” It’s not completely realistic and accurate, but the message becomes more reasonable and poignant as the reaction to these spree-shooting events. What is the rightist-conservative response? Nothing. Silence. And any answer is better than no answer. Conservative-right don’t really have a response. Some responses have been “arm the teachers” but this is quite ridiculous. Has society become so depraved that teachers must bring guns to classrooms? It is a fallen, failed society. Everybody knows this on an intuitive level. It represents a complete distrust throughout the undercurrent of society, that, elementary school children must be “on guard” at all times.
Several responses in this thread, particularly from Gloominary are, “don’t worry, it’s not very frequent, mass shootings are rare”. The problem is, they are becoming more common and prevalent, and more deadly. The other conservative-right response “armed guards at school” will also not solve the problem. Because they will be the first ones ambushed and killed, the first target, for future spree-shooters.
Currently, the liberal-left is dominant, because they have an answer which is better than no answer. So society is going to swing that way, especially after the next few spree-shootings and mass-murders occur. Next month, maybe? Within 3 months? 6?
It’s shameful that these types of things cannot be discussion reasonable and rationally. On this note, the apathy throughout society is too high. Western society is too fractured, fragmented, and anti-social. Perhaps this is also part of the Cause of the spree-shooting phenomenon. It is the problem, and also the cause. Average people are becoming more distrustful of each-other, than trustful. Becoming more resentful than compassionate. If people won’t bridge such gaps upon the death of their own children then what hope is there for greater social cohesion or trust in the future? When not even sacrificing your own kin moves a community to action? Yeah, that’s Apathy.
Donald Trump with Jeff Sessions just recently banned bump stocks for semi automatic rifles, let the cognitive dissonance commence!
They’re going to militarily lock down the country one way or another in the near future where they’ll try to disarm the population. Be prepared for that as it is coming.
Learn how to sneak up on people unaware with a knife, machete, hatchet axe, hammer, or cross bow so you can steal their guns for yourself when the time comes if you don’t possess any where if you don’t they’ll be using them on you…
Western society??
You mean US society.
Most of Western society has strong gun control. And they have democracy. And recreational hunting and sport shooting.
That can all coexist.
I hear the facial acid attacks in London this time of year is a cultural treasure to behold.
It’s not at all realistic.
What’s realistic is :
Require a license to own guns.
Don’t permit sales to the mentally ill or those with a criminal record.
Have mandatory training courses.
Limit the number of guns that an individual can own.
Limit amounts of ammunition can be purchased.
Limit calibers and rates of fire.
Usually when they say criminal record they mean all criminal records even offenses where no firearms were used. Then again in western society nowadays everything is criminalized even for the lowest offenses. You’re never done doing your time as your time isn’t done until you’re dead. No such thing as your time being served rejoining society in enjoying basic rights as a citizen afterwards. I digress…
Also, why shouldn’t the competent mentally ill not be allowed to defend themselves? I like how they use the term mentally ill generally speaking without being very specific. It’s almost like they can describe anybody as being mentally ill these days in not having the ability to arm themselves…
Does western society include Mexico and Switzerland?
Switzerland has lots of guns, and little (gun) crime, Mexico has lots of gun regulation, and lots of (gun) crime.
@Phyl
I don’t trust psychology, a soft, contentious ‘science’, to determine who’s mentally ‘ill’, firstly, and secondly, just because you’re supposedly mentally ill, doesn’t mean you’re more likely to commit violence.
Unless one’s criminal record is full of violence, it shouldn’t bar you from attaining firearms.
People ought to have the right to prep for a manmade or natural catastrophe.
It would cost billions of dollars for government to buy everyone’s assault rifles and enforce that, to prevent just a few dozen deaths a year, money that could arguably be better spent building hospitals, schools and affordable housing.
Of course government and psychologists have been, are and will continue expanding the amount of illnesses one can be diagnosed with, to fit as much of the population they possibly can under the heading: ‘mentally ill’, so they can be prescribed drugs, involuntarily detained, and, if people like Phyl get their way, have their firearms confiscated.
What you’re a conspiracy theorist, you don’t like the government, you’re mentally ill!
Now relinquish all of your rights, including the right to possess firearms.
Not just mentally ill or a conspiracy theorist you might also be anti semitic which is just another mental illness. 
On a serious note we must remember that people who are mentally ill or have prior criminal records are officially non-persons in society hence the easy generalizations.
In our societies there is a very long list of non-persons that seems to grow every decade.
Yea people like Phyl better be careful what they wish for, they might have a bout of anxiety or depression and be diagnosed with mental illness, millions of people are every year.
They might make some relatively innocuous comment here on ILP, and be placed on the no fly, no buy list for it, labeled as a threat to homeland security.
They might be charged and convicted with assault for defending themselves from their partner because they’re male, and have their right to keep arms, and other rights taken away from them.
I see a future where millions of people are diagnosed as being mentally ill or being charged as a criminal with visions of dollar signs for prisons and psychotropic pharmaceutical companies everywhere.
It will be glorious, whhhheeeee!
It wasn’t an exhaustive study, but simply to point out that guns do not cause violence. And remember that Kennesaw actually mandates every head of household have a gun (though no one has been convicted for not complying).
I’m sure I could find a liberal city of 30,000 with tight gun control and a higher rate of violence than Kennesaw in order to paint the stats how I want them to look, but no need to react to confirmation bias since I’ve already established what I meant to… which is that the addition of guns to a populace is not sufficient to cause violence and therefore the cause is something else.
You can totally drown me in guns and I’m still not going to shoot someone. And if I would, then I would either find a gun somewhere, make a gun, bow n arrow, drive a car into them, beat them with a ball bat, poison… I’d find something.
Now it’s true that it’s too easy to pick up an AR and shoot-up a school if one is given to that type of thing, but the AR is not the cause; it’s just an easy and convenient means to an end and it’s the convenience that’s at issue, but not the underlying cause of the outbursts.
It appears that from 1982 to 2002 the handgun ban did nothing to lower the rate of murder, even though the national average plummeted below the 1982 level almost a decade earlier.
Decorum is the only thing you’ve obliterated with that dispatch.
Never said anything… lol.
Pretty funny considering this is my topic, in which I’ve said quite a lot.
Facts: 1. guns are necessary and important for personal protection, protecting family and others around you, and for preventing tyrants (such as communists for example) from taking over your country. If your population is armed en mass at the level of citizenry that is a huge deterrent against violent takeover by tyrants.
-
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and use various things to do that. Committing murder is already illegal whatever object you use to do it. Banning the object doesn’t address the actual crime of murder nor the reasons behind it.
-
Gun free zones are invitations for mass murder, because anyone who is inclined to commit mass murder knows they can go to a gun free zone and no one there can do shit to stop them.
-
Being able to own firearms and learn how to use them responsibly is a basic component of being an adult. If you’re so triggered by guns, that’s on you.
-
Leftists never want to address the real causes of gun violence, which is why they try to blame the gun. Real causes of gun violence especially in schools include: shitty parents, abuse, untreated mental health issues, drug use, pharma psychomeds, breakdown of culture and disenfranchisement of human beings in the web of interconnected relationships they have, and the leftist cult of victimhood, wedge issue politics and entitlement that rules society now.
But yeah, just keep crying about how the NRA has blood on it’s hands. Such idiotic people give all youth a very bad name. Sort of ironic that it is young people getting killed and yet the young people don’t want to talk about the real reasons why.
Oh yeah, and you gun control people are being manipulated by the left for purely political reasons. The left doesn’t give a shit about any of this, they want political and social-cultural power. The gun issue is just a means to that end.
And you’re too dumb to see that you’re just pawns in their games.