Another mass shooting...

[jbscout2002 1]

billvon

>It would be really interesting to see factual data of gun related homicides,
>where the gun being used was legally obtained and possessed.

Agreed, that would be great. Unfortunately the NRA has been lobbying against collecting such data for decades.

>Gun control advocates don't want to portray numbers that way because it
>takes he wind out of their sails.

Apparently pro-gun people are even more afraid of people having the facts. You have to wonder why.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

Billvon, on the link you provided I kinda skimmed it quickly but it reads like almost all the available material.

This one reads like a conspiracy theory that the NRA is forcing the hand of the Senate to bully the CDC by using budget against them.

The next one will have scientific research that conclusively shows this and that and this is why guns are good.

Even being the poster child for gun owners, I try to find real data and three lines in it's like, ok obviously they are convincing me we need to destroy all guns, but the next one starts out a little more positive and then dwindles into some of the NRAs rhetoric.

Maybe I should set out to do a thesis doing everything I can to prove the theory of stricter gun control and find my opposite to try and prove gun control would be counter productive and ineffective and see what we both come up with at the end.

[billvon 2,998]

>This one reads like a conspiracy theory that the NRA is forcing the hand of the Senate to
>bully the CDC by using budget against them.

Hardly a conspiracy theory; follow the money. The NRA has good reason to try to stymie gun research - manufacturers have pledged to pay them $$ for every gun they sell. What organization in their right mind would want to allow research that would result in having their income reduced?

(I don't blame the NRA for trying to ban gun research. It's what lobbyists do. I do blame the politicians for taking their money, though.)

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

************You wanted some data from the FBI..

OK, from the FBI UCR:

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/6tabledatadecpdf/table-6

Murders, population, and murder rate per 100,000 population:

Chicago: 414 2,720,554 15.3 per 100,000

LA 251 3,878,725 6.5 per 100,000

Jackson MS 50 176,039 28.4 per 100,000

Kansas City MO 99 465514 21.3 per 100,000

Memphis TN 124 652,691 19.0 per 100,000

Detroit 316 699,889 45.2 per 100,000

Baltimore 233 622,671 37.4 per 100,000

So, you see, even according to the FBI there are a bunch of cities with higher murder rates than LA or Chicago.

This is two years old. Next.....

Here you go. 2014 data - the LATEST for which data are available.

Murders per 100,000 population from the FBI www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-6

Chicago 15.1
LA 5.4
Kansas City 16.7
Miami 19.1
Detroit 43.5
Baltimore 33.8
Jackson MS 35.4
Memphis TN 21.4

How does that crow taste?

So from the data you have shown here, one would obviously reach the conclusion that from 2013-2014, the murder rates in Chicago have dropped from 15.3 per 100,000 to 15.1 per 100,000.

This conclusively shows a correlation between the CCW permits being issued in early 2014, and the decline in murders until the point of this data being collected.

See? I told you that you had it in you. Just be honest with yourself, be objective, and present the facts as they are. And now you have proved my 22 page argument to be right.

That was 2014, the last complete year the FBI compiled its data. AS I STATED AND AS YOU REQUESTED.

2015 has seen a surge in gun homicides (and not only in Chicago).
SOURCE: www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/09/us-cities-homicide-surge-2015/29879091/

Quote

In the first nine months of 2015, police said the number of murders increased 21 percent, the number of shooting incidents increased 19 percent and the number of shooting victims increased 14 percent, compared to the same time period in 2014.

SOURCE: abc7chicago.com/news/chicago-violence-strategy-to-track-illegal-guns/1011155/



So with over 100,000 CCWs issued, we now see homicides and shootings rising.

Just like I stated previously.

See how easy it is to back up your claims with sources. You should try it sometime.

Ok high speed, 2015 isn't over yet so nothing for this year would be conclusive LIKE YOU SAID. You are starting to undo your progress. You're backsliding. I'm going to go ahead and end the lesson. Continue to talk at me, about me, make stuff up, act like you didn't notice this thread started off with someone exaggerating a body count. Never mind that tho, it make guns look scary right, you have 15 post pointing out that my number of months was off by what, 3? I believe I actually said 12-18, and the best Numbers I can find put it at 9 months which you insist at first wast immediate, and then 8 months. You keep try to cach people in wording and all you have done is dig little holes that out are twisting your own ankle in. Really, stop backsliding.

[jbscout2002 1]

normiss

I'm 100% Second Amendment but I all for some changes.
Like most people, I understand it won't stop all mass shootings.
I cannot imagine we NOT try to reduce senseless tragic killing of innocent people just living life.
Vehemently refusing to work on anything while thorwing in the dramatic and emotioal cries of insanity and entirely unrelated scenarios of impossibility accomplish nothing.

This thread is an amazing example of the problem of even discussing ways to patch the holes.
I now understand why "those people" are called gun "nuts".

It's a perfect example of why nothing ever changes or gets fixed. Both sides come to the table with good intentions and well thought out plans, and 5 minutes later they are calling each other poo poo heads clamming up in their shells, then they come out of it with us posed about some dumb modification we have to make to our guns and they are pissed because no real restrictions were applied.

[normiss 803]

I disagree entirely.
Few in this thread are even having a discussion.
You've brought nothing but resistance and fantasy tales of liberals taking your guns.
You started out rather neutral and seemed to be adding valuable perspective, and then!

[jbscout2002 1]

billvon

>This one reads like a conspiracy theory that the NRA is forcing the hand of the Senate to
>bully the CDC by using budget against them.

Hardly a conspiracy theory; follow the money. The NRA has good reason to try to stymie gun research - manufacturers have pledged to pay them $$ for every gun they sell. What organization in their right mind would want to allow research that would result in having their income reduced?

(I don't blame the NRA for trying to ban gun research. It's what lobbyists do. I do blame the politicians for taking their money, though.)

Only thing is, logically, he NRA stands the most to gain by figuring out laws that will curb violence. They should do everything in their power to find every number and statistic of very kind and figure out ways to put a dent in it. The would take a lot of pressure off of the gun rights part and cast a little good PR on em that they could undoubtedly use.

[jbscout2002 1]

normiss

I disagree entirely.
Few in this thread are even having a discussion.
You've brought nothing but resistance and fantasy tales of liberals taking your guns.
You started out rather neutral and seemed to be adding valuable perspective, and then!

Yes I have been amusing myself with sarcasm. I goal was to debate whether gun control was the answer to the violence problem.

I have tried to offer up ideas for plugging holes in he system, standardizing and streamline the way guns are bought, sold, transferred, ect.

I have also made attempts to point out a lot of the gun problem is simply outside he realm of the law. Other strategies need to be used. It isn't as simple as make the guns illegal. Nothing is ever that simple.

I've tried to offer up better gun control and accountability methods that gun owners would be completely fine with, that would achieve the gun control objectives.

[kallend 2,027]

jbscout2002

Continue to talk at me, about me, make stuff up, act like you didn't notice this thread started off with someone exaggerating a body count. Never mind that tho, it make guns look scary right, you have 15 post pointing out that my number of months was off by what, 3? I believe I actually said 12-18, and the best Numbers I can find put it at 9 months which you insist at first wast immediate, and then 8 months. You keep try to cach people in wording and all you have done is dig little holes that out are twisting your own ankle in. Really, stop backsliding.

Ummm NO. In post #323 of this thread YOU wrote:

jbscout2002

So after the CCW was enacted, it was almost 2 years before the first citizens there began to obtain them

CCW enacted 9 July 2013. First CCW issued late Feb, 2014. (link provided previously). Less than 9 months. 9 is less than "12-18" and certainly much less than "almost 2 years".

So not only did you not check your facts, you now try to reinvent history by claiming to have written something different.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

jbscout2002

***I disagree entirely.
Few in this thread are even having a discussion.
You've brought nothing but resistance and fantasy tales of liberals taking your guns.
You started out rather neutral and seemed to be adding valuable perspective, and then!

Yes I have been amusing myself with sarcasm. I goal was to debate whether gun control was the answer to the violence problem.

I have tried to offer up ideas for plugging holes in he system, standardizing and streamline the way guns are bought, sold, transferred, ect.

I have also made attempts to point out a lot of the gun problem is simply outside he realm of the law. Other strategies need to be used. It isn't as simple as make the guns illegal. Nothing is ever that simple.

I've tried to offer up better gun control and accountability methods that gun owners would be completely fine with, that would achieve the gun control objectives.

In doing is, I've attempted to show why I feel this ideal to hold truth by looking for numbers that support it. I've tried to debunk that catch-all phrases and explain my thoughts on why hey are wrong. I also got fat rated and reverted to the other sides catch-all phrases.

I copy/pasted or posted links to articles that explain numbers to support it. Any ideas I have tried to offer for solutions are off the cuff that would maybe speak an idea in someone else who is better at constructing them than me

[jbscout2002 1]

And then a bunch of getting caught up in a childish game of defending myself from personal attacks by this joker who thinks he is the copy paste polic

[billvon 2,998]

>Only thing is, logically, he NRA stands the most to gain by figuring out laws that will curb
> violence.

?? They gain the most by selling the most guns. That's where most of their money comes from, and that's how they create new members. That is why, for example, they helped spread the meme "Obama wants to grab your guns." They sold millions of guns that way and made a lot of money, both for themselves and the gun manufacturers they lobby for.

In a world where laws curb violence and fewer people fear it, gun sales go down and the NRA loses money and power. They want to avoid that at all costs.

>They should do everything in their power to find every number and statistic of very kind and
>figure out ways to put a dent in it.

Why cut their own throats? They do everything in their power to:

1) make people think that the government will outlaw gun sales real soon now, so they better buy them when they can (re: "Obama will grab your guns" - best sales tactic of the past 20 years.)

2) make people think that crime is rampant and the best way to prevent that crime is to have several guns - "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

3) make people who favor gun control out to be draconian gun-grabbers who hate America - "we will never surrender our guns" to the "elites . . . who use tragedy to try to blame us, to shame us . . . who want to change America, our culture and our values."

This ensures their political power and financial solvency.

>The would take a lot of pressure off of the gun rights part and cast a little good PR on em that
>they could undoubtedly use.

In skydiving there's a saying that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Keep in mind that this is the organization that launched a first person shooter video game right after they claimed that the Sandy Hill shooting was caused by violent first person shooter video games. Again, gun sales went up - which was their goal.

They don't want good publicity, they want gun sales. And they are very, very good at getting them.

[jbscout2002 1]

billvon

>Only thing is, logically, he NRA stands the most to gain by figuring out laws that will curb
> violence.

?? They gain the most by selling the most guns. That's where most of their money comes from, and that's how they create new members. That is why, for example, they helped spread the meme "Obama wants to grab your guns." They sold millions of guns that way and made a lot of money, both for themselves and the gun manufacturers they lobby for.

In a world where laws curb violence and fewer people fear it, gun sales go down and the NRA loses money and power. They want to avoid that at all costs.

>They should do everything in their power to find every number and statistic of very kind and
>figure out ways to put a dent in it.

Why cut their own throats? They do everything in their power to:

1) make people think that the government will outlaw gun sales real soon now, so they better buy them when they can (re: "Obama will grab your guns" - best sales tactic of the past 20 years.)

2) make people think that crime is rampant and the best way to prevent that crime is to have several guns - "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

3) make people who favor gun control out to be draconian gun-grabbers who hate America - "we will never surrender our guns" to the "elites . . . who use tragedy to try to blame us, to shame us . . . who want to change America, our culture and our values."

This ensures their political power and financial solvency.

>The would take a lot of pressure off of the gun rights part and cast a little good PR on em that
>they could undoubtedly use.

In skydiving there's a saying that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Keep in mind that this is the organization that launched a first person shooter video game right after they claimed that the Sandy Hill shooting was caused by violent first person shooter video games. Again, gun sales went up - which was their goal.

They don't want good publicity, they want gun sales. And they are very, very good at getting them.

I see your point, but point number 2 is dancing with the devil. Stir up enough come scare and there will be national gun reform, eve if by executive order.

The Obama grab your guns one, NRA didn't even have to say anything with that. When he was pushing gun lesislation on the hill a few years back, the immediate reaction was, anything you've been thinking you might want some day, you better buy it before it's too late. I ordered an upper receiver for an M4 in 2013 and there was a 16 month wait fm a company that usually ships in 2 weeks.

Now the common joke at the shooting range is that Obama was he best gun salesman this country has ever seen.

[piisfish 140]

jbscout2002

******I still want to see some offer one rational idea that would prevent gun crime. Everyone screams gun control gun control, but what is your proposed control measure? Can you offer one single control measure that could effectively prevent anything from happening?

How about we do what other countries are doing who don't have this problem? What are they doing differently that causes the stark incredible difference in violent gun death and incidences?

Switzerland. They have it figured out. Per capita, they have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe, but the lowest rate of gun violence.

There is a culture there of introducing children to guns in a controlled environment and teaching them about shooting and gun safety. Instead of trying to demonize guns, kids start joining gun clubs as young as 12 years old.

Guns are common, available, a major pastime sport, and NORMAL. Here we demonize them. We try to keep hem away from everyone. Some people want one just cause they can't have it.it is nice to see Switzerland cited as an example but this is not really how it works.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[jbscout2002 1]

piisfish

*********I still want to see some offer one rational idea that would prevent gun crime. Everyone screams gun control gun control, but what is your proposed control measure? Can you offer one single control measure that could effectively prevent anything from happening?

How about we do what other countries are doing who don't have this problem? What are they doing differently that causes the stark incredible difference in violent gun death and incidences?

Switzerland. They have it figured out. Per capita, they have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe, but the lowest rate of gun violence.

There is a culture there of introducing children to guns in a controlled environment and teaching them about shooting and gun safety. Instead of trying to demonize guns, kids start joining gun clubs as young as 12 years old.

Guns are common, available, a major pastime sport, and NORMAL. Here we demonize them. We try to keep hem away from everyone. Some people want one just cause they can't have it.it is nice to see Switzerland cited as an example but this is not really how it works.

Trying to find where I got that from. Was a whole piece comparing all the European countries. But just saw this

HOW GUN CONTROL MADE ENGLAND THE 'MOST VIOLENT COUNTRY IN EUROPE'

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

Let people read that if they want. I'll look at it in the morning. I have a good list of things to look into for tomorrow.

[jbscout2002 1]

So is it false that you get a gun permit and then are allowed to have up to 3 personal firearms per person?

Then in addition to this, every male from the age of 17-35 is in a conscritp Army functioning kind of like a National Guard and that each member keeps their service weapon at their house?

Do you have gun clubs that hold marksmanship classes and sponsor sharpshooting competitions?

Is this even in the ball park? I was all ready to narrow my collection down to 3 and start looking at property there

[kallend 2,027]

jbscout2002

And then a bunch of getting caught up in a childish game of defending myself from personal attacks by this joker who thinks he is the copy paste polic

So you STILL can't find anything untrue that I "made up" in this thread.

You were caught plagiarising. No-one asked you to do it. You didn't even do a good job of it.

You made the accusation that I "made up" stuff. So back up your accusation. All you do is bluster and prevaricate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

tkhayes

how does a legal gun go from being 'legal' to being 'illegal'. If we stem the flow of legal guns, it will eventually stem the flow of illegal guns.

there is not division of Remingtion, Ruger or Smith and Wesson that I am aware of that is constantly feeding the illegal gun market.

Stolen serial number filed off, aftermarket barrel used without a profile etc etc.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 2,027]

jbscout2002

So from the data you have shown here, one would obviously reach the conclusion that from 2013-2014, the murder rates in Chicago have dropped from 15.3 per 100,000 to 15.1 per 100,000.

This conclusively shows a correlation between the CCW permits being issued in early 2014, and the decline in murders until the point of this data being collected.

See? I told you that you had it in you. Just be honest with yourself, be objective, and present the facts as they are. And now you have proved my 22 page argument to be right.

I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is.

I bet you $100 to your favorite charity that Chicago's 2015 murder rate will be higher than the 2014 rate.

Since you claim "conclusively" there's a correlation between the CCW permits being issued and the decline in murders, you should be willing to bet $100 to my favorite charity that the 2015 rate will be lower.

So how about it, soldier?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***So, from that link, 290 deaths from mass killings ( 4 or more people killed on 1 incident) since 2006, 218 from shootings. That works out to just over 24 a year.

There have been more deaths, so far just this year, in Oregon alone, from traffic fatalities than from 9 years of mass killings.

We, as a society, accept the number of traffic fatalities without a second thought. But, a much smaller number mass killings and there is outrage.

No, we don't. We are concerned enough to require driver ed, licensing, vehicle registration, vehicle testing in most states, strict rules about vehicle design and safety features, DUI laws, eyesight tests...

The comparison is a very stupid one designed to make unacceptable outcomes seem acceptable.

I have actually, several times pointed out where you have lied or made stuff up. With a level of pettiness rivaling even that of yours, right here.

Simply untrue. Many states do not require drivers Ed at all. It wasn't even offered in my school.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***

Quote

I bet all of them would have given up their right to bear guns. Just to live another day.

How many of the 33,000 would never ride in a vehicle again, just to live another day?

It doesn't work like that.

Derek V

A lot of first-world democracies have chosen to restrict the right to bear firearms, and they have a far lower rate of shooting homicides than the USA does.

So it does work like that.

This. Pulled out of your ass. Which first-world democracies? And where is a credible source for you info?

Also remember that I have in fact shown you credible sources speaking to the contrary on the same claim.

You can name a couple one way and I can name a couple the other.

I don't have to look far to do this. Every one of your posts is full of shit. You are a quack hiding behind accusations made towards others.

I'm not going to bother recycling 500 some odd posts worth of you being full of shit.

Looking next to your name, you have spewed out over 52,000 posts worth of your completely empty rhetoric. Give it a rest turbo.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***

So from the data you have shown here, one would obviously reach the conclusion that from 2013-2014, the murder rates in Chicago have dropped from 15.3 per 100,000 to 15.1 per 100,000.

This conclusively shows a correlation between the CCW permits being issued in early 2014, and the decline in murders until the point of this data being collected.

See? I told you that you had it in you. Just be honest with yourself, be objective, and present the facts as they are. And now you have proved my 22 page argument to be right.

I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is.

I bet you $100 to your favorite charity that Chicago's 2015 murder rate will be higher than the 2014 rate.

Since you claim "conclusively" there's a correlation between the CCW permits being issued and the decline in murders, you should be willing to bet $100 to my favorite charity that the 2015 rate will be lower.

So how about it, soldier?

I usually pick charities for abused or sexually exploited children, but in the case, do you know of any good gun violence survivor charities or findings for victims families?

[kallend 2,027]

jbscout2002

******

Quote

I bet all of them would have given up their right to bear guns. Just to live another day.

How many of the 33,000 would never ride in a vehicle again, just to live another day?

It doesn't work like that.

Derek V

A lot of first-world democracies have chosen to restrict the right to bear firearms, and they have a far lower rate of shooting homicides than the USA does.

So it does work like that.

This. Pulled out of your ass. Which first-world democracies? And where is a credible source for you info?

.

No, it was pulled from reported data:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Check out western Europe, Scandinavia, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and compare with USA. They are all lower. Lots of 2nd world countries are lower too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

jbscout2002

******

So from the data you have shown here, one would obviously reach the conclusion that from 2013-2014, the murder rates in Chicago have dropped from 15.3 per 100,000 to 15.1 per 100,000.

This conclusively shows a correlation between the CCW permits being issued in early 2014, and the decline in murders until the point of this data being collected.

See? I told you that you had it in you. Just be honest with yourself, be objective, and present the facts as they are. And now you have proved my 22 page argument to be right.

I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is.

I bet you $100 to your favorite charity that Chicago's 2015 murder rate will be higher than the 2014 rate.

Since you claim "conclusively" there's a correlation between the CCW permits being issued and the decline in murders, you should be willing to bet $100 to my favorite charity that the 2015 rate will be lower.

So how about it, soldier?

I usually pick charities for abused or sexually exploited children, but in the case, do you know of any good gun violence survivor charities or findings for victims families?

Your choice. Mine will be Planned Parenthood.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

Even tho the numbers are going to be thrown off (in your favor) because a bunch of gang bangles clebrated the 4th of July by mowing each other down, which is probably why you would offer this, I'd take it anyways.

The money goes to a good cause. We need to establish parameters tho.

Like using the FBI UCR to compare both years for example. But since CCW also deters not just other gun crime, but all violent crime, it has to be based off of overall violent crime rate.

[jbscout2002 1]

How is there a charity taking donations for planned parenthood. Aren't those people Dr.s and researchers who makes a bunch of money?

Should be a charity to cover the costs for the young women that need services but can't afford it.