Firearms and Guns
Teacher
Children
Murder
United States Senate
Responses: 4
2
2
0
Congress does not have the power to stop mass shootings.
No matter how restrictive (read: un-Constitutional) they make gun laws, people determined to commit mass murder via gun will find a way to get a gun. And people determined to commit mass murder, but don't care how they do it will poison kool-aid, bomb marathons or office buildings, grab really big knives, or learn how to fly airplanes. Or maybe some other creative method.
No law will stop mass shootings. Not even a combination of laws. That doesn't mean we (and Congress) should do nothing. Just because something can't be prevented doesn't mean you can't take steps to minimize. But anyone whose goal is elimination is not focusing on reality, and will refuse good solutions because they are not perfect.
The problem is cultural. Yes, guns are used to commit these murders, but the gun is not the problem. The murderer is.
Top 10 cities in murder rate:
St. Louis, MO
Baltimore, MD
New Orleans, LA
Detroit, MI
Cleveland, OH
Las Vegas, NV
Kansas City, KS
Memphis, TN
Newark, NJ
Chicago, IL.
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
Every single one of those cities has significant gang activity. Some are in DECIDEDLY red states, some are in DECIDEDLY blue states and some are in purple states. So it isn't the gun laws that are the problem. If it was, this list would be all red states. Or all blue states. No, the problem isn't the guns or the gun laws. It is cultural.
Yes, I will absolutely agree that having a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock and 50-round magazine makes it easier to commit mass murder. And I am not necessarily against dropping mag sizes and capping it at 20. But I also believe that any and every time Congress (federal or state Congress) chooses to restrict what I am allowed to have, legally, they are just giving the criminals, who don't care about laws, a bigger advantage.
A California politician (I believe it was Gavin Newsome, but not positive) was recently talking about how they have made strict gun laws to keep people safe, but the problem was all those OTHER guns coming in from the rest of the country. And he isn't entirely wrong. But what he is talking about demonstrates the problem America - as a whole - would have trying to implement similar laws. We are just too doggone big, with too doggone many points of ingress, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. No matter WHAT laws we make, the criminals WILL have guns. Maybe (probably) not as many. But they'll still have them - and we won't.
Yes, disarming the populace may VERY POSSIBLY reduce the frequency and even the lethality of the mass casualty events. But what will it do to the frequency and lethality of all of the other violent crimes in America? Sure those crimes aren't as sensational, but they are far more prevalent, and far more damaging, in cost of dollars, injuries, and loss of life. Solving what is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor problem, by making the major problem worse is not, in my opinion, a good idea.
Final thought on the subject:. According to the Gun Violence Archive*(https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ ) so far in 2022, there have been 221 mass shooting events. There have been 460 Defensive use shooting events.
*Gun Violence Archive does, from what I can see, a VERY thorough job of vetting their data. They pull from over 7500 sources, they meticulously reference and cross reference to make sure that nothing is double reported, and every single stat they list is verified. A mass shooting event does not get counted until they know it ACTUALLY happened, and that it is not referencing an already counted event. Same for defensive use. I will also note that they use one of the loosest definitions of mass shooting; for them four or more victims - killed or injured - not including the shooter, makes the list. Most other lists require 4 or more KILLED, or will exclude suspect-suspect shootings (gang shootout), exclude gang violence entirely, and/or exclude domestic violence (like father killing wife and three kids). GVA makes no exceptions because many of these situations can be subjective. Additionally, most often the difference between killed or injured in a shooting even comes down to luck, so they include events by quantity of victims. As a result, their numbers are usually significantly higher than many other sources. So conflating their numbers with any numbers from a different source will likely result in a highly skewed data point.
No matter how restrictive (read: un-Constitutional) they make gun laws, people determined to commit mass murder via gun will find a way to get a gun. And people determined to commit mass murder, but don't care how they do it will poison kool-aid, bomb marathons or office buildings, grab really big knives, or learn how to fly airplanes. Or maybe some other creative method.
No law will stop mass shootings. Not even a combination of laws. That doesn't mean we (and Congress) should do nothing. Just because something can't be prevented doesn't mean you can't take steps to minimize. But anyone whose goal is elimination is not focusing on reality, and will refuse good solutions because they are not perfect.
The problem is cultural. Yes, guns are used to commit these murders, but the gun is not the problem. The murderer is.
Top 10 cities in murder rate:
St. Louis, MO
Baltimore, MD
New Orleans, LA
Detroit, MI
Cleveland, OH
Las Vegas, NV
Kansas City, KS
Memphis, TN
Newark, NJ
Chicago, IL.
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
Every single one of those cities has significant gang activity. Some are in DECIDEDLY red states, some are in DECIDEDLY blue states and some are in purple states. So it isn't the gun laws that are the problem. If it was, this list would be all red states. Or all blue states. No, the problem isn't the guns or the gun laws. It is cultural.
Yes, I will absolutely agree that having a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock and 50-round magazine makes it easier to commit mass murder. And I am not necessarily against dropping mag sizes and capping it at 20. But I also believe that any and every time Congress (federal or state Congress) chooses to restrict what I am allowed to have, legally, they are just giving the criminals, who don't care about laws, a bigger advantage.
A California politician (I believe it was Gavin Newsome, but not positive) was recently talking about how they have made strict gun laws to keep people safe, but the problem was all those OTHER guns coming in from the rest of the country. And he isn't entirely wrong. But what he is talking about demonstrates the problem America - as a whole - would have trying to implement similar laws. We are just too doggone big, with too doggone many points of ingress, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. No matter WHAT laws we make, the criminals WILL have guns. Maybe (probably) not as many. But they'll still have them - and we won't.
Yes, disarming the populace may VERY POSSIBLY reduce the frequency and even the lethality of the mass casualty events. But what will it do to the frequency and lethality of all of the other violent crimes in America? Sure those crimes aren't as sensational, but they are far more prevalent, and far more damaging, in cost of dollars, injuries, and loss of life. Solving what is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor problem, by making the major problem worse is not, in my opinion, a good idea.
Final thought on the subject:. According to the Gun Violence Archive*(https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ ) so far in 2022, there have been 221 mass shooting events. There have been 460 Defensive use shooting events.
*Gun Violence Archive does, from what I can see, a VERY thorough job of vetting their data. They pull from over 7500 sources, they meticulously reference and cross reference to make sure that nothing is double reported, and every single stat they list is verified. A mass shooting event does not get counted until they know it ACTUALLY happened, and that it is not referencing an already counted event. Same for defensive use. I will also note that they use one of the loosest definitions of mass shooting; for them four or more victims - killed or injured - not including the shooter, makes the list. Most other lists require 4 or more KILLED, or will exclude suspect-suspect shootings (gang shootout), exclude gang violence entirely, and/or exclude domestic violence (like father killing wife and three kids). GVA makes no exceptions because many of these situations can be subjective. Additionally, most often the difference between killed or injured in a shooting even comes down to luck, so they include events by quantity of victims. As a result, their numbers are usually significantly higher than many other sources. So conflating their numbers with any numbers from a different source will likely result in a highly skewed data point.
(2)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
What you mean is that the problem is that Democrats have not been able to repeal the constitution and confiscate all guns from law-abiding citizens.
The ONLY purpose of the fake nonsense about "universal background checks" is that it is a way to achieve the registration of all legally-owned guns -- and the only purpose of such a registry is to support confiscation of LEGALLY-owned guns from law abiding citizens. Neither the background checks, nor registration, nor even confiscation will yield any reduction in crime (exactly the opposite!).
The ONLY purpose of the fake nonsense about "universal background checks" is that it is a way to achieve the registration of all legally-owned guns -- and the only purpose of such a registry is to support confiscation of LEGALLY-owned guns from law abiding citizens. Neither the background checks, nor registration, nor even confiscation will yield any reduction in crime (exactly the opposite!).
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
No, MSG Thomas Currie . What I meant was exactly what I said. Your condescension is noted - and rejected.
Oh... and background checks - which I wasn't even discussing - can be done without registries.
Red herring and strawman at the same time. Impressive.
Oh... and background checks - which I wasn't even discussing - can be done without registries.
Red herring and strawman at the same time. Impressive.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Democrats cant get the votes because there are only a few republicans with a conscience.
(2)
(0)
SMSgt Anil Heendeniya
1SG (Join to see)
Such a depressing state--the GOP is pretty much without morals or a conscience.
Such a depressing state--the GOP is pretty much without morals or a conscience.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Maj John Bell
MSG Stan Hutchison - The system was set up to prevent a tyranny of the masses. The is a reason why 51% isn't enough. A super majority requires a genuine consensus and makes government more stable. Its basic civics.
(1)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
Maj John Bell - I do not understand why a rule that is not supported by the Constitution is allowed to stand. 51% in not "a tyranny of the masses".
At least make any Senator that threatens a filibuster actually stand on the floor and speak. That was how the rule was developed because a Senator may speak as long as he wishes, and other business cannot go forward until he stops.
At least make any Senator that threatens a filibuster actually stand on the floor and speak. That was how the rule was developed because a Senator may speak as long as he wishes, and other business cannot go forward until he stops.
(2)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSG Stan Hutchison - A rule change in the Senate requires a super majority. Until a supermajority of Senators thinks the filibuster does more harm than good, you're stuck with it. The Democrats don't want the change because they want to retain the option to filibuster when they are the minority party.
The link provides one theory of the development of the filibuster. At one point The Senate realized that one controversial bill should not be allowed to bring the gov't to a standstill. That's the pro. The con... filibusters can now be endless.
The link provides one theory of the development of the filibuster. At one point The Senate realized that one controversial bill should not be allowed to bring the gov't to a standstill. That's the pro. The con... filibusters can now be endless.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj John Bell - Sorry not sure why the link didn't take
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/history-of-the-filibuster
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/history-of-the-filibuster
A filibuster is a political strategy in which a senator speaks—or threatens to speak—for hours on end to delay efforts to vote for a bill. The unusual tactic
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google