TheSker Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 30 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: What mass shooters have in common isn't mental illness; it's a sense of being powerless in a life without a future. It's not exactly irrational. But they also think they can exact revenge on the people who seem happier/luckier than they are. That's sick. This is truly excellent insight. 2 Link to comment
ZRod Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Pretty interesting article. It would seem that stricter back ground checks, and actual enforcement of those laws could lead to progress. Who knew? The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates Quote Siegel’s latest study, published July 30, 2019, in the Journal of Rural Health,reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted. The study looked at gun regulation state by state in comparison with FBI data about gun homicides, gathered from police departments around the country. Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths. Quote We also found that certain laws appear to be more effective depending on location. That makes sense because the nature of urban crime is somewhat different, and the populations in urban vs. suburban areas are different. In large cities with more than 100,000 people, we found background checks were even more effective at reducing rates of gun-related deaths than they were in suburban or rural areas. In contrast, we found that violent misdemeanor laws were more effective at reducing homicide rates in suburban and rural areas than they were in large cities. Permit requirements were robustly effective regardless of location. This is suggestive that applying a cluster of different types of state laws is necessary, because not every law will work the same for each local population. Quote In the case of the Dayton shooter, we know that this is a person who should have been flagged as someone not able to possess a firearm. This individual made threats to kill and sexually assault high school classmates, he had a hit list with names written out. The principal and local law enforcement knew about it. It’s a perfect situation of an example that shouldn’t exist. I think a “red flag” law could make an impact—it’s hard enough to control people who don’t make threats. So when someone does threaten violence, they should not have access to a gun. The general picture that we’re getting is that if we can intervene in situations where there’s the greatest risk for violence to occur, that’s where we can have the greatest impact. 2 1 Link to comment
NM11046 Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Couple things: Depending on where you look, a "mass" shooting can be defined by 4+ dead - other sites say 8+ dead I don't think it will take 3 months. Link to comment
Ulty Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 26 minutes ago, NM11046 said: Couple things: Depending on where you look, a "mass" shooting can be defined by 4+ dead - other sites say 8+ dead I don't think it will take 3 months. 3 months?!?! That would be a dramatic improvement upon the status quo. Link to comment
QMany Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 The Trump Administration already said he would veto background checks. In February, The White House released a STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY regarding H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and H.R. 1112 Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019. "If H.R. 8, or H.R. 1112, are presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill." His off-the-cuff remarks supporting it are completely hollow. This dude is a straight-up pathological liar. 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 On 8/9/2019 at 2:38 PM, QMany said: The Trump Administration already said he would veto background checks. In February, The White House released a STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY regarding H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and H.R. 1112 Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019. "If H.R. 8, or H.R. 1112, are presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill." His off-the-cuff remarks supporting it are completely hollow. This dude is a straight-up pathological liar. Sadly, background checks are not really the answer. The answer is getting rid of guns. I have yet to hear an argument that makes sense for someone to own an uzi...or anything other than a shotgun. Here is what should be allowed to be sold. 1. Musket 2. Shotgun (10 gauge or 20 gauge, whichever one is the weaker one) and no automatic ones (if that is even a thing, I have no idea) 3. Revolvers that only hold 6 shots Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 8 hours ago, commando said: really cool feature This is exactly why when/if I ever see people like this big brain out open carrying somewhere public I'm noping out of there as fast humanly possible. Does anyone see someone like this holding in public and actually feel safer? Link to comment
teachercd Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 21 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said: This is exactly why when/if I ever see people like this big brain out open carrying somewhere public I'm noping out of there as fast humanly possible. Does anyone see someone like this holding in public and actually feel safer? No...and I don't want to see anyone carrying out in public. It is creepy as s#!t to see someone that isn't a cop carrying a gun in public. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 19 minutes ago, teachercd said: No...and I don't want to see anyone carrying out in public. It is creepy as s#!t to see someone that isn't a cop carrying a gun in public. Especially because they're usually fully decked out in tactical gear and you know they're just itching for some "action"... Link to comment
teachercd Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Danny Bateman said: Especially because they're usually fully decked out in tactical gear and you know they're just itching for some "action"... Haha! I have only seen (or I guess noticed) it twice...and the second time was total "Super Action Hero" guy...It was creepy and comical. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 13, 2019 Share Posted August 13, 2019 On 8/11/2019 at 8:30 AM, teachercd said: Haha! I have only seen (or I guess noticed) it twice...and the second time was total "Super Action Hero" guy...It was creepy and comical. So.....if you’re a guy who walks into a place to commit a mass shooting, and you see this idiot standing there....who ya shooting first? Link to comment
Recommended Posts