tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,681
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 3, 2019 22:58:06 GMT -5
Once again, we can still count on Congress to take swift and decisive action. Congress can't take swift and decisive action on 9/11 first responders, how do they ever solve real problems? By Tuesday, the Trump Twitter account is fired up over some story he saw on Fox & Friends and the national narrative shifts again. (He's past due for some "Pocohontas" references.) They can. They choose not to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 8:24:21 GMT -5
At least 9 killed and 16 injured after mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 9:40:39 GMT -5
Let's all do this absurd dance....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 0:04:16 GMT -5
There is one developed country—and only one—in which it is not only legal, but easy and convenient, to amass a private arsenal of mass slaughter. That country also happens to be the one—and the only one—regularly afflicted by mass slaughters perpetrated by aggrieved individuals.
You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out. Yet even as the casualties from gunfire mount, Americans express befuddlement, and compete to devise ever more far-fetched answers.
As far as anybody can ascertain, the deadliest mass shooter in American history had no specific political motive. Stephen Paddock apparently opened fire from a Las Vegas hotel room in October 2017, murdering 58 and wounding hundreds more, out of purely personal rage at the world.
The second-deadliest mass shooter, Omar Mateen, espoused Islamist loyalties in his final messages before he attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando in June 2016, killing 49 and wounding 53.
The third- and fourth-deadliest—the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho and the Sandy Hook school shooter Adam Lanza—were both antisocial, and battled different mental-health issues. The fifth-deadliest—the Sutherland Springs church shooter—was a loudmouthed atheist. The El Paso, Texas, gunman ranks eighth; authorities are investigating whether he wrote a white-supremacist manifesto. The Islamic fanatics who killed at Fort Hood, also in Texas, in 2011 and San Bernardino, California, in 2015 are tied for 14th place.
A paranoid defense contractor carried out the Washington Navy Yard shooting that killed 12 people in 2013. We don’t yet know what motivated the gunman in Dayton, Ohio, to kill nine and wound 27. But in 2014, a 24-year-old man named Elliot Rodger killed six and wounded 14 in California, to express his rage at women for perceived sexual rebuffs.
This menu of atrocities offers a wide range of political points to score, if that is your wish. You will find here immigrants and natives; whites and nonwhites; Muslims and Christians; right-wingers, left-wingers, and the nonpolitical. There is even a woman, Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, targeted a Christmas party sponsored by the local Department of Public Health, where the husband worked.
Despite their diversity, all these killers had one thing in common: their uniquely American access to firearms. In turn, these killers unite the country in a uniquely American determination to ignore the obvious.
More guns, more killing. Fewer guns, less killing. Everybody else has figured that out. Americans—and only Americans—refuse to do so.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Aug 5, 2019 12:02:03 GMT -5
All Americas should be humiliated by Trump’s speech this morning.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2019 13:42:37 GMT -5
There is one developed country—and only one—in which it is not only legal, but easy and convenient, to amass a private arsenal of mass slaughter. That country also happens to be the one—and the only one—regularly afflicted by mass slaughters perpetrated by aggrieved individuals. You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out. Yet even as the casualties from gunfire mount, Americans express befuddlement, and compete to devise ever more far-fetched answers. As far as anybody can ascertain, the deadliest mass shooter in American history had no specific political motive. Stephen Paddock apparently opened fire from a Las Vegas hotel room in October 2017, murdering 58 and wounding hundreds more, out of purely personal rage at the world. The second-deadliest mass shooter, Omar Mateen, espoused Islamist loyalties in his final messages before he attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando in June 2016, killing 49 and wounding 53. The third- and fourth-deadliest—the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho and the Sandy Hook school shooter Adam Lanza—were both antisocial, and battled different mental-health issues. The fifth-deadliest—the Sutherland Springs church shooter—was a loudmouthed atheist. The El Paso, Texas, gunman ranks eighth; authorities are investigating whether he wrote a white-supremacist manifesto. The Islamic fanatics who killed at Fort Hood, also in Texas, in 2011 and San Bernardino, California, in 2015 are tied for 14th place. A paranoid defense contractor carried out the Washington Navy Yard shooting that killed 12 people in 2013. We don’t yet know what motivated the gunman in Dayton, Ohio, to kill nine and wound 27. But in 2014, a 24-year-old man named Elliot Rodger killed six and wounded 14 in California, to express his rage at women for perceived sexual rebuffs. This menu of atrocities offers a wide range of political points to score, if that is your wish. You will find here immigrants and natives; whites and nonwhites; Muslims and Christians; right-wingers, left-wingers, and the nonpolitical. There is even a woman, Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, targeted a Christmas party sponsored by the local Department of Public Health, where the husband worked. Despite their diversity, all these killers had one thing in common: their uniquely American access to firearms. In turn, these killers unite the country in a uniquely American determination to ignore the obvious. More guns, more killing. Fewer guns, less killing. Everybody else has figured that out. Americans—and only Americans—refuse to do so. Good summary of past mass killings. How would you go about solving the problem, considering there are millions and millions of guns on the street, including many in the hands of bad guys? |
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Aug 5, 2019 13:50:17 GMT -5
The federal government should start a massive buyback program (take a couple hundred billion from the bloated defense budget) which would take a lot of guns off the street. Then, the federal government should begin to set up very large barriers to the production and trade of new guns and ammo. They could institute a 100,000% tax on all guns, ammo, and peripheral items related to guns. The government should purchase as many of the guns and ammo that is available for sale and destroy them. Over time, the guns that remain will degrade and will have very little ammo available anyway which will drastically reduce the number of guns that exist and will reduce the number of shootings that happen. It won’t happen over night but it needs to happen and we need to start now.
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Aug 5, 2019 14:35:05 GMT -5
There is one developed country—and only one—in which it is not only legal, but easy and convenient, to amass a private arsenal of mass slaughter. That country also happens to be the one—and the only one—regularly afflicted by mass slaughters perpetrated by aggrieved individuals. You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out. Yet even as the casualties from gunfire mount, Americans express befuddlement, and compete to devise ever more far-fetched answers. As far as anybody can ascertain, the deadliest mass shooter in American history had no specific political motive. Stephen Paddock apparently opened fire from a Las Vegas hotel room in October 2017, murdering 58 and wounding hundreds more, out of purely personal rage at the world. The second-deadliest mass shooter, Omar Mateen, espoused Islamist loyalties in his final messages before he attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando in June 2016, killing 49 and wounding 53. The third- and fourth-deadliest—the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho and the Sandy Hook school shooter Adam Lanza—were both antisocial, and battled different mental-health issues. The fifth-deadliest—the Sutherland Springs church shooter—was a loudmouthed atheist. The El Paso, Texas, gunman ranks eighth; authorities are investigating whether he wrote a white-supremacist manifesto. The Islamic fanatics who killed at Fort Hood, also in Texas, in 2011 and San Bernardino, California, in 2015 are tied for 14th place. A paranoid defense contractor carried out the Washington Navy Yard shooting that killed 12 people in 2013. We don’t yet know what motivated the gunman in Dayton, Ohio, to kill nine and wound 27. But in 2014, a 24-year-old man named Elliot Rodger killed six and wounded 14 in California, to express his rage at women for perceived sexual rebuffs. This menu of atrocities offers a wide range of political points to score, if that is your wish. You will find here immigrants and natives; whites and nonwhites; Muslims and Christians; right-wingers, left-wingers, and the nonpolitical. There is even a woman, Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, targeted a Christmas party sponsored by the local Department of Public Health, where the husband worked. Despite their diversity, all these killers had one thing in common: their uniquely American access to firearms. In turn, these killers unite the country in a uniquely American determination to ignore the obvious. More guns, more killing. Fewer guns, less killing. Everybody else has figured that out. Americans—and only Americans—refuse to do so. Good summary of past mass killings. How would you go about solving the problem, considering there are millions and millions of guns on the street, including many in the hands of bad guys? Insurance. Force it upon any sale. Make the risk premium super high for the same folks that have high premiums in the auto market (young males), but steeply decline based on years of safe gun handling, gun safety courses, safe gun storage, etc. (to the point where it’s a nominal charge for someone in their 30s+ to own weapons. The insurance follows the weapon, so if something happens with it, the “owner” is responsible. And if there’s no insurance, the owner is fully responsible. It won’t take guns off the street today, but it will encourage a safer gun culture, and the irresponsible gun owners will have to pay for their delinquency. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 14:36:10 GMT -5
There is one developed country—and only one—in which it is not only legal, but easy and convenient, to amass a private arsenal of mass slaughter. That country also happens to be the one—and the only one—regularly afflicted by mass slaughters perpetrated by aggrieved individuals. You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out. Yet even as the casualties from gunfire mount, Americans express befuddlement, and compete to devise ever more far-fetched answers. As far as anybody can ascertain, the deadliest mass shooter in American history had no specific political motive. Stephen Paddock apparently opened fire from a Las Vegas hotel room in October 2017, murdering 58 and wounding hundreds more, out of purely personal rage at the world. The second-deadliest mass shooter, Omar Mateen, espoused Islamist loyalties in his final messages before he attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando in June 2016, killing 49 and wounding 53. The third- and fourth-deadliest—the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho and the Sandy Hook school shooter Adam Lanza—were both antisocial, and battled different mental-health issues. The fifth-deadliest—the Sutherland Springs church shooter—was a loudmouthed atheist. The El Paso, Texas, gunman ranks eighth; authorities are investigating whether he wrote a white-supremacist manifesto. The Islamic fanatics who killed at Fort Hood, also in Texas, in 2011 and San Bernardino, California, in 2015 are tied for 14th place. A paranoid defense contractor carried out the Washington Navy Yard shooting that killed 12 people in 2013. We don’t yet know what motivated the gunman in Dayton, Ohio, to kill nine and wound 27. But in 2014, a 24-year-old man named Elliot Rodger killed six and wounded 14 in California, to express his rage at women for perceived sexual rebuffs. This menu of atrocities offers a wide range of political points to score, if that is your wish. You will find here immigrants and natives; whites and nonwhites; Muslims and Christians; right-wingers, left-wingers, and the nonpolitical. There is even a woman, Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, targeted a Christmas party sponsored by the local Department of Public Health, where the husband worked. Despite their diversity, all these killers had one thing in common: their uniquely American access to firearms. In turn, these killers unite the country in a uniquely American determination to ignore the obvious. More guns, more killing. Fewer guns, less killing. Everybody else has figured that out. Americans—and only Americans—refuse to do so. Good summary of past mass killings. How would you go about solving the problem, considering there are millions and millions of guns on the street, including many in the hands of bad guys? Well you're not going to fix the problem overnight because of that reason, but you can start by acknowledging the status quo is unacceptable. The amount of guns on the street, that are a result of inaction, can't be used as an excuse to NOT take action now imo. I think some folks in this thread have laid out some good ideas, and imo all options should be on the table. Some are going to be more realistic than others, but the fact that the CDC isn't even allowed to do research on this via the Dickey amendment shows just how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. You're not going to turn this around overnight, but we can start to try. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2019 15:52:17 GMT -5
The federal government should start a massive buyback program (take a couple hundred billion from the bloated defense budget) which would take a lot of guns off the street. Then, the federal government should begin to set up very large barriers to the production and trade of new guns and ammo. They could institute a 100,000% tax on all guns, ammo, and peripheral items related to guns. The government should purchase as many of the guns and ammo that is available for sale and destroy them. Over time, the guns that remain will degrade and will have very little ammo available anyway which will drastically reduce the number of guns that exist and will reduce the number of shootings that happen. It won’t happen over night but it needs to happen and we need to start now. There is the matter of the 2nd Amendment. Your proposal would be rejected by the Supreme Court, if it ever passed the Congress. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2019 15:54:35 GMT -5
Do you think part of the solution has to be closing the southern border?
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,684 
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyajinx on Aug 5, 2019 15:56:22 GMT -5
All Americas should be humiliated by Trump’s speech this morning. I’m humiliated every time he opens his mouth. How many times can we blame video games for gun violence? Study after has refuted any causal link, but the pro-Trump crowd, where the majority of anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers reside, has no use for scientific data. They sure are suckers for some anecdotal evidence though. |
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,823
Member is Online
|
Post by njhoya78 on Aug 5, 2019 16:01:15 GMT -5
Do you think part of the solution has to be closing the southern border? Closing the southern border is an answer to a different question. None of these mass shootings have been initiated by immigrants from Mexico or South America; instead, they have been caused by American citizens who were able to purchase semi-automatic weapons with expanded magazines. Any attempt to link gun reform legislation to immigration law changes, as suggested by the President, is disingenuous. |
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Aug 5, 2019 16:07:25 GMT -5
The federal government should start a massive buyback program (take a couple hundred billion from the bloated defense budget) which would take a lot of guns off the street. Then, the federal government should begin to set up very large barriers to the production and trade of new guns and ammo. They could institute a 100,000% tax on all guns, ammo, and peripheral items related to guns. The government should purchase as many of the guns and ammo that is available for sale and destroy them. Over time, the guns that remain will degrade and will have very little ammo available anyway which will drastically reduce the number of guns that exist and will reduce the number of shootings that happen. It won’t happen over night but it needs to happen and we need to start now. There is the matter of the 2nd Amendment. Your proposal would be rejected by the Supreme Court, if it ever passed the Congress. Maybe but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about guns being cheap. You could still own guns under my plan but it would be hard. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Aug 5, 2019 16:15:30 GMT -5
Do you think part of the solution has to be closing the southern border? Shorter EasyEd : Let's negotiate with terrorists! Actually let's not even negotiate with them, let's just do unreasonable things they want! |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,912
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 5, 2019 17:43:31 GMT -5
The federal government should start a massive buyback program (take a couple hundred billion from the bloated defense budget) which would take a lot of guns off the street. Then, the federal government should begin to set up very large barriers to the production and trade of new guns and ammo. They could institute a 100,000% tax on all guns, ammo, and peripheral items related to guns. The government should purchase as many of the guns and ammo that is available for sale and destroy them. Over time, the guns that remain will degrade and will have very little ammo available anyway which will drastically reduce the number of guns that exist and will reduce the number of shootings that happen. It won’t happen over night but it needs to happen and we need to start now. The Australian gun buyback purchased a total of 660,959 weapons from citizens eager to participate. There are an estimated 393,000,000 guns in the US, of which 99.999+% are held without incident or criminal intent. Many of these owners would never participate in a buyback. Do you own firearms? While not common in DC, 41 percent of the overall US population does, or lives with someone who does. "A large majority of gun owners (72%) own a handgun or pistol, while 62% own a rifle and 54% own a shotgun. About three-quarters of gun owners (73%) say they could never see themselves not owning a gun." www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/ |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,397
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 5, 2019 18:01:57 GMT -5
The federal government should start a massive buyback program (take a couple hundred billion from the bloated defense budget) which would take a lot of guns off the street. Then, the federal government should begin to set up very large barriers to the production and trade of new guns and ammo. They could institute a 100,000% tax on all guns, ammo, and peripheral items related to guns. The government should purchase as many of the guns and ammo that is available for sale and destroy them. Over time, the guns that remain will degrade and will have very little ammo available anyway which will drastically reduce the number of guns that exist and will reduce the number of shootings that happen. It won’t happen over night but it needs to happen and we need to start now. The Australian gun buyback purchased a total of 660,959 weapons from citizens eager to participate. There are an estimated 393,000,000 guns in the US, of which 99.999+% are held without incident or criminal intent. Many of these owners would never participate in a buyback. Do you own firearms? While not common in DC, 41 percent of the overall US population does, or lives with someone who does. "A large majority of gun owners (72%) own a handgun or pistol, while 62% own a rifle and 54% own a shotgun. About three-quarters of gun owners (73%) say they could never see themselves not owning a gun." www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/So the 393 million guns in the country are owned by 30% of the US population? that's a ridiculous number in my view... I like the stats in the article that say 57% of US adults think guns laws should be stricter, it's crazy to me how much minority consensus wins out in our country but lobbying money is the great factor... This isn't about folks not owning guns, it's about more sensible ways to govern how these weapons are distributed, sold & owned... |
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,234
|
Post by hoya9797 on Aug 5, 2019 18:30:11 GMT -5
The federal government should start a massive buyback program (take a couple hundred billion from the bloated defense budget) which would take a lot of guns off the street. Then, the federal government should begin to set up very large barriers to the production and trade of new guns and ammo. They could institute a 100,000% tax on all guns, ammo, and peripheral items related to guns. The government should purchase as many of the guns and ammo that is available for sale and destroy them. Over time, the guns that remain will degrade and will have very little ammo available anyway which will drastically reduce the number of guns that exist and will reduce the number of shootings that happen. It won’t happen over night but it needs to happen and we need to start now. The Australian gun buyback purchased a total of 660,959 weapons from citizens eager to participate. There are an estimated 393,000,000 guns in the US, of which 99.999+% are held without incident or criminal intent. Many of these owners would never participate in a buyback. Do you own firearms? While not common in DC, 41 percent of the overall US population does, or lives with someone who does. "A large majority of gun owners (72%) own a handgun or pistol, while 62% own a rifle and 54% own a shotgun. About three-quarters of gun owners (73%) say they could never see themselves not owning a gun." www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/Make the price right and people will turn over their guns. And, it doesn’t have to be all of them. Incremental improvement is ok. It is an absolute fact that fewer guns will result in less gun violence. It’s worth whatever we need to spend. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2019 19:22:52 GMT -5
Do you think part of the solution has to be closing the southern border? Closing the southern border is an answer to a different question. None of these mass shootings have been initiated by immigrants from Mexico or South America; instead, they have been caused by American citizens who were able to purchase semi-automatic weapons with expanded magazines. Any attempt to link gun reform legislation to immigration law changes, as suggested by the President, is disingenuous. Look, I am willing to back some form of gun control as long as it is consistent with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I would back repealing the 2nd Amendment but that is an impossible feat at this time. But if you make it much more difficult to purchase guns in this country, what do you think will be coming across our southern border? There is no easy solution to this problem, just as there are no easy solutions to the carnage taking place in many of our cities. To concentrate solely on guns is fools gold. I heard one analyst note that another thing common among the mass shootings is they are virtually all done by males. Another professor noted that 80% of these males had no father or other significant other male in their lives. I am sure there are many more items that would stand out under close examination. One thing I am certain of and that is: calling each other names is not part of the solution. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,397
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 5, 2019 20:23:15 GMT -5
Closing the southern border is an answer to a different question. None of these mass shootings have been initiated by immigrants from Mexico or South America; instead, they have been caused by American citizens who were able to purchase semi-automatic weapons with expanded magazines. Any attempt to link gun reform legislation to immigration law changes, as suggested by the President, is disingenuous. Look, I am willing to back some form of gun control as long as it is consistent with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I would back repealing the 2nd Amendment but that is an impossible feat at this time. But if you make it much more difficult to purchase guns in this country, what do you think will be coming across our southern border? There is no easy solution to this problem, just as there are no easy solutions to the carnage taking place in many of our cities. To concentrate solely on guns is fools gold. I heard one analyst note that another thing common among the mass shootings is they are virtually all done by males. Another professor noted that 80% of these males had no father or other significant other male in their lives. I am sure there are many more items that would stand out under close examination. One thing I am certain of and that is: calling each other names is not part of the solution. Are you implying that guns will be smuggled from Mexico to the US Ed? www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-guns-20180524-story.htmlYet on this issue, like so many aspects of life in Mexico, the influence of its powerful neighbor to the north is keenly felt: Each day the army gun store sells on average just 38 firearms to civilians, while an estimated 580 weapons are smuggled into Mexico from the United States.
That paradox is increasingly relevant given Mexico’s unprecedented levels of gun violence, which have claimed more than 100,000 lives over the last decade. Last year was Mexico’s deadliest since the government began releasing homicide statistics in 1997. This year, the violence is on track to surpass that record.
American firearms are directly driving the violence, although U.S. appetites for drugs and rampant corruption among Mexican officials also play a role. About 70% of guns recovered by Mexican law enforcement officials from 2011 to 2016 were originally purchased from legal gun dealers in the United States, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. |
|
