Senate Gun Control

Does beezel have two old friends incarcerated because of form 4473?

 

Ft. Hood in April of this year. That is kind of different since it is military though. That, and the one in 2009 (you know, the other Ft. Hood shooting in the past 5 years) would be unlikely to be changed even with tighter gun control. You may have to go back to Luby's shooting in '91 for a good old-fashioned civilian murder spree. And then of course there's the infamous Bell Tower Sniper at UT in '66.

 

99% of the time, it's safe to assume that he is. It's one of his most endearing qualities and talents.

 

Right, the fact that it was a military shooting might be why I didn't recall.

I would be curious to see gun violence statistics in states with stricter gun control vs. states without. I know Illinois is pretty strict compared to Texas and it seemingly hasn't helped inner-city Chicago. I hate to say that with how much I love that city, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

unfortunately, it's a true story about how crime doesn't pay because the feds insist on monitoring handgun purchases.

 

Studies have basically shown that strict gun control doesn't appear to have any correlation with decreased gun violence. Most of the variation appears to be better explained by demographics (particularly population density) than by the strictness of gun control.

Where it is the most noticeable is in areas near state borders, where the demographics are similar on both sides of the border, but the crime rates are different. One such place is Northern Virginia/DC/Maryland. Maryland and DC have strict gun control laws, and have higher crime rates, while Virginia's laws are more relaxed and so are the crime rates. However, if you then compare with other parts of Maryland (excepting the Baltimore area), you will find similarly reduced rates in Western Maryland as well as on the Eastern Shore. Similarly, you find higher crime rates in Virginia in the Richmond, Newport News, and Norfolk areas (although not as high as DC or Baltimore) than you do in the more rural areas.

 

I thought as much. Kind of makes me think even more that gun violence is tied to the same risk factors as violent crime in general, and that addressing things like poverty and lack of education would be more a more effective method than gun regulations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Don't other democratic countries have stricter gun laws and less gun violence?

 

Yes we do (UK)

 

To be fair, they probably have a healthier relationship with guns altogether.

Also, to clarify, I'm not against sensible gun regulations. I AM against regulations being determined by people who don't know enough about guns and gun ownership to come up with something effective and realistic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I feel like this is an American centric assertion.

However, I understand another mass shooting occurred, so I am keen to hear a bunch of entitled white men wringing their hands over how little to nothing can actually be done and it's "not that bad".

 

Literally, nothing can be done.

The only way to prevent mass shootings through gun control is to enact legislation like Australia did. It would NEVER pass here.

As obnoxious as your racial self-hatred is, the fact remains that a solution to this problem requires a severe culture change that will not happen anytime soon. Pardon me and K_K and Mr44 for being white and male and also noticing this fact.

 

lol, racial self-hatred.

 

Please, name a specific, attainable goal which Americans, either legislatively or through community action can take in order to reduce the incidence of spree killings.

 

I suppose you said attainable, so having courage enough to tackle the issue through legislative reform is right out...

 

It doesn't matter if any legislators have the courage to sponsor a bill. Republicans, the gun lobby, and gun-owning constituents will not let an effective gun control measure pass.

As far as I can tell, hand-wringing is about all that can be done.

 

That's the spirit!

 

We're lucky, Lost. No Constitution.

 

Well, we've got a Constitution, but luckily it looks and reads more like a public service manual of instructions than a declaration of war.

 

Americans scream about the constitution whenever gun regulations are brought up, but when employers fire people for complaining about their jobs on Facebook, no one is screaming FIRST AMENDMENT!

Clearly the Second Amendment means more than freedom of speech.

 

The US's steadfast guardians of First Amendment rights are porn magazine producers and journalists who get sued by Harlan Ellison for breaking contracts not to call what he does "sci-fi".

 

It's subtle, but gun ownership is first amendment speech. Once I understood that the first and second amendment had cross bred and genetically mutated into a new drug-resistant superstrain passage of text in the bill of rights, then I finally learned everything I'll ever need to know about U.S. Constitutional law.

 

Some people do. But they are idiots because that's not what the First Amendment means. Now, if someone was being arrested for something they posted on Facebook, then yes, it's time to bring out your pocket Constitution.

 

My mistake.