Support NeoGAF

[MultiCore]

hm

I have a hunch they would only show numbers like that to get a rise out of their base, and encourage them to campaign in the opposite direction.

Maybe that's just me though.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

I like your idea. Let's start a campaign about not bringing guns to school and shooting your classmates. We could save 4.38 lives per year.

Here's an idea, how about putting some money into mental health? Seems like Republicans love to blame these (white) shootings on it, but never actually fund it.

 

[LegendOfKage]

ldn'

But why are we just looking at mass school shootings? Or school shootings? What about shootings in general?

Because this thread and these marches are happening in response to a mass school shooting, and the growing concern is school shootings.

ldn'

Why wouldn't homicides of any kind count? People still lose friends or family members, whether they are students in school or otherwise. What about those injured, or seriously wounded?

Here's an article that I feel puts things in perspective.

...

In fact, between 2001 and 2011, far more people have died on average each year due to firearms than all terrorist attacks on US soil: in this period, over 113,850 have died from firearm-related incidents against 5,170 deaths due to terrorist attacks, including 9-11 (without taking 9-11 into account, the number of casualties would be 310).

...

These statistics do not include suicide rates or self-harm.

Okay, let's talk more numbers. Here's a fairly anti-gun article from an arguably anti-gun source.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pletely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.4889fe9776b9

But gun-rights supporters zeroed on in a few statements to make their case. One related to the defensive use of guns. The New American Magazine article noted that "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

So it would appear the "good use" of guns outweighs the "bad use." That may be true, except the study says all of those statistics are in dispute -- creating, in the study authors' eyes, a research imperative.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The number you gave was 113,850 dead in ten years, not including suicide or self-harm. That's 11,385 per year.

The CDC, in a study the NRA apparently didn't even want done, found that between 500,000 to 3 million examples of defensive gun use happen every year. Or, we could even go with the number that "some scholars" point to--real professional journalism there, Washington Post*--108,000 times per year.

At least as many as 108,000 victims saved by guns (potentially 3 million) saved by guns per year, to 11,385 lives taken by guns per year.

* "Some scholars?" Who? When the Washington Post heard that good journalists protect their sources, I don't think they understood what that means. This feels like Fox News saying, "well some scientists don't even think global warming is real!" WHO?

 

[Musky_Cheese]

ldn'

But why are we just looking at mass school shootings? Or school shootings? What about shootings in general?

Why wouldn't homicides of any kind count? People still lose friends or family members, whether they are students in school or otherwise. What about those injured, or seriously wounded?

Here's an article that I feel puts things in perspective.

For example, according to Politifact, between 1968 and 2011 there were 1.4 million firearm-related deaths, which is 200,000 more casualties than every single American conflict from the War of Independence to the Iraq War.

11,385 people have died on average annually in firearm incidents in the US between 2001 and 2011, according to the US Department of Justice and the Council on Foreign Affairs.

In fact, between 2001 and 2011, far more people have died on average each year due to firearms than all terrorist attacks on US soil: in this period, over 113,850 have died from firearm-related incidents against 5,170 deaths due to terrorist attacks, including 9-11 (without taking 9-11 into account, the number of casualties would be 310).

According to an academic research paper available through the National Center for Biotechnology Information, among non-lethal firearm injuries, 48,534 were wounded through intentional assault, and 11,529 were unintentional.

These statistics do not include suicide rates or self-harm.

Now about your other premise, I feel we need to be clear that there is a difference between texting-while-driving and distracted driving. They are not one and the same.

Distracted driving could be due to more than just texting-while-driving; the CDC lists various reasons, including eating, using a GPS, or even just daydreaming as causes attributable to distracted driving.

According to the NHTSA, In 2015, there were a total of 32,166 fatal crashes in the United States involving 48,613 drivers. As a result of those fatal crashes, 35,092 people were killed. Roughly 10% of that number is due to distracted driving.

As for incidents directly attributed to cell-phone distraction, during this same period, there were 442 crashes which resulted in 476 fatalities.

Research I've read doesn't put legal guns and owners at fault.

1. That between 3 to 11% of criminals are using guns they legally purchased.

2. That legal guns are used in self defense 500,000 to 3 million times every year.

The effect of bans, background checks, mental health checks, or gun registrations will be non existent. Since those criminals aren't using legal guns. So new laws will not bother them.

It would most likely decrease suicide rates. I think 60% of all gun death in USA is suicide.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Here's an idea, how about putting some money into mental health? Seems like Republicans love to blame these (white) shootings on it, but never actually fund it.

I fully support that. Mental heath is a large part of this situation. You should also look at the link of mass school shootings at wikipedia that I provided. Mass school shootings didn't used to be a thing--however uncommon they still are--and guns have been around since before the USA was founded. We have devalued life as a society, and now this is a reality.

 

[TrainedRage]

"Never Again"?
Yep these are children.

 

[gohepcat]

Because this thread and these marches are happening in response to a mass school shooting, and the growing concern is school shootings.



Okay, let's talk more numbers. Here's a fairly anti-gun article from an arguably anti-gun source.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pletely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.4889fe9776b9



The number you gave was 113,850 dead in ten years, not including suicide or self-harm. That's 11,385 per year.

The CDC, in a study the NRA apparently didn't even want done, found that between 500,000 to 3 million examples of defensive gun use happen every year. Or, we could even go with the number that "some scholars" point to--real professional journalism there, Washington Post*--108,000 times per year.

At least as many as 108,000 victims saved by guns (potentially 3 million) saved by guns per year, to 11,385 lives taken by guns per year.

* "Some scholars?" Who? When the Washington Post heard that good journalists protect their sources, I don't think they understood what that means. This feels like Fox News saying, "well some scientists don't even think global warming is real!" WHO?

Research I've read doesn't put legal guns and owners at fault.

1. That between 3 to 11% of criminals are using guns they legally purchased.

2. That legal guns are used in self defense 500,000 to 3 million times every year.

The effect of bans, background checks, mental health checks, or gun registrations will be non existent. Since those criminals aren't using legal guns. So new laws will not bother them.

It would most likely decrease suicide rates. I think 60% of all gun death in USA is suicide.

What shit hole part of the country are you living in where 3 million people are defending themselves with firearms?

If these numbers are even remotely true this makes the US look like some sort of Mad Max hell scape. My town of 100,000 has had two murders in 20 years.

 

[crimsondynamics]

sorry, something happened with my post...

 

[GAFDooMsDaY]

M13 gang coming from Mexico.

Lol what. Trumps wall is going to stop one of the most dangerous gangs from coming into the u.s?

 

[zelo-ca]

 

[Vicetrailia]

This is a poor use of information because people get their guns from outside the city limits, and from other states, and traffic them into Chicago.

 

[zelo-ca]

This is a poor use of information because people get their guns from outside the city limits, and from other states, and traffic them into Chicago.

If harsh gun regulation comes you don't think the same thing will happen except for the whole country?

 

[Autoignition]

If harsh gun regulation comes you don't think the same thing will happen except for the whole country?

Where are people going to smuggle guns from, exactly? You do realize that most illegal guns in other countries came from here, right?

 

[Vicetrailia]

If harsh gun regulation comes you don't think the same thing will happen except for the whole country?

Depends on what it is. What's the regulation(s)? It's extremely easy to get an illegal gun in chicago, I used to find ditched ones in alleyways often enough when I grew up there. Imagine if I was in a gang, how easy it would have been because the supply is infinite.

All of that can change with harsh regulations.

 

[Snoopycat]

They might not be able to remove all the guns but they could remove the bullets

 

[Warm Machine]

If harsh gun regulation comes you don't think the same thing will happen except for the whole country?

You are a smart person and I know you can think your way through this. If I needed to get a handgun in Canada right now I don't know where to go. My guess is that I'd have to go talk to someone..(who?) down on the Downtown Eastside, which is the poorest more drug addled and grossest area of Canada. I'm guessing after I talk to enough people I'm either going to be thought of as being a cop, or maybe be pointed to a heroine seller who will probably point me towards some sketchy dude in some shithole apartment. From that point I'm guessing I'm going to get worked over or maybe pay someone for some kind of info that might lead me toward another sketchy Hell's Angel where there is a way higher chance they will think I'm a cop, get worked over, or possibly fucking killed. If I survive all of this I'm likely going to have to pull out a couple grand for the privilege to finally get a gun that if I'm found with it on my person I'm going to jail. Now, who not already a criminal is going to go through this? You've made buying guns so easy in the US that you don't have to go through this danger inducing episode.

Criminals will always get guns because they have a circle of other criminals to buy off of. You can't just jump into that like it's a Walmart. "Criminals" don't mass kill people in schools or from hotel windows. Crazy fuckers do that and those sorts of people are unlikely to be sold to or have the connections to buy illegal firearms. I've said this before but pretty well every person killed by a gun in Vancouver is known to police, associated with a gang, or unfortunately a circumstance of a stray bullet due to gang violence.

 

[rokkerkory]

These kids will bring positive changes.

 

[LegendOfKage]

What shit hole part of the country are you living in where 3 million people are defending themselves with firearms?

If these numbers are even remotely true this makes the US look like some sort of Mad Max hell scape. My town of 100,000 has had two murders in 20 years.

Okay, two murders, but how many people in your town defended themselves from violent crime? Because that's what we're talking about.

We're also probably talking about a lot of situations where a gun wasn't actually fired, because you don't always need to shoot someone to defend yourself with a gun.

I just wish someone had better statistics than essentially "I don't know, somewhere between 180,000 and 3,000,000." It's pretty ridiculous that THOSE are apparently the most accurate statistics available from "some scholars" (whoever they might be), and the CDC, which is an official government agency.

Either way, we are talking about a nation of 325.7 million people, with about as many guns, so a high number of home invasions and other crime being stopped with firearms does seem probable.

At least actual statistics on mass school shootings are available, and thankfully quite low.

But school mass shootings to the left are like terrorist attacks to the right. Statistically incredibly unlikely, but let's freak everyone out over them, because they allow us to push our political agenda. From earlier in the thread:

In fact, between 2001 and 2011, far more people have died on average each year due to firearms than all terrorist attacks on US soil: in this period, over 113,850 have died from firearm-related incidents against 5,170 deaths due to terrorist attacks, including 9-11 (without taking 9-11 into account, the number of casualties would be 310).

So an average of 517 deaths from terrorist attacks in the US per year, compared to an average of 4.38 deaths a year from mass school shootings over the last 36 years. And sure, 517 is a much higher number than 4.38, however we are comparing the entire US population to the US school population, and both numbers are still incredibly small.

They might not be able to remove all the guns but they could remove the bullets

Chris Rock had a similar bullet solution:

 

[gohepcat]

Okay, two murders, but how many people in your town defended themselves from violent crime? Because that's what we're talking about.

We're also probably talking about a lot of situations where a gun wasn't actually fired, because you don't always need to shoot someone to defend yourself with a gun.

I dunno....close to none? It would certainly be huge news if it happened and I can't remember the last time in 10 years where something like that happened.

Seriously... is it even possible to imagine that there are places in the US that have super super low gun ownership and super super low crime? We generally behave ourselves without being held at gunpoint. It's like we are a civilized first world country!

I know that's not a reality for everyone, but this is what this march is for. To get the US to a modern place with gun violence like 600 million other people in the world enjoy.

 

[Rocket Number 22]

Looks like 4chan is in overdrive to try find out who made this

 

[zumphry]

Spoken like a guy who has no idea what context is and refuses to look up the definition of it.

 

[JDB]

If harsh gun regulation comes you don't think the same thing will happen except for the whole country?

Consider for a second what it takes to go from outside a city to inside a city and then what it (generally) takes to get into a country. The entire Chicago meme is pretty tiring at this point.

 

[royox]

I never understood why they are so against the gun control, I mean...preventing psycos, people with criminal records, thieves, etc get a gun. Isn't it common sense to prevent bad people to have a gun?

On other hand...Common sense and USA in the same line....I mean...they voted TRUMP.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Depends on what it is. What's the regulation(s)? It's extremely easy to get an illegal gun in chicago, I used to find ditched ones in alleyways often enough when I grew up there. Imagine if I was in a gang, how easy it would have been because the supply is infinite.

All of that can change with harsh regulations.

Or with neutering the gangs by ending the war on drugs.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I never understood why they are so against the gun control, I mean...preventing psycos, people with criminal records, thieves, etc get a gun. Isn't it common sense to prevent bad people to have a gun?

On other hand...Common sense and USA in the same line....I mean...they voted TRUMP.

Because of the perceived end goal of anti gun groups. It isn't looked as a meet in the middle thing.

For extreme anti gun groups, more background checks, bans, or registration is stepping stones for the end goal of elimination of the 2nd amendment.

For extreme pro gun groups, any give to those groups is a lose.

The majority of Americans are held hostage. Even pro gun owners like myself do believe in regulation and many proposed ideas. But we are seen as the enemy by both extremes.

 

[BlueAlpaca]

The best thing gun advocates could do is support strict regulation and isolate the true anti-gun crowd that want to ban all guns. Including things like assault rifle ban, even if it wouldn't make much of a difference. Being uncompromising fanatics is not helping. The NRA deserves a lot of the blame I think, they just want the gun companies to sell as much as possible without restriction, they're a lobbying group that's pro-gun business but in the long term actually anti-gun.

 

[BlueAlpaca]

Cause kids are dying because of your 'right', which you've hijacked and warped beyond what the actual amendment is for.

People die from drunk driving, how about banning alcohol?

I was watching one of the parkland students giving a speech and she went on about how her AP politics teacher says that whenever she hears about gun rights she just thinks 'me me me' or something like that. Totalitarians always attack people as 'selfish' when they want to take away their rights. I saw a picture again of her in the new protests and she was wearing a cuban flag on her jacket/top. Turns out her father was from cuba. Instead of honoring the flag of the country that gave her father a home when he escaped totalitarianism, she honors the marxist shithole he escaped from. This is America's future, it's pretty much done really.

 

[royox]

People die from drunk driving, how about banning alcohol?

Are you comparing accidents caused because a person decided to drive under the effects of alcohol (or a drug) with ASSASSINATION of KIDS using guns at schools?

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Are you comparing accidents caused because a person decided to drive under the effects of alcohol (or a drug) with ASSASSINATION of KIDS using guns at schools?

Reasonable to compare imo.

Both are taking lives of innocent people. Both are done by very selfish and hateful people. Both are done by people not right in the head.

 

[rokkerkory]

Reasonable to compare imo.

Both are taking lives of innocent people. Both are done by very selfish and hateful people. Both are done by people not right in the head.

Does alcohol industry have an NRA equivilent do you know?

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Does alcohol industry have an NRA equivilent do you know?

Lobbyist? Yes. They fight legalization of marijuana because it could effect their profits for example. I can't think of a big money industry that doesn't fight to change laws or fight to not change if it's for the benefit of their money.

When a drunk driver kills someone we don't go dammit Miller Brewing Company. We rightfully blame the dumbs driver. The criminal. If we did blame alcohol or it's makers, we would see a NRA type group spring up.

 

[Rocket Number 22]

People die from drunk driving, how about banning alcohol?

I was watching one of the parkland students giving a speech and she went on about how her AP politics teacher says that whenever she hears about gun rights she just thinks 'me me me' or something like that. Totalitarians always attack people as 'selfish' when they want to take away their rights. I saw a picture again of her in the new protests and she was wearing a cuban flag on her jacket/top. Turns out her father was from cuba. Instead of honoring the flag of the country that gave her father a home when he escaped totalitarianism, she honors the marxist shithole he escaped from. This is America's future, it's pretty much done really.

 

[royox]

Reasonable to compare imo.

Both are taking lives of innocent people. Both are done by very selfish and hateful people. Both are done by people not right in the head.

One is done unwillingly and because of a person's negligence, the other person WANTED to kill people. Not reasonable to compare. It's like comparing accidents that cost human lifes with terrorism.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

One is done unwillingly and because of a person's negligence, the other person WANTED to kill people. Not reasonable to compare.

Disagree. While I understand that a drunk driver isn't intending to murder someone, they do know before had what can happen... and don't care before taking a drink. The selfish mindset is very comparable imo.

 

[royox]

The selfish mindset is very comparable imo.

And in what reality a selfish mindset based on over confidence is comparable to someone that wants to kill people? Just now you are saying a 18 years old idiot that goes out with his friends, gets drunk and has a car accident is comparable to a guy that grabs an Assault Rifle and starts shooting at kids inside of a School. I just don't get your way of thinking.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

And in what reality a selfish mindset based on over confidence is comparable to someone that wants to kill people? Just now you are saying a 18 years old idiot that goes out with his friends, gets drunk and has a car accident is comparable to a guy that grabs an Assault Rifle and starts shooting at kids inside of a School. I just don't get your way of thinking.

Fuck the world. I only think of me. The mindset of both people. IMO

 

[pramod]

Can someone tell me what sort of new gun laws would have prevented the Parkland shooting, besides outright banning of guns?

Despite all the numerous warnings, alerts, and hints, the FBI passed his background checks and let him legally buy a gun. I'm not even going to go into those deputies who did nothing when the shooting started.

So what was the real failure here? Not having the right laws in place or the enforcement of these laws?

 

[royox]

Fuck the world. I only think of me. The mindset of both people. IMO

That was the exact mindset I had when I left my previous job in the moment when they needed me the most for another that's best paid and has more to do with my degree (chemistry). So I have the mindset of a terrorist that would get an AR and make a School Shooting...cool.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

That was the exact mindset I had when I left my previous job in the moment when they needed me the most for another that's best paid and has more to do with my degree (chemistry). So I have the mindset of a terrorist that would get an AR and make a School Shooting...cool.

ok.

Selfish, hateful, disgust... can be found in people all around the world. Feelings a potential school shooter can have isn't unique to school shooters. I'm sure a future school shooter would feel frustrated stuck in traffic same as you.

 

[Spheyr]

We already have so many laws gathering dust, the last thing we need is more laws to not use against anyone but the already law-abiding.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I dunno....close to none? It would certainly be huge news if it happened and I can't remember the last time in 10 years where something like that happened.

Seriously... is it even possible to imagine that there are places in the US that have super super low gun ownership and super super low crime? We generally behave ourselves without being held at gunpoint. It's like we are a civilized first world country!

Is it possible to imagine that there are places in the US that have super high gun ownership and super low crime? Because there are. The number of guns in a given area isn't an indicator of high crime statistics, but high crime statistics might be a good indicator that you should have a gun if you live in an area that bad. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and all of that.

I know that's not a reality for everyone, but this is what this march is for. To get the US to a modern place with gun violence like 600 million other people in the world enjoy.

I thought the march was to end school shootings. From the first page:

the March for Our Lives showcased impassioned teens calling on Congress to enact stricter gun-control laws to end the nation’s two-decade stretch of campus shootings.

I remember reading a story about someone in the US who fired a gun in their home, but they weren't firing their gun at an intruder, so a zero tolerance law meant mandatory jail time.

What's wrong with that, you might ask? Well, the person firing the gun was a woman, and she was firing it as a warning shot to her abusive husband. He had attacked her, and threatened to kill her. She showed him the gun, but he kept moving towards her until she proved that the gun was loaded and she was ready to use it. Not wanting to kill him, she fired a single warning shot inside the house. Being that there were lawmakers in her area who apparently felt context wasn't important, she received a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 20 years for defending herself. Thankfully, she only served three years. But she lost three years for saving her own life from a physical abuser who told her that he was about to kill her.

If she lived in a country where citizens were not allowed to have guns, she might have picked up a knife and who knows what happens then. Maybe she defends herself, maybe he backs off, maybe he gets the knife away from her, or maybe he picks up a floor lamp and beats her to death with it. She had the best possible chance with a gun, as does every physically weaker individual defending their life from a larger, stronger attacker.

I don't want the US to be in a "modern place" with the rest of the world when it comes to liberty.

 

[J Bro]

Spoken like a guy who has no idea what context is and refuses to look up the definition of it.

Context isn't an argument. You kinda have to actually put forth reasons for why it matters.

the context says I'm right

 

[NickFire]

Or with neutering the gangs by ending the war on drugs.

This in particular would help a great deal IMO. It would not by any means make the gun problem go away, and might even cause an increase into crimes whose motive is getting money to spend on drugs. But it would reduce the profit behind many gun crimes, while freeing up massive financial and human resources to then focus on things like mental health and actually investigating report after report that someone is about to explode. It would also generate huge tax revenues for things like weed, which people would barely bat an eye at when paying. Shame no one has the political capital and intestinal fortitude to push this through.

 

[rokkerkory]

Lobbyist? Yes. They fight legalization of marijuana because it could effect their profits for example. I can't think of a big money industry that doesn't fight to change laws or fight to not change if it's for the benefit of their money.

When a drunk driver kills someone we don't go dammit Miller Brewing Company. We rightfully blame the dumbs driver. The criminal. If we did blame alcohol or it's makers, we would see a NRA type group spring up.

Let's ban people period!

 

[infinitys_7th]

Does alcohol industry have an NRA equivilent do you know?

No, but it does have an equivalent to repealing the 2nd Amendment that turned out just peachy.

 

[TheShadowLord]

someone came to counter protest the students protesting for gun change with an almost military-like vehicle. I have no idea what their intentions were, but I'm going to guess they were trying to invoke fear.

 

[infinitys_7th]

someone came to counter protest the students protesting for gun change with an almost military-like vehicle. I have no idea what their intentions were, but I'm going to guess they were trying to invoke fear.

Or, you know, it's the armored vehicle they use to safely transport the arms they sell considering the company named emblazoned on it.

I think Occam's Razor covers that.

You know what, let's play this "Anecdotal Photo Extrapolation" game you folks love to play. What about this?



Obviously this man plans to kill a bunch of gun owners and pry their gun from their cold, dead hands. He is even wearing a parka in spring. . .utterly nefarious! He must have a bulletproof vest underneath to aid in his scheme. And under his beanie is a tactical helmet! He obviously intends to incite fear in his opponents.

 

[LegendOfKage]

someone came to counter protest the students protesting for gun change with an almost military-like vehicle. I have no idea what their intentions were, but I'm going to guess they were trying to invoke fear.

Perhaps instead of jumping to bad-faith conclusions, some of the protesters and counter protesters could have talked to each other like rational, respectful human beings who care about saving lives. Anti-gun advocates want to save lives by decreasing the likelihood of being shot, and pro-gun advocates want to save lives by increasing the ability of the weak to defend themselves from the powerful.

I tend to lean towards the latter rather than the former, but I'm not going to demonize those who disagree with me.

I do think counter protests are kind of dumb in general, though. Pick a different day and be heard then. There's too much emotion from most people on both sides of a heated topic like this to result in a positive exchange of ideas, however much I may wish that wasn't the case.

 

[JDB]

Or, you know, it's the armored vehicle they use to safely transport the arms they sell considering the company named emblazoned on it.

How are they going to keep it secure when there's a flag stuck in the barrel?

 

[TheShadowLord]

Or, you know, it's the armored vehicle they use to safely transport the arms they sell considering the company named emblazoned on it.

I think Occam's Razor covers that.

You know what, let's play this "Anecdotal Photo Extrapolation" game you folks love to play. What about this?



Obviously this man plans to kill a bunch of gun owners and pry their gun from their cold, dead hands. He is even wearing a parka in spring. . .utterly nefarious! He must have a bulletproof vest underneath to aid in his scheme. And under his beanie is a tactical helmet! He obviously intends to incite fear in his opponents.

That's BS, why they a need an armed personal vehicle with a gun turret just to transfer guns? I don't buy that excuse as this is not a third world country like parts of the middle east or africa