Umpqua shooting - a tragedy, not a trend
- Thread starter Mntneer
- Start date
I wonder if the people of Chicago wonder why he's not so passionate about the young men dying those streets everyday?
Dealing with the killing fields of Chicago and many other cities around our country won't advance the agenda of his fellow nut-jobs. He is all talk and no action. I have yet to hear a peep from him about or see him address the countless murders in our cities.
Okay, it's not a trend. Talking about burying your head.
How many school shooting do you all think have occurred in the US since 2000?
How many school shooting do you all think have occurred in the US since 2000?
Well, I've yet to see you weigh in with any solutions in my other thread. Just like to ***** and provide no options kind of guy?
It's interesting that he titles the piece stating it isn't a trend ... and then opens the piece stating that yet another incident has happened. Isn't something that happens over and over again a trend?
There is this website with a lot of interesting data:
https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america/charts
The first graph is of the number of victims, with each point indicating an incident. It seems like there are getting to be more incidents in recent years according to that chart.
I think he raised some good points to point that it isn't a "trend" per se. Specifically, dating back to the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. As I pointed out to you, Charles Whitmore in the clock tower at UT Austin. This stuff happens and will continue to happen. If there weren't guns, you can easily assembly a "home cooked" IED and do the same damage. Evil will always be present and it shouldn't be allowed to infringe on our liberty.
Regardless, this discussion is ******** if it doesn't first start with a discussion on resolving gun violence in the inner cities. That is not a trend, it's not an epidemic, it's the smallpox or plague (didn't want to say "black death" because inevitably one of the mental midgets would call me a racist...no offense to little people) of our country with regard to gun violence.
There's been 164 school shootings since 2000. About half of that number has occurred in the last two years. Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not it is a trend.
And murders due to firearms are down since 2000.... draw your own conclusions as to whether or not that is a trend.
Can't seem to access their database. I'd like to see the basis as to why a mass shooting should be based on 3 victims. For example, do they figure murder suicides in that data? Should they if they do? And take a look at some of their data sources. I'd much rather them stick to hard FBI and Law Enforcement data than Huffington Post, Mother Jones or Think Progress Online stories.
There is no argument that these things have always happened. However, please look at the link I provided. There is a scatter plot in there and the density of the dots is increasing, meaning that the frequency of the events is increasing. Not to get into a semantic argument, but even something that is holding steady is still a trend.
I see incidents like this differently than the inner city violence. I know there are drive bys or whatever where innocent people get killed, but I don't think innocent people are targeted in the inner city violence. I haven't studied any data regarding that so I could be totally wrong, but it seems to be mostly one criminal killing another criminal.
Yes, people can easily assemble homemade IED's or anything like that, but that seems to take things to an entirely different level in my mind. There is a LOT more premeditation required to do that, and maybe we'd get lucky and half these lunatics would blow themselves up while making them. Whereas it is relatively easy to decide you're going to do this and get a gun and do it.
Evil will always be present and it shouldn't be allowed to infringe on our liberty ... totally agree. So don't take my thoughts/views as saying we need more gun legislation, I just find this to be a very complex and fascinating topic.
I was thinking a mass shooting was 4 victims, but that may have been another site I looked at. I don't know why that number is chosen, seems rather arbitrary, but you have to define it some way to count it.
I read another article that indicated that the FBI data isn't terribly reliable or complete just because of the way things are reported or not reported to them. That seems to be something that needs to be addressed because how can we know if something is an issue or not if we don't have reliable data?
Looks like a trend to me. Most likely due to the "copy cat" way of getting attention and the total lack of any accountably taught by the mindless "me generation" excuses for parents.
I did semantic you and I apologize.
100% agree on your last para. I don't think there is a solution.
It is a tragedy and a trend. Can government involvement eliminate tragedies? No. Can government impact the rate of a trend? Most of the time, yes. And I am on the side that I sure wish they would try and the BS that the gun lobby and followers keep touting excuses and deflection are the ones with the blood on their hands.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone saying they don't want something to change. The people you are demonizing realize the complexities of the problem and aren't in favor meaningless shows of action which will infringe on personal liberties which only pacify the masses calling for action and provide no real substance. We've seen this with every initiative undertaken in the past. Why would we think anything going forward would be any different?
I requested people offer some solutions which they think might make a difference and not one of you who usually support left leaning initiatives offered a single option.
I highly disagree with your opinion. Those that don't want to act and there are many like you such as Jeb Bush and Trump said publicly today and almost every other GOP candidate will say similar things have millions of people supporting them including yourself.
This country has a gun problem. Period. I'm not sure what you are speaking about with asking a question as I didn't see it. But if there was one topic I am a liberal on, it is this one. You won't like my answer but here it is. Amend the 2nd Amendment with a new Amendment bringing it into the 21st century. We have to impact the exclusive rights for all citizens for all guns. This part of our constitution simply isn't working.
Now disagree with the opinion as you wish.
That's fine. I don't have a problem with your belief. I don't agree with it, but it's the first thing offered today from the left.
The ability to ask a question and then respecting the answer even in disagreement is rare on this board. I tip my hat to you.
I disagree on the "rare" part. Most on the board can agree or disagree without personal attacks, but there are a few who disregard the question in favor of making personal attacks. Those few are simply sitting in wait to make personal attack on targeted others. Then we see prolonged exchanges about the attack and disregard to the subject at hand.
People can disagree without being disagreeable. It may take some practice, but it is doable. Of course, this will be attacked, and at times there is simply a misunderstanding that can be cleared up if we take the time to consider each difference independently.
And, to that point, specifically what change/amendment needs to be made to the 2nd? Next, what does it mean to bring something into the 21st century? Does the change need to be more slanted to liberal or conservative. With an open ended question like that, what is the direction that the amend go to improve what is now written, in your opinion? Remember, we have the option to agree without being disagreeable.
Here's the thing. In order to ever have a meaningful discussion about this, "gun control" can't be labeled as a liberal notion and discounted immediately. Currently, convicted felons aren't allowed to own guns and I don't know of anybody that opposes that, so everybody agrees in gun control at some level. (I'm sure there are some that don't agree with that, even, but I put them on the fringe with the people that want to eliminate guns altogether)
But, no matter how often I discuss this and no matter how many conflicting thoughts I hold in my head I always come back to the idea that there just may not be a solution.
A serious look at the root cause is needed and that has to start with better record keeping on the crimes that are committed, and in a central location. The FBI seems the most likely place for that but their database is incomplete. Just having the right statistics is a start, but that's all it is.
I don't think gun ownership is any higher now than it has been in the past, so what else has changed? Which of those changes can be considered part of the root cause?
The solution, if there is one, most likely doesn't involve guns at all.
I think gun ownership is pretty high right now...supposedly up 62% since 1994...at the same time supposedly gun homicide rate is down 49% since 1993.
Not so. The NRA has been lobbying for years to overturn the laws preventing convicted felons from owning guns. That's right, the "law and order-enforce the laws on the books" crowd wants convicted felons (and pretty much everyone else over the age of about 18 months) to be able to buy as many guns of as many types as they have the money to pay for. There will never be any meaningful effort to change our gun laws. Any chance of that died in the classrooms of Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. If we can let babies be gunned down by the score and do nothing, there is no horror great enough to move us to action.
That is supposedly from Pew. I can confirm the 49% decrease in gun homicide rate from Pew...haven't found the 62% increase in gun ownership yet (also from Pew)
They my have a point with that. Many felons are not violent criminals. Should they be stripped of the right to vote and to own a firearm because of a non-violent crime where they have "paid their debt to society"? I think it's definitely worth the discussion.
Very worth discussion. If you have served your time, you have been "rehabilitated" and are supposedly able to contribute to society.
I have no problem with a discussion, but I suspect law enforcement would offer that there are as many educated in "how to" as are rehabbed . I have no stats to support a belief, but it does stimulate enough to research.
I was mainly posting what I did to provide clarification on why people feel that way. You need look no further than to see repeat felon statistics to see why they shouldn't own a gun.
I can see both sides of the argument, but I question the wisdom of stripping ex-cons of their rights forever - gun ownership and voting included in those. I'm not saying that this should be an immediate return of those rights, but I would think that you could start a clock on ex-cons, and grant those rights if they stay clean for a predetermined length of time.
I had a lifting buddy in college - 50 year-old truck driver - who had committed armed robbery (with a knife) when he was 19. He served 6 or 7 years in the state pen, and he had a clean record over that last quarter of a century. I have no idea if he was allowed to vote or own a gun. I never asked about either, but I would say that he had proven that he could live in the real world. I don't see ow he would be dangerous if he could do either of those.
I see no problem with the opportunity to reapply. Time frame may be after the max time he could have been sentenced for the offense.
I see no problem with the opportunity to reapply. Time frame may be after the max time he could have been sentenced for the offense.