The "how" is of course important but the "why" is even more so. Maps like this fail to do that because there's a massive difference in a San Bernardino or Orlando incident (i.e. war on society by jihadists) as opposed to multiple incidents of some fucksticks in Chicago doing what's become a daily ritual there with dipshit gangsta's shooting at each other as much as they can and usually hitting someone who has nothing to do with their nonsense.
"BartSimpson" said More an opinion piece than anything, at least in my mind, but still interesting:
It will take the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to ban guns and we'll have another civil war before that happens.
Nobody is talking banning firearms. ..well at least nobody in their right mind is. What needs to be restricted are certain types of firearms, magazine capacities and specific ammunition types.
Nobody is talking banning firearms. ..well at least nobody in their right mind is. What needs to be restricted are certain types of firearms, magazine capacities and specific ammunition types.
The problem isn't the guns, it's the people.
Take Mexico, for instance. They ban semi-auto rifles and what's the result? The criminals buy EASIER TO OBTAIN full-auto weapons on the black market. That's the same in France and much of Europe, too.
Pass all the laws you want but unless you have law abiding people those laws won't mean shit.
And we're letting in Muslims and we're 150 years behind the curve on assimilating urban blacks and we're way behind on dealing with the drug market in white communities. If we ban semi-auto rifles then we will just create a very profitable market for full-auto weapons because the laws won't change the people who break them.
There's a lot of potential solutions that would collectively put a stop to a lot of the mayhem if they were implemented but it's unlikely they'll ever happen because of the shitty politics from both sides of the spectrum.
16 out of the 20 cities with the highest violent crime rates have Democratic mayors. Two are Republican, and the other two are Independents. It is notable that one of the Republican controlled cities, Atlantic City, had previously been managed by wave after wave of Democratic mayors.
Nobody is talking banning firearms. ..well at least nobody in their right mind is. What needs to be restricted are certain types of firearms, magazine capacities and specific ammunition types.
The problem isn't the guns, it's the people.
Take Mexico, for instance. They ban semi-auto rifles and what's the result? The criminals buy EASIER TO OBTAIN full-auto weapons on the black market. That's the same in France and much of Europe, too.
Pass all the laws you want but unless you have law abiding people those laws won't mean shit.
And we're letting in Muslims and we're 150 years behind the curve on assimilating urban blacks and we're way behind on dealing with the drug market in white communities. If we ban semi-auto rifles then we will just create a very profitable market for full-auto weapons because the laws won't change the people who break them.
Banning alcohol didn't work, either.
Yeah, but controlling the amount of alcohol that could be imbibed, imposing drunk driving laws, providing state sponsored methods of handling alcohol abuse, and similar methods did drastically alter the role alcohol plays in our society and has significantly reduced the harm it was causing.
Much like SheperdsDog said, no one is talking about banning guns, people are talking about things like not allowing suspected terrorists to buy weapons, or having background checks become mandatory, or providing enforcement funding to actually fully implement existing laws. Banning alcohol was irrelevant a response to SheperdsDogs' post because that's not what we are looking at. Indeed, laws around vehicular safety, alcohol, cigarettes and so forth have altered the landscape in pretty beneficial ways without banning the car, booze, or smokes, and are a much better analogy than a straight out ban.
With any of those restrictions in place, which don't act as a ban, your scenario (banned things are harder to find than legal things, and as I mention later, it's legal weapons lately that are worth worrying about) would not happen under your terms. If anything, by not allowing those with the potential to engage in trafficking of weapons in the first place through a more rigorous enforcement of existing laws and through background checks, the ability for the black market to transport goods would likely be crippled. Gun legislation which makes it tougher for random weapons to cross borders, or similar issues between states in the USA, as is the case with Belgian weapons crossing into France, through forms of legislation that crosses those borders, would still allow for self-defense, and would still allow for hunting, but would also serve to cripple the men who provide weapons on the black market.
Most studies, including those supported by the right-wing, talk about disrupting the supply. I wonder, exactly, how that is supposed to happen if the supply is ensured by the "they are taking our guns away" second ammendment defense, as is the case with many of these weapons? If there aren't guns to sell to buddies or associates in the first place, turning them from legal to illegal pieces, all of a sudden it gets a lot harder to buy those guns. At the very least, if you don't buy that, let congress give the FBI and ATF enough resources to enforce existing gun laws so they can actually crack down on these criminal enterprises.
These are the kind of gun laws that many liberals consider a good first step. It doesn't mean that conservatives have to accept the next ten steps, but the assumption always seems to be that allowing that first step will lead to all of them at once. When legislative leaders have to negotiate whether or not people who are on the terrorist watch list (as has happened twice this year in the two largest American mass shootings) should be able to get weapons or not, it's possibly a sign that the freedom to bear arms should not be so free as to empower those most likely to abuse it rather than just use it. That's not taking away everyone's guns. That's the kind of law which might have stopped, or at least slowed down, two atrocities this year, and possibly more.
If the problem is the people, why are we letting these specific people have guns? If we know they are the problem, why are we actively engaged in making it worse, and empowering these problems to cause problems for others? When it's legally obtained guns that haven't touched the black market shooting up clubs and schools and office parties, we should probably start talking about legal gun ownership.
The problems that America has faced with mass shootings these past few years have largely been problems caused by legally purchased weapons in the hands of known extremists and the unstable. The question comes, if it could have saved lives, and taken guns away from pretty much no one save for these groups of people, why not do it? Especially when, at the same time, most of the bills to do so tie it with legislation to make it a lot easier to challenge being on the no-fly list, or on the suspected terrorist list, liberties I would expect many would celebrate. Between that and an increase of funding to authorities to crack down on illegal arms, isn't that enough to cut down on any potential harm you may perceive to these incredibly mild suggestions in my post, or the broader ones described in SheperdsDog's?
As an aside, SheperdsDog, I sincerely apologize if I have mislabeled your view in any way.
Much like SheperdsDog said, no one is talking about banning guns, people are talking about things like not allowing suspected terrorists to buy weapons, or having background checks become mandatory,
....
If anything, by not allowing those with the potential to engage in trafficking of weapons in the first place through a more rigorous enforcement of existing laws and through background checks, the ability for the black market to transport goods would likely be crippled. Gun legislation which makes it tougher for random weapons to cross borders, or similar issues between states in the USA, as is the case with Belgian weapons crossing into France, through forms of legislation that crosses those borders, would still allow for self-defense, and would still allow for hunting, but would also serve to cripple the men who provide weapons on the black market.
Having background checks for legal owners will have zero impact on illegal trafficking.
Weapons cross borders because there are no controls, or shoddy controls.
It sounds like you are advocating for border checks between U.S. states.
Oh and a strong border with Mexico. You know, like building a wall ?
These are the kind of gun laws that many liberals consider a good first step. It doesn't mean that conservatives have to accept the next ten steps, but the assumption always seems to be that allowing that first step will lead to all of them at once.
Everyone on this forum knows full well Democrats will never stop at these 'reasonable' requests.
They won't stop, providing proof the slippery slope exists.
If you want to stop the slope, come up with a proposal, along with constitutional guarantees that that is the end of it.
Without it, your point goes nowhere.
When legislative leaders have to negotiate whether or not people who are on the terrorist watch list (as has happened twice this year in the two largest American mass shootings) should be able to get weapons or not, it's possibly a sign that the freedom to bear arms should not be so free as to empower those most likely to abuse it rather than just use it. That's not taking away everyone's guns. That's the kind of law which might have stopped, or at least slowed down, two atrocities this year, and possibly more.
When the US government labels veterans as one the biggest sources for 'possible terrorist groupings', that government has lost it's perspective on pretty much everything.
The argument is Obama and Hillary cannot be trusted for a no-fly no-buy list.
And then when the is full list is almost exclusively Muslims, I can hear the cries of 'racism' across the Atlantic.
The problems that America has faced with mass shootings these past few years have largely been problems caused by legally purchased weapons in the hands of known extremists and the unstable.
I will ask you for proof of that, and as usual you have offered nothing to counter the real issue of blacks using illegal weapons for their mass shootings.
The New York Times requested official details from law enforcement on 358 incidents from 2015, in which 462 people were killed and 1,330 were injured. It was able to obtain details about race for 67% of victims. Nearly three-quarters of those were black, as were about three-quarters of alleged assailants. Investigators could provide information about motivation in three out of four of the shootings.
Only about half of the mass shootings had been solved, the Times found. In some cities, the number was lower. Chicago had made arrests in only two of 16 mass shootings, while Baltimore had 11 incidents in 2015 and had not solved one.
Dante Barry, executive director of Million Hoodies for Justice, said the report highlighted �the real challenges facing black communities in holding faith in the justice system�.
�When suspected assailants cannot be identified and cases go unresolved, it doesn�t leave room for black people to believe in a system that wasn�t designed to protect our interests,� he said.
According to the Times report, even after a nearly 50% drop in the gun murder rate since the early 1990s, black Americans are still six to 10 times more likely to die from gun violence than whites.
While the report found that many multiple-victim shootings were gang-related, it also noted that the reality of this �gang violence� was very different from the image of sophisticated criminal organizations warring over drug profits and turf.
It's easy to talk about the ones the media makes into headline news, but then how easily they miss the almost daily shooting sprees in inner city hoods.
That is JUST for 2016. That's brutal.
That is JUST for 2016. That's brutal.
That's just the way it is. It would be easier to force everyone to go back to horse and carriage transportation, than to fix this problem.
And you can't really embed a Google map, only a link to it.
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/Dat ... Q#map:id=3
2015 map.JPG
More an opinion piece than anything, at least in my mind, but still interesting:
It will take the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to ban guns and we'll have another civil war before that happens.
More an opinion piece than anything, at least in my mind, but still interesting:
It will take the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to ban guns and we'll have another civil war before that happens.
Nobody is talking banning firearms. ..well at least nobody in their right mind is. What needs to be restricted are certain types of firearms, magazine capacities and specific ammunition types.
Nobody is talking banning firearms. ..well at least nobody in their right mind is. What needs to be restricted are certain types of firearms, magazine capacities and specific ammunition types.
The problem isn't the guns, it's the people.
Take Mexico, for instance. They ban semi-auto rifles and what's the result? The criminals buy EASIER TO OBTAIN full-auto weapons on the black market. That's the same in France and much of Europe, too.
Pass all the laws you want but unless you have law abiding people those laws won't mean shit.
And we're letting in Muslims and we're 150 years behind the curve on assimilating urban blacks and we're way behind on dealing with the drug market in white communities. If we ban semi-auto rifles then we will just create a very profitable market for full-auto weapons because the laws won't change the people who break them.
Banning alcohol didn't work, either.
Kind of like like OJ's glove, isn't it? It fits, but you've gotta squirm and push a little.
If they had one with the gun-free zones against the mass shootings that make the front page of Washington Post I think we could get a better fit.
Wanna see an interactive map that's even crazier than 2016 shootings in America though? Just for fun again, you understand.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mi ... SFMIBQKXCs
This will explain what it is.
https://pamelageller.com/2016/05/intera ... many.html/
Just for fun. Compare the one below to the one above.
Gun violence doesn't match party colour. However it does match population density.
Gun violence doesn't match party colour. However it does match population density.
Not precisely. I think maybe, kind of, though. Population density, eh? I wonder if the fit is better municipally then.
This was a claim in 2014:
Democrats Run The Highest Crime Cities in America
Here was gun crime a year later:
Gun Crime Soaring in These Democrat-Run Cities
Then there's Neighbourhood Scout. They claim to collect crime stats. They offer up a top 100 of crime-ridden cities.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighb ... dangerous/
Using that data a right wing blogger claims:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/guess ... en-cities/
Nobody is talking banning firearms. ..well at least nobody in their right mind is. What needs to be restricted are certain types of firearms, magazine capacities and specific ammunition types.
The problem isn't the guns, it's the people.
Take Mexico, for instance. They ban semi-auto rifles and what's the result? The criminals buy EASIER TO OBTAIN full-auto weapons on the black market. That's the same in France and much of Europe, too.
Pass all the laws you want but unless you have law abiding people those laws won't mean shit.
And we're letting in Muslims and we're 150 years behind the curve on assimilating urban blacks and we're way behind on dealing with the drug market in white communities. If we ban semi-auto rifles then we will just create a very profitable market for full-auto weapons because the laws won't change the people who break them.
Banning alcohol didn't work, either.
Yeah, but controlling the amount of alcohol that could be imbibed, imposing drunk driving laws, providing state sponsored methods of handling alcohol abuse, and similar methods did drastically alter the role alcohol plays in our society and has significantly reduced the harm it was causing.
Much like SheperdsDog said, no one is talking about banning guns, people are talking about things like not allowing suspected terrorists to buy weapons, or having background checks become mandatory, or providing enforcement funding to actually fully implement existing laws. Banning alcohol was irrelevant a response to SheperdsDogs' post because that's not what we are looking at. Indeed, laws around vehicular safety, alcohol, cigarettes and so forth have altered the landscape in pretty beneficial ways without banning the car, booze, or smokes, and are a much better analogy than a straight out ban.
With any of those restrictions in place, which don't act as a ban, your scenario (banned things are harder to find than legal things, and as I mention later, it's legal weapons lately that are worth worrying about) would not happen under your terms. If anything, by not allowing those with the potential to engage in trafficking of weapons in the first place through a more rigorous enforcement of existing laws and through background checks, the ability for the black market to transport goods would likely be crippled. Gun legislation which makes it tougher for random weapons to cross borders, or similar issues between states in the USA, as is the case with Belgian weapons crossing into France, through forms of legislation that crosses those borders, would still allow for self-defense, and would still allow for hunting, but would also serve to cripple the men who provide weapons on the black market.
Most studies, including those supported by the right-wing, talk about disrupting the supply. I wonder, exactly, how that is supposed to happen if the supply is ensured by the "they are taking our guns away" second ammendment defense, as is the case with many of these weapons? If there aren't guns to sell to buddies or associates in the first place, turning them from legal to illegal pieces, all of a sudden it gets a lot harder to buy those guns. At the very least, if you don't buy that, let congress give the FBI and ATF enough resources to enforce existing gun laws so they can actually crack down on these criminal enterprises.
These are the kind of gun laws that many liberals consider a good first step. It doesn't mean that conservatives have to accept the next ten steps, but the assumption always seems to be that allowing that first step will lead to all of them at once. When legislative leaders have to negotiate whether or not people who are on the terrorist watch list (as has happened twice this year in the two largest American mass shootings) should be able to get weapons or not, it's possibly a sign that the freedom to bear arms should not be so free as to empower those most likely to abuse it rather than just use it. That's not taking away everyone's guns. That's the kind of law which might have stopped, or at least slowed down, two atrocities this year, and possibly more.
If the problem is the people, why are we letting these specific people have guns? If we know they are the problem, why are we actively engaged in making it worse, and empowering these problems to cause problems for others? When it's legally obtained guns that haven't touched the black market shooting up clubs and schools and office parties, we should probably start talking about legal gun ownership.
The problems that America has faced with mass shootings these past few years have largely been problems caused by legally purchased weapons in the hands of known extremists and the unstable. The question comes, if it could have saved lives, and taken guns away from pretty much no one save for these groups of people, why not do it? Especially when, at the same time, most of the bills to do so tie it with legislation to make it a lot easier to challenge being on the no-fly list, or on the suspected terrorist list, liberties I would expect many would celebrate. Between that and an increase of funding to authorities to crack down on illegal arms, isn't that enough to cut down on any potential harm you may perceive to these incredibly mild suggestions in my post, or the broader ones described in SheperdsDog's?
As an aside, SheperdsDog, I sincerely apologize if I have mislabeled your view in any way.
Much like SheperdsDog said, no one is talking about banning guns, people are talking about things like not allowing suspected terrorists to buy weapons, or having background checks become mandatory,
....
If anything, by not allowing those with the potential to engage in trafficking of weapons in the first place through a more rigorous enforcement of existing laws and through background checks, the ability for the black market to transport goods would likely be crippled. Gun legislation which makes it tougher for random weapons to cross borders, or similar issues between states in the USA, as is the case with Belgian weapons crossing into France, through forms of legislation that crosses those borders, would still allow for self-defense, and would still allow for hunting, but would also serve to cripple the men who provide weapons on the black market.
Having background checks for legal owners will have zero impact on illegal trafficking.
Weapons cross borders because there are no controls, or shoddy controls.
It sounds like you are advocating for border checks between U.S. states.
Oh and a strong border with Mexico. You know, like building a wall ?
Everyone on this forum knows full well Democrats will never stop at these 'reasonable' requests.
They won't stop, providing proof the slippery slope exists.
If you want to stop the slope, come up with a proposal, along with constitutional guarantees that that is the end of it.
Without it, your point goes nowhere.
When the US government labels veterans as one the biggest sources for 'possible terrorist groupings',
that government has lost it's perspective on pretty much everything.
The argument is Obama and Hillary cannot be trusted for a no-fly no-buy list.
And then when the is full list is almost exclusively Muslims, I can hear the cries of 'racism' across the Atlantic.
The problems that America has faced with mass shootings these past few years have largely been problems caused by legally purchased weapons in the hands of known extremists and the unstable.
I will ask you for proof of that, and as usual you have offered nothing to counter
the real issue of blacks using illegal weapons for their mass shootings.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... rol-reddit
The New York Times requested official details from law enforcement on 358 incidents from 2015, in which 462 people were killed and 1,330 were injured. It was able to obtain details about race for 67% of victims. Nearly three-quarters of those were black, as were about three-quarters of alleged assailants. Investigators could provide information about motivation in three out of four of the shootings.
Only about half of the mass shootings had been solved, the Times found. In some cities, the number was lower. Chicago had made arrests in only two of 16 mass shootings, while Baltimore had 11 incidents in 2015 and had not solved one.
Dante Barry, executive director of Million Hoodies for Justice, said the report highlighted �the real challenges facing black communities in holding faith in the justice system�.
�When suspected assailants cannot be identified and cases go unresolved, it doesn�t leave room for black people to believe in a system that wasn�t designed to protect our interests,� he said.
According to the Times report, even after a nearly 50% drop in the gun murder rate since the early 1990s, black Americans are still six to 10 times more likely to die from gun violence than whites.
While the report found that many multiple-victim shootings were gang-related, it also noted that the reality of this �gang violence� was very different from the image of sophisticated criminal organizations warring over drug profits and turf.
It's easy to talk about the ones the media makes into headline news, but then
how easily they miss the almost daily shooting sprees in inner city hoods.
After all, talking about them would be racist.
The problem isn't the guns, it's the people.
If that's the case, why isn't this happening in Canada?
Why does your map look like that and Canada is just a tiny fraction of that?