Senseless shootings rattle US

Status
Not open for further replies.
This case is heartbreaking, frustrating and makes me very, very angry. The murdering woman shot the mother of 4 children through her door over a dispute about the children playing in their own yard. Therefore she cannot claim she feared for her life! The reason given for not charging this woman with second degree murder is BS to me. Still she faces up to 30 years in prison. Hmmm...she won't have much say about the noises she'll be subject to in there. Before the shooting, she was labeled a psycho by cops for calling 911 so much on the children. More from body cam:
'I understand it's a nuisance,' one of the sheriff's deputies is heard telling Lorincz. 'But I'd rather kids be screaming because they're out here playing and having a good time than stealing cars and robbing people."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...da-woman-psycho-shot-dead-black-neighbor.html
 

Stating that :-
In the UK, it's illegal to carry a locking knife or a knife with a cutting edge longer than 3inches/7.62cm in public.
Even if 3inches/7.62cm or less, if you can’t provide a justifiable reason why you have one on you, you will likely be arrested.

Is not strictly true. It's illegal to carry a locking knife or a knife with a cutting edge longer than 3inches/7.62cm in public - without justifiable reason (eg for work, religious reasons or part of a national costume).

A non-locking folding pocketknife with a cutting edge of less than 3 inches, may be carried without requiring a reason. However, eg. using the knife in a threatening manner would still be an offence.
 

Paladin1950 said:
View attachment 292562

It is the gun!!!!! Assault weapons are made to hunt one species only: humans! Ban them, and you save a lot lives!
You have to be a complete idiot to think that you can use this gun for good. No one needs this rifle for a collection, or to hunt legally in season. There are other weapons made for those things.

As you walk down the street, look at everyone you see. Just think, by next month, some of those people will no longer be with us. They will be dead. Politicians get donations from gun manufacturers, so they will always vote against stronger gun laws and against banning assault weapons that we do not need. So we will continue to read about these massacres. Some of us may one day be some of the victims. I am totally sick of this crap happening over and over again.
Click to expand...
The cities with the strongest gun laws have the highest rate of shooting.
You actually think criminals will abide by the law?
Guns and the second amendment are not for hunters. Its for protection of Americans freedom against tyranny.
You ban these guns then only criminals will have them.
Look at the countries that ban guns, its to advance Socialism and disarm citizens are their governments.
 
Paladin1950 said:
View attachment 292562

It is the gun!!!!! Assault weapons are made to hunt one species only: humans! Ban them, and you save a lot lives!
You have to be a complete idiot to think that you can use this gun for good. No one needs this rifle for a collection, or to hunt legally in season. There are other weapons made for those things.

As you walk down the street, look at everyone you see. Just think, by next month, some of those people will no longer be with us. They will be dead. Politicians get donations from gun manufacturers, so they will always vote against stronger gun laws and against banning assault weapons that we do not need. So we will continue to read about these massacres. Some of us may one day be some of the victims. I am totally sick of this crap happening over and over again.
Click to expand...
What is your plan for disarming criminals? Why do district attorneys seldom prosecute gun charges? Why has no one taken the first step to repeal the Second?
 
I have said it before, but will do it again.

My instinct is to limit government control to the extent possible. So my gut feeling is to side with the gun rights people, and I used to. However with time I have changed. Now I don't believe the freedom to own guns that we have in the US is worth the loss of life it appears to me to be causing. However to an extent I know my belief is based on incomplete information, most are. This is a quote from what I believe was a very good and minimally biased study on a part of the gun rights thing:

Some studies find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, others find that the effects are negligible, and still others find that such laws increase violent crime. The committee concludes that it is not possible to reach any scientifically supported conclusion because of (a) the sensitivity of the empirical results to seemingly minor changes in model specification, (b) a lack of robustness of the results to the inclusion of more recent years of data (during which there were many more law changes than in the earlier period), and (c) the statistical imprecision of the results. The evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates. Furthermore, this uncertainty is not likely to be resolved with the existing data and methods. If further headway is to be made, in the committee's judgment, new analytical approaches and data are needed.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html

It seems to me there are two basic reasons to oppose greater gun control:
  1. A belief that the risks of gun ownership are justified in the interest of freedom, that we can accept the violence as the price we pay for the freedom. This is not an all together irrational thing, we accept such risks in return for freedom in many ways. Driving is a good example, we regulate it but it's likely that lower speed limits, more restrictions on drivers, etc would save lives. We have struck a balance. With respect to guns I would be happier with more control than we have now... but I can understand people who don't agree.
  2. A belief that we are safer with more guns than without. I don't believe this is true, but as the citation above says it is hard to really know from available studies and data. If further and better research shows I am wrong I would change my opinion.
 
People can debate guns and gun safety until the cows come home, but until someone actually does something to at least get a foot in the door, it will remain a debate between those that are for and those that are against gun ownership.

With the number of guns people have and then add in the military and police, I doubt if all the guns could all be collected. Making it a law to turn your guns in is not a good way to begin and besides, we wouldn't want to live in a country where only the government and the police have the weapons. That would make us a police state and I am sure we wouldn't want to go that way.

If I remember my history correctly, I think we had tighter gun control during the pre-Revolution era. After the Constitution was amended and altered a time or two and the second amendment was interpreted, gun ownership went on the rise soon after the second and fourteenth amendments were adopted. (Not 100% certain I'm correct about that last statement.)
 
Only three countries in the world currently have a constitutional right to own a gun: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala. Six other countries used to have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they've since repealed those laws.

So… no use banging heads against brick walls. Until that law is repealed in the US, people will feel they have the right to defend themselves at the toss of a hat, and, many will die.

Even if the law is repealed, this culture is so entrenched that it will probably take a century or more for people to change this “right to arms” constituted in 1776.
 
Take a look at the murder rates in the 50 biggest cities. What are these mayors doing to stop it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/44/

Philadelphia is # 16 out of 50 on that list.

The shooting last Sunday was in Baltimore, #2 on the list.

These mayors and police forces with high crime rates need to make some changes. First, the DAs need to prosecute criminals instead of setting them free with no bail for lesser crimes. The best way to be sure a low level offender will escalate to a bigger crime is to give him no punishment.

They need to bring back the Police gang units.

This is a topic that goes nowhere because there is no easy answer. What's the point of introducing gun control issues over and over into this forum?

Jamala said:
Only three countries in the world currently have a constitutional right to own a gun: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala. Six other countries used to have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they've since repealed those laws.

So… no use banging heads against brick walls. Until that law is repealed in the US, people will feel they have the right to defend themselves at the toss of a hat, and, many will die.

Even if the law is repealed, this culture is so entrenched that it will probably take a century or more for people to change this “right to arms” constituted in 1776.
Click to expand...

The US Constitution isn't a law. It is the operating structure of our government. Parts of it are not repealed. There is a process to change it by amendment but it is a difficult and lengthy process that can only be done by Congress and the states.

I understand that friends from other countries feel they have a role in this issue but they do not, only the freedom to express opinions. Only US citizens can vote for the officials who can change our Constitution. Maybe going to the following link will help in understanding how difficult this process is and how unlikely it is that ANY amendment can be made to our Constitution in a country that is almost evenly split on every issue.

https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-us-constitution#:~:text=Congress must call a convention,, 38 of 50 states).
 
Myrtle said:
Take a look at the murder rates in the 50 biggest cities. What are these mayors doing to stop it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/44/

Philadelphia is # 16 out of 50 on that list.

The shooting last Sunday was in Baltimore, #2 on the list.

These mayors and police forces with high crime rates need to make some changes. First, the DAs need to prosecute criminals instead of setting them free with no bail for lesser crimes. The best way to be sure a low level offender will escalate to a bigger crime is to give him no punishment.

They need to bring back the Police gang units.

This is a topic that goes nowhere because there is no easy answer. What's the point of introducing gun control issues over and over into this forum?



The US Constitution isn't a law. It is the operating structure of our government. Parts of it are not repealed. There is a process to change it by amendment but it is a difficult and lengthy process that can only be done by Congress and the states.

I understand that friends from other countries feel they have a role in this issue but they do not, only the freedom to express opinions. Only US citizens can vote for the officials who can change our Constitution. Maybe going to the following link will help in understanding how difficult this process is and how unlikely it is that ANY amendment can be made to our Constitution in a country that is almost evenly split on every issue.

https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-us-constitution#:~:text=Congress must call a convention,, 38 of 50 states).
Click to expand...
Thank you but I have a pretty good idea.
I have relatives who are US citizens.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, in 1789.
 
Warrigal said:
????? Not getting your drift. What is a "high level view"?
Click to expand...
Meaning there are many ways that 'shootings' are calculated in different countries.
In many African countries, mass shootings are not counted as such, but rather are classified as other types of deadly events. This is due to the fact that there can be different interpretations of what constitutes a mass shooting in different cultures, resulting in varying definitions that can mask the true number of incidents. For example, some countries may not include shootings if there are fewer than four fatalities. Other nations might also count an event as a mass shooting even if it involves fewer deaths if it was carried out by multiple individuals.
There is also the issue of weapon type; some countries may only consider firearms when calculating mass shootings while others will also take into account explosives or other weapons. Ultimately, all these discrepancies mean that the total number of recorded mass shooting incidents varies greatly from country to country, which poses a major challenge when trying to obtain reliable data and make accurate comparisons between regions or nations, and also explains why parts of the world seem to not have any mass shooting incidents.

The point is, numbers are not just numbers. To say banning AR-15s does not address the problems the US is experiencing vs ALL other countries. There is per capita. Sure Australia has low numbers because 1) there are a lot less people in Australia than the US, 2) We have wide open borders, where countries are opening their jails and shipping their criminals to the US border, 3) We also have the most lenient laws given our socialist political climate. Criminals are free to wander the streets, killing time and time again after our justice systems allows them to roam free, 4) mental health facilities are releasing mentally ill people to the streets........There are so many factors that are not being discussed, but the focus is always banning guns first. Raw numbers do not tell the whole picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top