Gun Raffle Insensitive?

[zippypinhead]

In before somebody contests your wikipedia numbers...this page lists significantly lower numbers. Which numbers are more accurate, I have no idea.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Given how political the issue is, I've found it hard to get totals that are reliable across sources. Wikipedia's numbers seemed like a fair enough aggregate, and an easy starting point for information, given that the numbers provided on the Wikipedia page are reliable primary sources.

It's important to note, though, the gun-related homicide deaths align in both your link and mine.

More of a PR issue here than anything. I do not suggest that this would dramatically affect the statistics (at least past statistics; the future, as always, is an open book).

You were quick to point out @JickyJuly use of the word "automatic" earlier in the thread as a sign of ignorance. You said very very few people owned them, and they were heavily regulated. Technically true, but in practical terms false.

I remember how bad the 1984 McDonald's mass shooting fucked with me (not as someone who is afraid of guns). The idea that we might need to now become accustomed to the occasional video of someone spraying a crowd with what is, for all intents and purposes, automatic gunfire strikes me as the height of lunacy.

Of course it is pretty clear something is going to be done about bump stocks at this point. I don't think it ought to be a ban on the sale or the manufacture of these things, but the possession. Bump stocks, trigger cranks, anything bought or homemade...tough shit for all the people that been paying jacked up prices trying to grab em up over the last month. Illegally modified automatic.

How did we go from this in 2006 to having bump stocks legally sold? I have shot with one, I understand it is mostly an entertaining way to waste perfectly good ammo. But like I said; a PR thing. Is this ok, or not? http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/parsippany_man_is_sentenced_to.html
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/parsippany_man_is_sentenced_to.html
**********************

I think the gun problem is going to get significantly worse if we don't do something about our culture problem.

https://williamsgeorgia.com/bump-stock-giveaway/
I do not see this as insensitive. I see this as deliberately antagonistic. I mean come on, even the NRA has said they need to go under regulations.

And about the NRA; I went from seeing them as a trusted organization back during LaPierre's "jack-booted thugs" era, to one that has completely repulsed me since at least 2012. Divisive.
LaPierre 2008: "Obama is going to seize the guns!"
LaPierre 2012: "It's was a trick! He's planning to seize the guns during his second term!"
LaPierre 2017: Obama's ATF didn't do their job (?)

I definitely believe that our gun problem is a symptom of our culture problem, on many many facets. I don't know if I have the energy to type up everything I recognize as contributing to this issue. That's the type of information that fills entire books, and that's not a book I want to write. I think a major part of the problem is that we've already allowed the lunatics to form the narrative as we hear it. When people can't even admit that guns are efficient killing machines ("guns don't kill people") we find ourselves in a hard fight to get any results.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

It's important to note, though, the gun-related homicide deaths align in both your link and mine.

Suicides not included in the link I posted. Didn't read the fine print. Apologies.

 

[zippypinhead]

Suicides not included in the link I posted. Didn't read the fine print. Apologies.

Even so, the numbers still don't quite gel. There's still about 20 thousand injuries stated in Wikipedia that remains unaccounted for. I would assume that 100k a year is a peak estimate, and I'm sure it's due to differing methodologies. But whether it's 80k or 100k, it's still a disturbing amount of people getting shot in the US every year.

Honestly, the suicide numbers are what gets to me the most. I think it's telling that these debates -- and even the information thrown around in these debates -- usually omit suicide by gun, especially considering how big and how consistent the number is. Maybe that's the middle ground that could get people talking about constructive solutions.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Honestly, the suicide numbers are what gets to me the most. I think it's telling that these debates -- and even the information thrown around in these debates -- usually omit suicide by gun, especially considering how big and how consistent the number is. Maybe that's the middle ground that could get people talking about constructive solutions.

I am in favor of separating the suicide numbers.

For one thing, when it comes to infringing on the rights of gun owners, I don't think it's really fair for suicides to be used as a talking point against them. For another, considering that mental illness is the go-to deflection for many of the pro-gun-at-any-cost, add in the fact that mental illness is a bigger factor in the issue of suicides, and it seems like it is just begging for mentally ill people to be scapegoated.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

In before somebody contests your wikipedia numbers...this page lists significantly lower numbers. Which numbers are more accurate, I have no idea.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Wikipedia has been proven to not be a reliable source for facts since people can modify the text. Looking at your link, the one thing that pops out in my head is it says data is collected and sourced from "2500 sources daily". But, I'm not readily seeing the sources. Not discounting it yet. But, am curious their sources.

For myself, I use the FBI stats. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2016-crime-statistics-released

I think it is one of the most unbiased, direct sources of info on all crimes. But, may also be skewed in some ways, as it is number crunching after all.

According to the numbers for 2016, there were 17,250 murders. Of which, approximately 11,004 were firearms related.. An item of note, is the different types of weapons used. That leaves a little more than a third who were killed by hands, or other objects. The unknown is had the firearm not been there, how much would the firearms number drop? Half?

If you break the numbers down, that is 0.000034058 percent of the US population killed by another person in 2016. A far cry from the more than 50,000 deaths related to drug overdoses in 2015. Or, the 40,000 people who died while driving in 2016..

More of a PR issue here than anything. I do not suggest that this would dramatically affect the statistics (at least past statistics; the future, as always, is an open book).

You were quick to point out [USER=2...United_States_v._Olofson'][U]this in 2006[/U] to having bump stocks legally sold? I have shot with one, I understand it is mostly an entertaining way to waste perfectly good ammo. But like I said; a PR thing. Is this ok, or not? http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/parsippany_man_is_sentenced_to.html[/quote]

The thing is that regardless of the firearm, people will find a way to make them shoot faster. I don't agree with items such as bump stocks, or modifications to a semi-auto weapon to make them full-auto. Regardless, if a person has a fully automatic weapon, it is supposed to be registered with the ATF. Same with short barreled firearms, and some other specialty types.

The real problem is that there are people who will not do so. Same as with people who will obtain firearms illegally, as they are not permitted to have them for various reasons. So, how do you stop that from happening?

I think the gun problem is going to get significantly worse if we don't do something about our culture problem.

https://williamsgeorgia.com/bump-stock-giveaway/
I do not see this as insensitive. I see this as deliberately antagonistic. I mean come on, even the NRA has said they need to go under regulations.

And about the NRA; I went from seeing them as a trusted organization back during LaPierre's "jack-booted thugs" era, to one that has completely repulsed me since at least 2012. Divisive.
LaPierre 2008: "Obama is going to seize the guns!"
LaPierre 2012: "It's was a trick! He's planning to seize the guns during his second term!"
LaPierre 2017: Obama's ATF didn't do their job (?)

I'll agree with you that the culture needs to change. But, where do we start? Should it be inner city, due to the higher crime rates? We can't exactly confiscate firearms, as that is unconstitutional. Furthermore, we've seen that outright banning things such as alcohol, drugs, etc. is nearly useless.

I think part of the issue is the desensitization of murder, death, injury, etc. Why is it that it's not okay to show breasts on TV. Yet, it's okay to show grizly murder scenes, and the flagrant display of firearms? Not only on TV. But, in music videos, etc?

The Pew Research group did an interesting report on America's reltionship with firearms. There's some interesing findings of the report. But, it does help break down the demographics, culture of America, etc.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I am in favor of separating the suicide numbers.

For one thing, when it comes to infringing on the rights of gun owners, I don't think it's really fair for suicides to be used as a talking point against them. For another, considering that mental illness is the go-to deflection for many of the pro-gun-at-any-cost, add in the fact that mental illness is a bigger factor in the issue of suicides, and it seems like it is just begging for mentally ill people to be scapegoated.

Suicide shouldn't be counted in any numbers when it comes to deaths, aside from its own. While there may very well be mental health issues triggering it. There may very well be things medical decisions, or simply they just want to end their life.

as cold as it may sound, I believe that a person has the sole decision to take their own life.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The thing is that regardless of the firearm, people will find a way to make them shoot faster. I don't agree with items such as bump stocks, or modifications to a semi-auto weapon to make them full-auto. Regardless, if a person has a fully automatic weapon, it is supposed to be registered with the ATF. Same with short barreled firearms, and some other specialty types.

The real problem is that there are people who will not do so. Same as with people who will obtain firearms illegally, as they are not permitted to have them for various reasons. So, how do you stop that from happening?

Like I said...a PR problem. ROF I don't care about. Stopping full auto fire I don't care about. PR.

Lived my whole life with full auto being restricted, and it hasn't been a problem. The bump stocks are a de facto loophole; close it. Save the "but when bump stocks are illegal, only criminals will have bump stocks" argument for another time.

We can't exactly confiscate firearms, as that is unconstitutional.

Sure we can. All we need is a good crisis.

 

[dilligaf0]

Sure we can. All we need is a good crisis.

How many more of these do we need?
20 children murdered in Sandy Hook, "it's too soon to talk about it". Then a less than a week later another much smaller "mass" * shooting happens. "It's too soon to talk about it". Over and over until 49 people murdered in Orlando. The cycle continues. Then Las Vegas with 58 people murdered. Again, same excuse. Then less than a week later, a mass shooting in a workplace and the cycle continues.
We have an incredible capacity to find excuses for not discussing this. It's always "too soon to talk about it" and the incidents are so frequent that the excuse not to talk about it is always used.
When we allowed 20 children to be murdered and didn't change anything, we never will.


*I'm using the government's classification of 3 or more people killed as the definition of "mass".


Guns are not living beings and have no right to exist like a person would. With that in mind, maybe all weapons confiscated from criminals (like the Las Vegas shooter) should just be destroyed. Try to reduce the number of these weapons available.
If you get caught buying weapons at gun shows and selling them to someone that shouldn't have them, you go to jail and the weapons are destroyed.

Just a thought.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Sure we can. All we need is a good crisis.

How many more of these do we need?

I was thinking something bigger than a lone mass shooting. The confiscation after Hurricane Katrina for example (to the extent it actually happened). As for the Constitutionality of it, the wake of 9/11 shows how quickly that can be set aside.

 

[dilligaf0]

I was thinking something bigger than a lone mass shooting. The confiscation after Hurricane Katrina for example (to the extent it actually happened). As for the Constitutionality of it, the wake of 9/11 shows how quickly that can be set aside.

In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, where the shooter commits suicide, he has forfeited ownership of his weapons and therefore those could be destroyed.

 

[Bocefish]

Guns are not living beings and have no right to exist like a person would. With that in mind, maybe all weapons confiscated from criminals (like the Las Vegas shooter) should just be destroyed. Try to reduce the number of these weapons available.
If you get caught buying weapons at gun shows and selling them to someone that shouldn't have them, you go to jail and the weapons are destroyed.

I'm 99.9% sure all seized guns are indeed destroyed along with those guns the buyback programs procure.

For one thing, when it comes to infringing on the rights of gun owners, I don't think it's really fair for suicides to be used as a talking point against them. For another, considering that mental illness is the go-to deflection for many of the pro-gun-at-any-cost, add in the fact that mental illness is a bigger factor in the issue of suicides, and it seems like it is just begging for mentally ill people to be scapegoated.

In regards to mental illness being the go-to deflection at any cost remark... from my basic research of relatively recent mass shootings from Columbine to Sandy Hook, that has been the case. The writing was on the proverbial wall, so to speak, in all of those horribly avoidable mass murderings. Until now, the Vegas shooter seems to be an anomaly. Researching his brain, or what's left of it, might provide some clues but doubtful, at best.

Anything that makes a semi-auto capable of full-auto should be illegal IMHO.

Fully automatic weapons should be STRICTLY reserved for the military as far as I'm concerned.

It's only a matter of time before terrorists utilize drones equipped with automatic weapons, or bio agents at concerts, sporting events... anywhere people are packed in like sardines for maximum kill ratios.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

In regards to mental illness being the go-to deflection at any cost remark... from my basic research of relatively recent mass shootings from Columbine to Sandy Hook, that has been the case.

I was talking about gun crime numbers overall. Mass shootings are a small part of that.

I am not in favor of turning a blind eye to the mental illness aspect, not at all. I just think it is a crock of ineffective bullshit to point the finger at mental illness, while simultaneously acting like a stubborn ass about things like closing loopholes in the background check system (as I have seen many do; not necessarily pointing the finger at you here).

This study puts the number of mass shooters that were psychotic at 15%. Frankly sounds low to me, but who knows. If you are studying the high profile case alone, certainly; but then, if you are doing that, you are pretty much just constructing a tabloid view of reality for yourself anyway.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I'm 99.9% sure all seized guns are indeed destroyed along with those guns the buyback programs procure.

That would be wrong.
It depends on the state, and even the city. But many police departments across the nation sell them. Arizona it's the law to sell them.

http://www.governing.com/topics/pub...tuscon-arizona-supreme-court-guns-ruling.html

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/21/news/police-selling-seized-guns/index.html

Here's a past Michigan auction of police seized firearms.
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2017/02/browse_police_seized_firearms.html

http://www.guns.com/2017/01/26/hundreds-of-crime-guns-sold-at-auction-by-kentucky-state-police/

http://auctionsbygov.com/General/AuctionDetail/AuctionID/5953

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/gun0919.htm






While Nevada code does require destruction of weapons, there are exceptions to that. One of them is if the police department can 'trade' the weapon to a licensed dealer for other items they need. They can also sell them to other agencies.

https://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title15/chapter202/nrs202-340.html

 

[Bocefish]

Under the same logic... Should home depot place a moratorium on renting their trucks?

BTW, thanks for the clarifications.

It depends on the state, and even the city. But many police departments across the nation sell them. Arizona it's the law to sell them.

Good to know, it's a shame to destroy some of the older classics imo.

 

[dilligaf0]

Exactly the response I expected.

 

[Bocefish]

Exactly the response I expected.

Why would you expect something different?

 

[dilligaf0]

Futile hope.

 

[Bocefish]

Futile hope.

That's pretty much what inner-city kids have.

 

[dilligaf0]

Well then let's just give everyone guns and the last person standing wins.

 

[OldHippy]

As an Australian the gun culture in America is just something I can not comprehend. In most things we are pretty similar with our friends across the ditch but guns is just something we don’t understand ....

 

[dilligaf0]

Nov. 2, 2017. 3 shot and killed at Walmart in Colorado. Nov. 5, 2017 shooting in Texas church. Dozens injured, no official number of fatalities yet (but there are fatalities).
But we can't consider doing anything to stop this because people can still rent trucks from Home Depot.

 

[AudriTwo]

Nov. 2, 2017. 3 shot and killed at Walmart in Colorado. Nov. 5, 2017 shooting in Texas church. Dozens injured, no official number of fatalities yet (but there are fatalities).
But we can't consider doing anything to stop this because people can still rent trucks from Home Depot.

BUT WE NEED THOSE SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS JUST LIKE WE NEED TO RENT TRUCKS FROM HOME DEPOT

 

[Honey Moon]

Well then let's just give everyone guns and the last person standing wins.

Pretty much the mindset here.

Not every white American is the same, but a good majority of them make me sick and want to move to a different country.

The perverse obsession with guns here is sickening.

 

[dilligaf0]

Pretty much the mindset here.

Not every white American is the same, but a good majority of them make me sick and want to move to a different country.

The perverse obsession with guns here is sickening.

My statement was sarcasm.
Because it's always the same bullshit argument.
"We can't stop all the killings'.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Here's a novel idea, try stopping ONE!

 

[dilligaf0]

 

[Ariana_]

Pretty much the mindset here.

Not every white American is the same, but a good majority of them make me sick and want to move to a different country.

The perverse obsession with guns here is sickening.

100% agreed. Ideally guns wouldn't exist, but I do believe that people who feel they need to protect themselves (women, POC, queer/trans folk etc.) should have the right to own them, because it's a terrifying world. But what the fuck do all these white dudes need protection from??? Other white dudes with guns??????

 

[dilligaf0]

100% agreed. Ideally guns wouldn't exist, but I do believe that people who feel they need to protect themselves (women, POC, queer/trans folk etc.) should have the right to own them, because it's a terrifying world. But what the fuck do all these white dudes need protection from??? Other white dudes with guns??????

Insecurity. The more insecure they are the more guns they need.

 

[Gen]

100% agreed. Ideally guns wouldn't exist, but I do believe that people who feel they need to protect themselves (women, POC, queer/trans folk etc.) should have the right to own them, because it's a terrifying world. But what the fuck do all these white dudes need protection from??? Other white dudes with guns??????

I mean, a lot of victims of gun violence are white men. It seems not only unfair but kind of ridiculous to say anyone who “feels the need” should have one, except white men. I don’t think it’s a good idea to open the can of worms that is discussing if white men are the only/most significant perpetrators of gun violence, either. What if I, a woman, feel the need to protect myself from someone else in the group of people who feel the need to protect themselves?

I am not at all pro-gun, quite the opposite. Just don’t think this is a fair idea.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Not every white American is the same, but a good majority of them make me sick and want to move to a different country.

100% agreed. Ideally guns wouldn't exist, but I do believe that people who feel they need to protect themselves (women, POC, queer/trans folk etc.) should have the right to own them, because it's a terrifying world. But what the fuck do all these white dudes need protection from??? Other white dudes with guns??????

Oh lookie the little indoctrinated puppets do their dance!

I mean, a lot of victims of gun violence are white men. It seems not only unfair but kind of ridiculous to say anyone who “feels the need” should have one, except white men.

Close Gen. But they aren't 'unfair'; they are fucking racists, just too ignorant to realize it.

 

[Ariana_]

I mean, a lot of victims of gun violence are white men. It seems not only unfair but kind of ridiculous to say anyone who “feels the need” should have one, except white men. I don’t think it’s a good idea to open the can of worms that is discussing if white men are the only/most significant perpetrators of gun violence, either. What if I, a woman, feel the need to protect myself from someone else in the group of people who feel the need to protect themselves?

I am not at all pro-gun, quite the opposite. Just don’t think this is a fair idea.

I would never say we should ban every white dude or men in general from gun ownership, perhaps I worded my initial statement wrong, my bad. That would be beyond discriminatory and completely unfair. But if we're gonna live in a world where guns exist, and where people use them to commit acts of violence at a terrifying rate, I think that consideration should be given to who truly needs them to protect themselves. I have no idea how that would be legislated or enforced, and it's probably an unrealistic idea in general. HOWEVER, nearly all of the gun enthusiasts I know are young white guys who have practically zero reason to harbor enough fear that they should own multiple deadly weapons. I live in a small town, with a fairly low violent crime rate. As far as I know, none, or very few, of them have experienced violence in any form (that could have been prevented through self defense).

On the other hand, the majority of my female friends, specifically my friends who are queer, trans, or WOC, have been victimized in some way. Many of these incidents were serious, some permanently life altering. It's just the honest truth that there are certain groups who are vastly more likely to commit violence, and certain groups who are more likely to be the victims of said violence. With that in mind, of course there are situations I can think of in which cishet white men would need to protect themselves/families with guns. There are men I know very well who it does not worry me at all that they are gun owners. But it's just dangerous to ignore the fact that the VAST majority of the perpetrators of violent crime are straight, white males. Why should we leave that "can of worms" alone when there is significant, statistical evidence of my point?

In a perfect world there would be no need at all for guns as weapons, but we don't live there yet, and I believe that I have the right to protect myself and my loved ones from victimization and re-victimization.