You do, it probably just doesn't get as much coverage, but there's crazies everywhere, in every nook and cranny.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7771505/Video-game-fanatic-hunts-down-and-stabs-rival-player-who-killed-character-online.html

There's other sorts of crazies too:

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/german-nurse-says-sorry-for-killing-over-30-patients-in-thrill-seeking-game

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/57525243/ns/world_news-europe/t/man-kills-three-ploughing-suv-austrian-shoppers/#.Vh8ZFflViko

And who can forget the recent Hebdo attack earlier this year?

I put my thoughts and comments in the quote in bold, just some things I wanted to point out and discuss. 

And there will always be ad hominems thrown around all over the place stereotyping the response and views from people who don't share the same viewpoint as you. Tsk tsk. These situations are moments for reflection and discussion about underlying social constructs that could contribute to incidents and what we can do to better prevent incidents like this from happening again, in my case while respecting the rights and wishes of a people. I believe a responsible, peaceable society with firearms exists. One where these tragic incidents never occur. It already exists in small sub societies within the U.S.

1/ I've been discussing this for a long while, and all the answers I received from people defending gun rights are EXACTLY what I posted. It was meant to be satiric and a parody of what I hear as an answer from pro-gun activists, nothing more, so I'd like if you didn't jump to conclusions right away, thank you very much. Discussion to improve things can happen only if you don't discuss with a wall, which is not the case when it comes to guns in the US and pro-gun activists.

2/ Sure, some shootings happen in other countries with gun laws. A THOUSAND since 2012? Not a chance. That's how it is, that's how things are. And I don't even know how you can include the Charlie Hebdo attack in there, it was a terrorist attack, not a shooting, it's as if you're saying 9/11 was just a shooting with big planes, it's a completely unrelated matter.

It's just a fact, this kind of shooting DOES NOT occur with the same relentless rate in other countries as it does in the US. That's how it is. Also, since you seem to like statistics, I'll give you that: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

Yep, you've the same % of homicide by firearm as Brazil. One of the most dangerous countries in the world. Nuff said.

Edited October 15, 201510 yr by Hystery

The fact that he admits that he willfully retreated to his car solely for the purpose of getting his pistol to bring back and re-engage in an altercation means he would not be covered under the "Stand Your Ground" law. He no longer faced an "imminent and immediate threat" once he left. His lawyers can dick around in court about whether this should be considered murder or manslaughter, but in either case; somebody's dead and he's the cause of it.

But he was approached by the other party to the fight AFTER retreating to his car, as I understand it. At what point can you say the altercation ended with absolute certainty without knowing the details of what transpired? Was the fight continuing while he retreated towards his car? What was the distance to the car from the sight where the altercation occured? He had a friend with him as well, what was happening to him in this instance? Was he still fighting? Was there alcohol involved? Which would open him up to a litany of charges regarding possession and storage while intoxicated. Who started the fight? All questions with no answers for the general public. It doesn't look good with what we've been given, but neither did the Zimmerman or Wilson cases (thanks a lot, social media). Cooler heads prevail, which is why I will choose to wait and see what the prosecutor has to say in court, as well as the defense. 

1/ I've been discussing this for a long while, and all the answers I received from people defending gun rights are EXACTLY what I posted. It was meant to be satiric and a parody of what I hear as an answer from pro-gun activists, nothing more, so I'd like if you didn't jump to conclusions right away, thank you very much. Discussion to improve things can happen only if you don't discuss with a wall, which is not the case when it comes to guns in the US and pro-gun activists.

2/ Sure, some shootings happen in other countries with gun laws. A THOUSAND since 2012? Not a chance. That's how it is, that's how things are. And I don't even know how you can include the Charlie Hebdo attack in there, it was a terrorist attack, not a shooting, it's as if you're saying 9/11 was just a shooting with big planes, it's a completely unrelated matter.

It's just a fact, this kind of shooting DOES NOT occur with the same relentless rate in other countries as it does in the US. That's how it is. Also, since you seem to like statistics, I'll give you that: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

Yep, you've the same % of homicide by firearm as Brazil. One of the most dangerous countries in the world. Nuff said.

I appreciate your intentions, but your satire's sole intent is to ridicule and insult the other side (you even did it in your post again whether you realize it or not). You never heard that argument from me, and I'm what some would consider "pro-gun". 

Okay, now show us a society with as large and open aired  of a gang culture. It's in rap videos, on the streets of metropolitan cities. It was even worse in the decades running up to now (firearms deaths, as well as all crime, has been in a steady decline. I like to think advancements in law enforcement and community policing as well as pro-active measures helped with that). The fact is some of our largest areas have the worst socio-economic standings in our country. Just like the greater LA area in the 60s and 70s, people banded together to form these gangs, which are now used for feuds and nefarious purposes all around. I'm using the Hebdo attack as an example of a shooting because it literally was, by definition, a shooting. People were shot and killed. There's video of it if you don't believe me. It's not as if I'm saying planes are guns, but guns are... well, guns. The political or ideological message attached has no bearing on the fact that people were shot with weapons and died.

Yes, I do like statistics, so when your same link shows us that we have 2.9 firearms deaths per 100,000, while they have 18.1 firearms deaths per 100,000 (more recent figures put it higher, at 21 per 100,000, and rate of almost 100 firearms related deaths every day), it tells me that we have a lot more killing to do before we are on par with a country that has a low ownership rate of firearms (around 8 per 100 residents) and a large number of deaths contributed to them.

This debate about restrictions has very little to do with whether they will help or not. It's about the fact that none of them will get passed by the house and senate. All elected officials have to pander to gun owners in order to get votes. If you piss them off, you either won't get into office, or stay there if you already are. The only reason President Obama started speaking out against this stuff is because he's already won both presidential terms, so he has no more elections to run. The United States is largely comprised of stupid people. Many of them can't name the three branches of government here, and 80% of them generally believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and will come back to earth once again to rapture everybody. Some schools here refuse to teach evolution, and others are eliminating cursive writing. We have a Creationism Museum here. Granted, it's run by an Australian, but the museum is in Kentucky. (This is a problem because a museum is supposed to catalog historical facts and tangible items.) Today's America won't pass most or perhaps even any of the restrictions that liberals want to put into place because of it.

Did you have to bring religion into this? I find what you said pretty unnecessary and insulting.

We'd be able to do it with guns because the majority of guns are purchased legally. Drugs are not. You're comparing apples and oranges, and you're downplaying the severity of the issue. The fact that there have been over 1000 shootings since Sandy Hook in 2012 should be alarming enough, but you're not including non-lethal crimes committed with a gun such as armed car jacking, bank robbery, armored car robbery, home invasion, kidnapping, false imprisonment, felony stalking, criminal threatening, hostage situations, intimidation with a weapon, terroristic threats, drive by attempts, assault on police, attempted murder, manslaughter, discharging a firearm in public... the list goes on and on. Criminals who use guns exist by the millions. Remember that the U.S. population is over 300 million people now. As of 2010 there were 5.8 million convicted felons in the U.S. This does not count people who haven't yet been convicted, got the charge knocked down to a misdemeanor or committed a misdemeanor gun crime, were acquitted on a technicality, or who simply never got caught.
That's who were trying to stop.

 

That's pretty much Pavelow's argument, actually.

Okay then, for eevery crime you just listed we should ban knives too,  since they're used just as often as weapons. No one cares when Joe gangster kills John gangster. It's only a problem when it's a multiple casualty shooting. If I'm determined to go into a mall and kill somebody, I'm gonna get a gun legally or not. 

 

And nowhere did I ever say we needed more guns. Once the the war on drugs actually starts making an impact, then tell me it'll be easy to restrict the sales of guns and keep them out of violent offenders' hands. 

But he was approached by the other party to the fight AFTER retreating to his car, as I understand it. At what point can you say the altercation ended with absolute certainty without knowing the details of what transpired? Was the fight continuing while he retreated towards his car? What was the distance to the car from the sight where the altercation occured? He had a friend with him as well, what was happening to him in this instance? Was he still fighting? Was there alcohol involved? Which would open him up to a litany of charges regarding possession and storage while intoxicated. Who started the fight? All questions with no answers for the general public. It doesn't look good with what we've been given, but neither did the Zimmerman or Wilson cases (thanks a lot, social media). Cooler heads prevail, which is why I will choose to wait and see what the prosecutor has to say in court, as well as the defense.

As I understand it, he said that he went to his car to go get his gun, then came back to re-engage in an altercation that he had the power to permanently terminate by driving away. The questions of distance to the car or possible intoxication and all of the other "but what if" questions are irrelevant and serve as nothing more than a distraction from the fact that somebody died because he decided he wanted revenge. He got the gun with the intention to use it. Don't even get me started on Zimmerman. He managed to get out of his conviction on a chicken sh*t technicality that the instruction of a 911 operator in his state is not a lawful order. Florida has disappointed the rest of Americans consistently in court hearings over the past few years partly because of their laws and partly because of their terrible juries. Besides Zimmerman, take the court case decisions such as Casey Anthony's acquittal of obvious murder, or that lady who got arrested for discharging a weapon to create a warning shot who got 20 years despite obvious signs of repeated abuse at the hands of her husband.

Did you have to bring religion into this? I find what you said pretty unnecessary and insulting.

Unfortunately yes, because this country and its laws and education heavily revolve around the church, which is contrary to our supposed operating policy of "separation of church and state". Out of all the majority Christian western nations, this country is the most heavily interwoven with religion when it comes to daily life, and you cannot keep religious beliefs separate from everything else no matter how someone may try and spin it. They influence behavior. I apologize if you feel offended by me mentioning religion, but the fact that you feel it's a protected subject is contrary to this country's freedom of speech and identifies a whole different problem; that criticizing theology is taboo. It's 2015, we should be able to discuss things like this openly now. All of that being said, I didn't actually insult any religions; although I'll concede that I implied it. You can let it roll off your back or you can debate my points; I'm happy to have an adult discussion about it.

Okay then, for eevery crime you just listed we should ban knives too,  since they're used just as often as weapons.

Don't go there. I've seen that argument on Facebook far too many times for my liking. The chief problem with guns is that they're tools designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible by hitting vital organs. A gun requires very little skill to operate despite its lethal power. That's why there are far fewer knife murders and knife wielding crimes.

No one cares when Joe gangster kills John gangster. It's only a problem when it's a multiple casualty shooting.

You're implying that one on one shootings only occur between two criminals, and that nobody cares if only one person dies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If I'm determined to go into a mall and kill somebody, I'm gonna get a gun legally or not.

And that's the problem. It's too easy to do this by legal means. What a large population of people are crying out for is to make it more difficult for homicidal maniacs to obtain the tools to do their dirty work; and another disappointingly large group is saying "well that might inconvenience me a tad, so f*ck that". It's a bad argument and it's a selfish one, to boot.

Once the the war on drugs actually starts making an impact, then tell me it'll be easy to restrict the sales of guns and keep them out of violent offenders' hands. 

You're comparing apples and oranges. All street drug sales are illegal. A majority of gun sales are not. Street drugs are designed to alter a body's chemistry to achieve a feeling of euphoria. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing a target. Peoples addictions to things that are pleasurable outweigh the desire to murder. There are far more gluttonous people in this world than there are sociopaths. Both drug use and murder are illegal; and the former often fuels the latter but I don't think I should have to tell you why taking steps to prevent homicides from happening is a good thing. I shouldn't have to tell anyone; which is why these debates make no sense to me in the first place.

 
 

Edited October 16, 201510 yr by unr3al

I appreciate your intentions, but your satire's sole intent is to ridicule and insult the other side (you even did it in your post again whether you realize it or not). You never heard that argument from me, and I'm what some would consider "pro-gun".

Well then you'll be the first, and kudos for that. But you just have to browse through the different threads on this very website on that matter to see that I'm not wrong at all for assuming this.

Okay, now show us a society with as large and open aired  of a gang culture. It's in rap videos, on the streets of metropolitan cities. It was even worse in the decades running up to now (firearms deaths, as well as all crime, has been in a steady decline. I like to think advancements in law enforcement and community policing as well as pro-active measures helped with that). The fact is some of our largest areas have the worst socio-economic standings in our country. Just like the greater LA area in the 60s and 70s, people banded together to form these gangs, which are now used for feuds and nefarious purposes all around.

Well yeah, you've a society large and open aired of gang culture and so on. Who's at fault for that? Maybe people not applying gun laws to prevent those guys from running around with more artillery than your own police. Yeah, maybe it's that. Think two seconds. The guy who wants a gun legally would have to go through a legal process (there, first try to be rejected or discouraged, discouragment has to be taken into account, a lot of people give up easily when they have to go through a legal process), and if he wants to get his gun on the black market, he also has quite a fair chance to be caught since it would be illegal. And even if he did get a gun on the black market, it would be just 5% of what he can actually get right now, because guns wouldn't be swarming all over the place, since they would be controlled. Logic, people.

 I'm using the Hebdo attack as an example of a shooting because it literally was, by definition, a shooting. People were shot and killed. There's video of it if you don't believe me. It's not as if I'm saying planes are guns, but guns are... well, guns. The political or ideological message attached has no bearing on the fact that people were shot with weapons and died.

I'm from France, in case you did not notice by the small flag below my avatar, so I know very much what occured at the Charlie Hebdo, I followed that minute per minute, thank you very much. And I stand by my ground that the Charlie Hebdo attack was a terrorist attack, not a shooting, simply because of the fact that the attack was aiming at certain people in particular, the other victims were simply and sadly collateral damage. Will you say that the assassination of JFK was a shooting? No, it was a murder, even though it involved people getting shot and killed. It was targeted to certain people in particular. Shootings in general are just one crazy dude appearing in a public place and killing people more or less randomly. Context plays a factor, and in this case, it was a completely different context, and thus a different matter that has nothing to do in this topic.

As for the stats, I'm pretty sure the % of homocide by firearm talks by itself, raw numbers have limited meaning. Of course you've less homocides than Brazil due to their mafia and gangs in the favelas. But the fact that MOST of the homicides commited in the US are by firearm should be enough to say that they are too many. As a comparison, France, strict gun control laws (you need a permit to buy one, it's registered in the State datas, and you are forbidden to carry it out of your own property except for hunting), 9.6% of homicides were by firearm, while the US are up to 60%. See the difference? Could say the same for Australia (11.5%) or the UK (6.6%). Gun control laws = less homicides by firearms (and by expansion, less shootings), that's a fact, and nothing you can say or think will ever change that fact.

 

Edited October 16, 201510 yr by Hystery

As a comparison, France, strict gun control laws (you need a permit to buy one, it's registered in the State datas, and you are forbidden to carry it out of your own property except for hunting), 9.6% of homicides were by firearm, while the US are up to 60%. See the difference? Could say the same for Australia (11.5%) or the UK (6.6%). Gun control laws = less homicides by firearms (and by expansion, less shootings), that's a fact, and nothing you can say or think will ever change that fact.

 

I don't think you're taking into account the fact that all of the places you're comparing have a significant smaller population than America. That also plays a factor into it as well.

Australia has 24 million, give or take.

The U.K has 65 million, give or take.

New Zealand sitting at a whopping 4.5 million people. (wasn't a comparison, but I believe I saw someone comparing New Zealand to the U.S). 

Canada 35 million people.

France topping the population at 66 million, again, give or take. 

All of these are within 30 million of one another, the lowest being New Zealand. 

Now, let's take a look at America, sitting at 350 million people give or take once again. America sitting at the 3rd most populated countries in the world.

You compared Brazil to America, which ironically enough sits 5th as the most populated country in the world sitting at 210 million people, 4th spot picked up by Indonesia. 

What I find interesting is that Puerto Rico tops the list of having the most firearm deaths, sitting at 94% of all deaths being firearm related. Yet its population sits at a meagre 3.5 million. Why is this interesting? Is that up until June 2015, Puerto Rico had an extremely restrictive gun law. Prior to a 2015 ruling, a person had to be 21 to get a weapons license along with several other requirements. A person was required to present a sworn statement attesting to compliance with fiscal laws, purchase a $100 internal revenue stamp, submit 3 statements from community members who aren't related to them attesting to their good reputation, submit a signed application that is notarized, be fingerprinted and photographed, and submit a negative certificate of debt to the child support administration. That process was just to be able to purchase firearms to store in a residence or business and not for a concealed carry permit. In order to acquire a concealed carry permit a person had to first have a Target shooting license and then appear before a Judge and present proof of a strong reason for a permit. Due to this process, in many cases concealed carry permit applications were denied.

The U.S sits 28th in the table for firearm deaths/murders. El Salvador and Jamaica taking that prize with Sierra Leone, Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean and Puerto Rico sitting on top of that table.

 

 

 

You're bringing stuff to raw numbers again. That won't lead you anywhere. We're not talking about the sole AMOUNT of homicide by firearm, but how many of homicide are made by the use of firearm amongst other homicides. If France, UK, Australia or other gun restricted countries had the same PROPORTION of people having an easy trigger than in the US, then the % of homicide by firearm would be similar.  Raw numbers would be lower, because less population and all that, but the % would remain equal. But it's not the case. Because we have less guns. So less shooting.

Edited October 16, 201510 yr by Hystery

Unfortunately yes, because this country and its laws and education heavily revolve around the church, which is contrary to our supposed operating policy of "separation of church and state". Out of all the majority Christian western nations, this country is the most heavily interwoven with religion when it comes to daily life, and you cannot keep religious beliefs separate from everything else no matter how someone may try and spin it. They influence behavior. I apologize if you feel offended by me mentioning religion, but the fact that you feel it's a protected subject is contrary to this country's freedom of speech and identifies a whole different problem; that criticizing theology is taboo. It's 2015, we should be able to discuss things like this openly now. All of that being said, I didn't actually insult any religions; although I'll concede that I implied it. You can let it roll off your back or you can debate my points; I'm happy to have an adult discussion about it.

I don't quite understand how gun control relates to theology. You can ridicule it as much as you want, your are entitled to your beliefs. I wasn't offended by the fact that you mentioned religion. I was offended by the fact that you mentioned stupidity and seemed to correlate religion and stupidity together. I felt that it was a bit off topic and unrelated.

Edited October 16, 201510 yr by MayhemMercenary

I don't quite understand how gun control relates to theology. You can ridicule it as much as you want, your are entitled to your beliefs. I wasn't offended by the fact that you mentioned religion. I was offended by the fact that you mentioned stupidity and seemed to correlate religion and stupidity together. I felt that it was a bit off topic and unrelated.

I have no illusions that religion can have a couple of good take-aways, certainly the most important of which being the life transforming experiences people have that make them a better person. What I have a problem with is that many others who practice religion, any religion, seem to cling on to theology that is outdated and irrelevant in today's world, and that theology is based off of stories that make absolutely no sense; like somebody living inside a whale or talking to a 6'2" human god that lives on a planet that doesn't exist called "Kolob" or that the demon spirits gog and magog control what's happening in the middle east, or that the earth is 6,000 years old and carbon dating is a hoax. To suggest that people who believe in these things without question are impressionable is an understatement, and these are people who are making policy decisions that determine the fate of important issues such as gun control, and the ones that vote them into office.

Edited October 16, 201510 yr by unr3al

I have no illusions that religion can have a couple of good take-aways, certainly the most important of which being the life transforming experiences people have that make them a better person. What I have a problem with is that many others who practice religion, any religion, seem to cling on to theology that is outdated and irrelevant in today's world, and that theology is based off of stories that make absolutely no sense; like somebody living inside a whale or talking to a 6'2" human god that lives on a planet that doesn't exist called "Kolob" or that the demon spirits gog and magog control what's happening in the middle east, or that the earth is 6,000 years old and carbon dating is a hoax. To suggest that people who believe in these things without question are impressionable is an understatement, and these are people who are making policy decisions that determine the fate of important issues such as gun control.

As a Catholic, we are taught that science and religion go hand in hand. We do not deny evolution, or the big bang. I personally believe that my theological beliefs are still very relevant and will always be. I believe that theology classes have given me a better understanding of my faith rather than just taking a religion class about scripture. To be fair, there are impressionable people in every category.

As a Catholic, we are taught that science and religion go hand in hand. We do not deny evolution, or the big bang. I personally believe that my theological beliefs are still very relevant and will always be. I believe that theology classes have given me a better understanding of my faith rather than just taking a religion class about scripture. To be fair, there are impressionable people in every category.

I'm glad you believe in those things, but theology will still find its way into science and hinder potential progress, despite what the last couple of popes have acknowledged. You can't keep your faith and your work separate. Take Francis Collins as an example. He is President Obama's appointment as head of the NIH. He collaborated with 2500 scientists who partially mapped the human genome. The problem is that as a person who takes his faith seriously, he has written that he believes that human morality could not have come out of evolution and was instead inserted directly into the brain by the hand of god. Therefore any neuroscientists who may want to study such a topic will not get any funding from the NIH because Mr. Collins thinks he already knows the answer. God did it. And to believe that the world is 6,000 years old and that the earth was made in 6 days with a 7th day for rest is contrary to scientific evidence such as the big bang and that earth is about 5 billion years old.

Getting back on the topic of guns and this most recent shooting; this belief that putting restrictions on firearms in place somehow destroys the freedoms of gun lovers is nothing more than paranoia that takes the spotlight off of murder victims, and it's getting real old, real fast.

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by unr3al

I'm glad you believe in those things, but theology will still find its way into science and hinder potential progress, despite what the last couple of popes have acknowledged. You can't keep your faith and your work separate. Take Francis Collins as an example. He is President Obama's appointment as head of the NIH. He collaborated with 2500 scientists who partially mapped the human genome. The problem is that as a person who takes his faith seriously, he has written that he believes that human morality could not have come out of evolution and was instead inserted directly into the brain by the hand of god. Therefore any neuroscientists who may want to study such a topic will not get any funding from the NIH because Mr. Collins thinks he already knows the answer. God did it. And to believe that the world is 6,000 years old and that the earth was made in 6 days with a 7th day for rest is contrary to scientific evidence such as the big bang and that earth is about 5 billion years old.
Getting back on the topic of guns and this most recent shooting; this belief that putting restrictions on firearms in place somehow destroys the freedoms of gun lovers is nothing more than paranoia that takes the spotlight off of murder victims, and it's getting real old, real fast.

Yeah, we believe that the 7 days of creation are not meant to be taken literally but metaphorically. And we believe that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. It's funny how these topics always stray from the original topic.

Back to gun control, I am a very conservative person as you may know. We are both very sturdy in our stance on this topic, clearly.

Yeah, we believe that the 7 days of creation are not meant to be taken literally but metaphorically. And we believe that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.

Now, yes.
 

It's funny how these topics always stray from the original topic.

It's inevitable, as beliefs influence behavior regardless of whether its theological or personal beliefs you were brought up with from your family. As an example, a lot of people wouldn't bring a gun to school, but something in this persons culture convinced him it would be a good idea. Something in this persons culture also convinced him it would be a good idea to pick a fight or associate with certain people. And lastly something in this persons culture convinced him that it would be the right thing to do to kill someone if threatened despite not being in immediate danger. Most people aren't raised that way but apparently he was.

 

Back to gun control, I am a very conservative person as you may know. We are both very sturdy in our stance on this topic, clearly.

Debates don't usually end with one side being completely convinced of the others argument. Each of us can only hope that the observers have received and accepted our respective messages instead.

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by unr3al