Reporter and Cameraman Murdered on Live TV

[deep]

I once cleared out an airport with 2 kindereggs.

[BEAL]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

there are car/pool/ladder accidents. we call these accidents because that's what they are -- mistakes where people die.

guns are used to kill people. of course a gun can kill someone accidentally, but usually, it's a suicide or homicide.

how can anyone not see the difference? the law certainly does.

Agree.

There is a mental health issue here in America though, and it's our inability to use reason or logic when it comes to firearms. As soon as someone, or multiple people are killed with them, our politicians and large amount of americans go mental gymnastics to argue against anything than the object used to kill.

Other countries have had issues with gun violence like ours, and they took the steps to correct it. We still live in the wild west.

[Irvine511]

this is what i'm talking about. this is why it isn't about mental health. it isn't about culture and history. we don't have a significantly more violent society than others, or significantly more crime.

it's about the prevalence of an object designed to kill people in the most efficient way possible. our criminals -- and average people, who sometimes have really bad days -- have easy access to lethal force.

The seminal work here is a 1999 book by Berkeley's Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, called Crime Is not the Problem. Zimring and Hawkins set out to examine what was, at the time, the conventional wisdom: that America had a uniquely terrible crime problem, one without any parallel in other developed democracies.

They found, pretty definitively, that the conventional wisdom was wrong. "Rates of common property crimes in the United States are comparable to those reported in many other Western industrial nations, but rates of lethal violence in the United States are much higher," they write. "Violence is not a crime problem."

Zimring and Hawkins determined this by looking at 20 developed countries' overall crime rate and rates of violent death. They found virtually no connection between the two, indicating that a country's level of violent death wasn't determined by its overall crime levels:

"This data set provides a multinational example of the central point that lethal violence is the crucial problem in the United States," Zimring and Hawkins write. "It shows the United States clustered with other industrial countries in crime rate, but head and shoulders above the rest in violent death."

Why does this happen? It's not because, as you might think, American violent criminals are just more likely to kill people. "Only a minority of Los Angeles homicides grow out of criminal encounters like robbery and rape," they find (there's no reason to believe the pattern would differ in other cities). So even if it could be shown that American robbery and rape rates are across-the-board higher than those in similar countries (which doesn't appear true today), that still wouldn't explain why America has so many more homicides than other countries.

Again, Zimring and Hawkins's LA data was revealing. "A far greater proportion of Los Angeles homicides grow out of arguments and other social encounters between acquaintances [than robbery or rape]," they find.

This is where guns enter the story. The mere presence of firearms, according to Zimring and Hawkins, makes a merely tense situation more likely to turn deadly. When a gang member argues with another gang member, or a robber sticks up a liquor store, there's always a risk that the situation can escalate to some kind of violence. But when people have a handheld tool that is specially engineered for violently killing, escalation to murder becomes much, much more likely.

And indeed, that's what Zimring and Hawkins's data found. "A series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in New York City and London show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar," they explain. "A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime fifty-four times as deadly in New York City as in London."

America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns. - Vox

[trojanchick99]

There should be graphic warning labels on guns, showing the aftermath of a toddler getting ahold of one and shooting their mother.

Sadly, if the murder of 20 small children didn't get anything accomplished, nothing will. It's sick that gun owners are ok with the senseless murder of children just so they can pretend to be Dirty Harry. Because, that's the result of their "freedom to bear arms", the highest gun violence rate in any developed country. Congrats, assholes.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by zuma

There's nothing really to add, but it does make you wonder when you can't buy a kinderegg in the States because they are oh so dangerous, but you can just pick up an assault rifle.

Because the Constitution doesn't talk about "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of delicious Kinder Eggs." Duh.

 

I realize that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but just roll with it.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Lawn Darts have been banned because they're too dangerous.

Lawn Darts.

FUCKING LAWN DARTS.

But guns... noooooo. Can't ban them. It's the fault of the bad person, not all us law abiding gun owners.

Fucking hell.

[LemonMelon]

Lawn darts are a frivolous and unnecessary danger. Guns are a necessary tool for everyday life. Try to stop a zombie apocalypse or the King of England with a lawn dart.

[deep]

or marial law take over by Obama
Clinton had one planned behind that phoney Y2K.

[Kieran McConville]

Are these shootings actually getting more common? It seems like they are, but I can't be bothered looking for statistics. I mean now, as compared to say, this time in the 1990s, or the 1980s? Are guns more widely disseminated than they were then?

In other words (no, this isn't any argument against Australian-style gun laws, of which I wholly approve), are these incidents - criminal, but not 'crime' in the olden-days sense of someone out to score some money or something, but actually suicidal acts - some kind of canaries in a coalmine?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Since Newtown, the unthinkable horror that was going to finally get our country to wake the fuck up when it comes to gun violence, 84,524 people have died from a bullet.

for those keeping track, zero people have died from lawn darts over that same time frame.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Since Newtown, the unthinkable horror that was going to finally get our country to wake the fuck up when it comes to gun violence, 84,524 people have died from a bullet.

for those keeping track, zero people have died from lawn darts over that same time frame.

where did you get that number?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

where did you get that number?

It's on the cover of today's Daily News

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Lawn Darts have been banned because they're too dangerous.

Lawn Darts.

FUCKING LAWN DARTS.

But guns... noooooo. Can't ban them. It's the fault of the bad person, not all us law abiding gun owners.

Fucking hell.

Nothing to see here. The US does not have any problems. Nobody knows what you're talking about. Guns are obviously not the issue. lalalalalalaaaaaacan'thearyouuuuuuuuuuu

[YBORCITY]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

There should be graphic warning labels on guns, showing the aftermath of a toddler getting ahold of one and shooting their mother.

Sadly, if the murder of 20 small children didn't get anything accomplished, nothing will. It's sick that gun owners are ok with the senseless murder of children just so they can pretend to be Dirty Harry. Because, that's the result of their "freedom to bear arms", the highest gun violence rate in any developed country. Congrats, assholes.

Living 30 minutes away from Newtown, I've met a handful of first res ponders, cops, firemen and paramedics. The scene was beyond comprehension and their words haunt ME (I can't imagine being one of them). One in particular said that every asshole that spouts off about the 2nd amendment should take a look at the photographs from that school and then try and defend a persons right to own semi-automatic weaponry. You would think that the killing of 26 innocents would have changed the mindset of this country, even the NRA but we're just a bunch of mindless lazy idiots who elected these shit for brains who were funded by the NRA.

Again, to be clear I believe that a person should have the right to have a weapon to either hunt with or protect property and life. I'm still waiting to hear whats the argument that one should have a semi-automatic weapon and hollow point bullets. This country better wake the fuck up.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by YBORCITY

Again, to be clear I believe that a person should have the right to have a weapon to either hunt with or protect property and life. I'm still waiting to hear whats the argument that one should have a semi-automatic weapon and hollow point bullets.

Never know when you're going to encounter a herd of 2,869 angry deer on a hunting trip.

[YBORCITY]

[deep]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Since Newtown, the unthinkable horror that was going to finally get our country to wake the fuck up when it comes to gun violence, 84,524 people have died from a bullet.

.

Since Newtown, the unthinkable horror that was going to finally get our country to wake the fuck up when it comes to gun violence, 84,524 319,915,457 people have not died from a bullet.


fixed

[U2DMfan]

Regarding the article Irvine shared...this probably is a 'more guns' problem for the U.S. But ultimately folks are blaming the wrong people for the reason we have more guns. It started as The Rest of Us versus the Gun Nuts. Then, people got more informed and it evolved into...The Rest of Us versus the NRA...but because of typical political bullshit has mostly devolved back into...The Rest of Us versus NRA members...

And that's not what this should be about.

The fight against the NRA is not about the tens of millions (over time) they receive from gun nuts from all over the country. That alone couldn't compel the congress to behave as they do. It's mostly about the hundreds of millions (over time) they receive from gun manufacturers.

We all know the NRA is to blame for why we didn't get sensible gun legislation after Newtown. 80-90% of all those polled (surely including many gun owners, and some gun nuts) supported some sane regulation. But the reason it didn't happen isn't because millions of Joe Bobs love the 2nd Amendment and send their yearly dues to the NRA. It's because the NRA is funded by the gun manufacturers. Without that kind of big money something would have been done after Newtown. Even though these people (regardless of the NRA) mostly believe passionately in the 2nd amendment.

Having tons of campaign money wins elections. Almost all of them. And that is not plausibly fixed any time while any of us are alive. So we have to de-emphasize the need for all these campaign donations. Members of the House literally never stop raising money for their elections every two years. That gives all the power in the equation to those financing their campaigns. And we cannot rely on them to police themselves. Even the Good Guys (whomever you believe the Good Guys are) need this money to get elected. It is an irreconcilable problem in terms of leaving them to clean up their own backyard. They won't do it and basically they can't do it.

So how do we begin the process to stopping this? Supporting longer terms and term limits. Fewer elections. De-emphasize the corporotacracy. If you want sane gun legislation and you don't support both of those things you are not working towards the beginning of solutions.

We simply need to start fighting to get our republic back. 80-90% of people supporting ANYTHING and we can't get lawmakers to act? Think about it folks. This is just one issue among many. Remember the expiring Bush Tax Cut fight? The Norquist Lobby had the GOP by the balls then. Remember all you folks that were disappointed in the ACA? The HC Insurance lobby literally wrote that bill...they wrote a bill they wouldn't fight against. Because they have this kind of power - and the reason they have it is because money (legally) buys both the votes of the people and of the Congress. So the big money is a problem that isn't going away. True campaign finance reform is impossible. We need to ONLY support candidates that support longer terms and term limits whether they are Democrat or Republican or anything else. We need a People's Lobby. Oust every incumbent that doesn't support it. And certainly never vote for any candidate that doesn't support it.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

You can effectively ban guns without actually banning guns. That's how we need to go about this. Treat guns as a product with as much need to regulate as cars, and with the social responsibility of cigarettes. A gun in a house with children should be treated with the same opprobrium as a woman drinking and smoking while pregnant. Bring back shame, apply warning labels, tax the shit out of guns and bullets, make life inconvenient for gun owners as we do for cigarette smokers.

Incremental change we can believe in.

And I'll add I have no problems with hunting (asshole dentist game hunters aside). But you can join a club and do that. Regulate, regulate, regulate.

Incremental change is a better message than simply trashing a large moneyed segment of the the U.S. population.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

Regarding the article Irvine shared...this probably is a 'more guns' problem for the U.S. But ultimately folks are blaming the wrong people for the reason we have more guns. It started as The Rest of Us versus the Gun Nuts. Then, people got more informed and it evolved into...The Rest of Us versus the NRA...but because of typical political bullshit has mostly devolved back into...The Rest of Us versus NRA members...

And that's not what this should be about.

The fight against the NRA is not about the tens of millions (over time) they receive from gun nuts from all over the country. That alone couldn't compel the congress to behave as they do. It's mostly about the hundreds of millions (over time) they receive from gun manufacturers.

We all know the NRA is to blame for why we didn't get sensible gun legislation after Newtown. 80-90% of all those polled (surely including many gun owners, and some gun nuts) supported some sane regulation. But the reason it didn't happen isn't because millions of Joe Bobs love the 2nd Amendment and send their yearly dues to the NRA. It's because the NRA is funded by the gun manufacturers. Without that kind of big money something would have been done after Newtown. Even though these people (regardless of the NRA) mostly believe passionately in the 2nd amendment.

Having tons of campaign money wins elections. Almost all of them. And that is not plausibly fixed any time while any of us are alive. So we have to de-emphasize the need for all these campaign donations. Members of the House literally never stop raising money for their elections every two years. That gives all the power in the equation to those financing their campaigns. And we cannot rely on them to police themselves. Even the Good Guys (whomever you believe the Good Guys are) need this money to get elected. It is an irreconcilable problem in terms of leaving them to clean up their own backyard. They won't do it and basically they can't do it.

So how do we begin the process to stopping this? Supporting longer terms and term limits. Fewer elections. De-emphasize the corporotacracy. If you want sane gun legislation and you don't support both of those things you are not working towards the beginning of solutions.

We simply need to start fighting to get our republic back. 80-90% of people supporting ANYTHING and we can't get lawmakers to act? Think about it folks. This is just one issue among many. Remember the expiring Bush Tax Cut fight? The Norquist Lobby had the GOP by the balls then. Remember all you folks that were disappointed in the ACA? The HC Insurance lobby literally wrote that bill...they wrote a bill they wouldn't fight against. Because they have this kind of power - and the reason they have it is because money (legally) buys both the votes of the people and of the Congress. So the big money is a problem that isn't going away. True campaign finance reform is impossible. We need to ONLY support candidates that support longer terms and term limits whether they are Democrat or Republican or anything else. We need a People's Lobby. Oust every incumbent that doesn't support it. And certainly never vote for any candidate that doesn't support it.

Saying it's impossible isn't going to fix things. And I know that comes across as naive, but it really is true that we need to start voting for candidates who are in favor of reform. There's just too much money coming in from people who are not THE PEOPLE.