"But Chicago, Chicago, Chicago!"

[DMC]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

But everyone dies eventually. This is why I think many of these folks are on the verge of suicide, and decide to go out this way. They should make suicide easier.

[DMC]

This basically ends the debate. We in' KNOW, and have known for nearly 100 years, the major factors behind inner city gang violence. Poverty+black market alcohol/drug markets. When those are reduced, crime is reduced.

We do not know what kind of solutions would work in solving mass shootings. We might have some theories, but nothing in practice obviously. And that's why those events tend to dominate discussion vs. "Chicago!"

What good does knowing do to those who continue to die in Chicago? Oh so you know, big ing deal.

[DMC]

Better question based on the above chart is why crime is plummeting so much in liberal run cities overall but Rs are not interested in that question God knows why

Sure, why is crime plummeting when gun ownership is at an all time high, when almost every state has a reciprocity law.

The thing no one has mentioned and your meme doesn't cover is why "mass shootings" are so broadly defined and considered the crux of the issue. The issue in this instance is predictability. Unpredictable locale, not knowing which particular person is on the verge of going off the reservation, too many "Rampage" movie copy cats. Sure you can predict there will be mass shootings in Chicago, and you can predict many of the reasons.. drugs, money, gang affiliation, skirmishes... that kind of . But because you cannot predict where or why the next idiot will kill 40 unarmed people, you are left looking for things like skin color and focusing all your effort on blaming whatever easier target you can lump into the mix. In this case that's Donald Trump. I guess that comedian chick holding up a bloody severed head of the POTUS wasn't problematic at all.

The real issue is that people cannot defend themselves and cops cannot respond fast enough. Even 1 minute isn't enough to save some. So sure, the solution is an individual one, protect yourself. Have situational awareness, have a plan and the ability to send lead back the other way. The excuses about "you might hit innocent people!" doesn't mean to me if I am about to be gunned down. If someone doesn't do something to stop them, they will continue to go for the high score.. the one the media keeps track of and reminds us of just before the Netflix special is made that basically makes these people evil villain famous like Bundy.

It's telling how many can name shooters, but cannot name a single victim.

[spurraider21]

It depends on the cir stances. In a room, a handgun is just as deadly. Outside where folks can run, not so much.

no doubt. fully agreed as to both... was hoping TSA would at least be honest and acknowledge the second part of that comment

[DMC]

no doubt. fully agreed as to both... was hoping TSA would at least be honest and acknowledge the second part of that comment

The evidence is easy to find, just look at how many rounds police officers fire at fleeing vehicles and who they call in to handle outside situations, snipers and urban assault teams armed with MP5s and M4s. You can fire into a packed crowd with any lethal energy weapon and kill a lot of people. Rapid individual target acquisition is a different matter. Anyone who cares to find out for themselves can rent rifles and handguns at ranges. Do a 5 round at 50 yards in 5 seconds with each. See what your grouping looks like. Tight rifle grouping at 50 yards means more accurate shot placement at 100 yards. Your handgun test will be lucky to put 5 rounds on paper.

[midnightpulp]

What good does knowing do to those who continue to die in Chicago? Oh so you know, big ing deal.

I'm not an Illinois resident, so I don't what props have been passed/are being considered to deal with Chicago's violence. I am a Southern California resident within ear shot of LA and saw this region's murder rate decline MASSIVELY from the crack epidemic peak.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...os_Angeles.png

Over this time, some factors were more effective community outreach, less aggressive incarceration of juveniles, anti-drug programs, and the 1989 Assault Weapons ban.

[Xevious]

It depends on the cir stances. In a room, a handgun is just as deadly. Outside where folks can run, not so much.

All guns of all calibers are deadly. And if you are firing at a bunch of children huddled in a closet... who's to say? But if we eliminate the capacity argument, the rate of fire, accuracy, etc... a rifle shooting a rifle round into center mass is a much more effective manstopper than a pistol of any caliber. That's not even debatable. So when a shooter with a AR/AK enters a school or a department store where somebody with a handgun might have to engage from distance if they want to stop the threat (down a hallway or whatever), all those other variables come into play as well and it isn't a fair fight at all.

[Pavlov]

Sure, why is crime plummeting when gun ownership is at an all time high

The number of households with guns is lower than is was in 1990.

[midnightpulp]

Sure, why is crime plummeting when gun ownership is at an all time high, when almost every state has a reciprocity law.

The thing no one has mentioned and your meme doesn't cover is why "mass shootings" are so broadly defined and considered the crux of the issue. The issue in this instance is predictability. Unpredictable locale, not knowing which particular person is on the verge of going off the reservation, too many "Rampage" movie copy cats. Sure you can predict there will be mass shootings in Chicago, and you can predict many of the reasons.. drugs, money, gang affiliation, skirmishes... that kind of . But because you cannot predict where or why the next idiot will kill 40 unarmed people, you are left looking for things like skin color and focusing all your effort on blaming whatever easier target you can lump into the mix. In this case that's Donald Trump. I guess that comedian chick holding up a bloody severed head of the POTUS wasn't problematic at all.

The real issue is that people cannot defend themselves and cops cannot respond fast enough. Even 1 minute isn't enough to save some. So sure, the solution is an individual one, protect yourself. Have situational awareness, have a plan and the ability to send lead back the other way. The excuses about "you might hit innocent people!" doesn't mean to me if I am about to be gunned down. If someone doesn't do something to stop them, they will continue to go for the high score.. the one the media keeps track of and reminds us of just before the Netflix special is made that basically makes these people evil villain famous like Bundy.

It's telling how many can name shooters, but cannot name a single victim.

No one wants to grab yer guns. But it's a ridiculous inconsistency in this country that you can legally buy an AR-15 before you can legally buy a beer. I want reasonable laws ensuring that gun owners are worthy of gun ownership, just like we have laws ensuing motorists are worthy of driving (minimum age [and yeah, 16 is too young], proving competency through a licensing test, etc).

Aren't you a science guy? The pre-frontal cortex, which regulates impulse control, planning, and morality, isn't fully developed all the way until 25. Do you think the still developing brain of an adolescent paired with a firearm is a good combination? Yeah, we can wax poetic about pastoral America when little Johnny got his first 22 at ten and never went on a rampage, but the respective environments aren't the same. Back then, no Internet, sensationalized media, psychotropic drugs, etc, etc. The Internet isn't going away. Sensationalized media isn't going away. And there's no legislation you can pass that will limit those ins utions. Perhaps giving kids SSRIs at 10 years old will go away, but what we can control are certain legal restrictions of firearm purchase. I see a 21 year old minimum age purchase as a starting point that both sides can agree on. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that, unless either side is trying not to cede a "victory" to the other.

[Xevious]

No one wants to grab yer guns. But it's a ridiculous inconsistency in this country that you can legally buy an AR-15 before you can legally buy a beer. I want reasonable laws ensuring that gun owners are worthy of gun ownership, just like we have laws ensuing motorists are worthy of driving (minimum age [and yeah, 16 is too young], proving competency through a licensing test, etc).

Aren't you a science guy? The pre-frontal cortex, which regulates impulse control, planning, and morality, isn't fully developed all the way until 25. Do you think the still developing brain of an adolescent paired with a firearm is a good combination? Yeah, we can wax poetic about pastoral America when little Johnny got his first 22 at ten and never went on a rampage, but the respective environments aren't the same. Back then, no Internet, sensationalized media, psychotropic drugs, etc, etc. The Internet isn't going away. Sensationalized media isn't going away. And there's no legislation you can pass that will limit those ins utions. Perhaps giving kids SSRIs at 10 years old will go away, but what we can control are certain legal restrictions of firearm purchase. I see a 21 year old minimum age purchase as a starting point that both sides can agree on. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that, unless either side is trying not to cede a "victory" to the other.

The only way I see that flying is if they raise the military enlistment age as well.

[DMC]

I'm not an Illinois resident, so I don't what props have been passed/are being considered to deal with Chicago's violence. I am a Southern California resident within ear shot of LA and saw this region's murder rate decline MASSIVELY from the crack epidemic peak.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...os_Angeles.png

Over this time, some factors were more effective community outreach, less aggressive incarceration of juveniles, anti-drug programs, and the 1989 Assault Weapons ban.

Whatever has been passed, it's not the issue. The issue is that it's treated like we can do even less about something we claim to understand but we think we have some control over random mass shootings and can pin these down to loser basement dwellers who live on 8 chan and never get laid, and have poor eyesight and fair skin.

So "but Chicago is a known issue, we know why it happens" - yet can't do anything about it

Then "however these random mass shootings are out of the blue, unknowns... and we have no idea why they happen.. but it's because of Trump and incel and white" - yet can't do anything about it either.

[midnightpulp]

The number of households with guns is lower than is was in 1990.

It's also another strawman. "Violence is at a low! See, guns good!"

We are not talking about gun violence in total. What isn't at a in low is mass shootings. I don't care how much percentage cold blooded mass shootings are of the overall firearm homicide rate, ANY percent is unacceptable. And yes, any homicide by firearm is unacceptable, but as I said, we've put theory into practice to help lower overall gun violence that was mainly concentrated in the inner city. Now we need to put theory into practice to try and lower the rate of mass shootings. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this?

[DMC]

The only way I see that flying is if they raise the military enlistment age as well.

Non lawyers probably won't cover all the necessary loopholes. You have to be 21 to purchase beer. Who here drank before they were 21, and purchased the beer? Yeah it's not the same, but unless individuals can do ID and background checks, then someone saying they are 21 with a fake ID can buy a gun from a private seller. The only solution is to say all gun sales have to go through an FFL.

[DMC]

It's also another strawman. "Violence is at a low! See, guns good!"

We are not talking about gun violence in total. What isn't at a in low is mass shootings. I don't care how much percentage cold blooded mass shootings are of the overall firearm homicide rate, ANY percent is unacceptable. And yes, any homicide by firearm is unacceptable, but as I said, we've put theory into practice to help lower overall gun violence that was mainly concentrated in the inner city. Now we need to put theory into practice to try and lower the rate of mass shootings. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this?

Unacceptable, more unacceptable

Some pigs are more equal than others

Mass shootings in Chicago aren't as equal as mass shootings in El Paso.

[Pavlov]

It's also another strawman. "Violence is at a low! See, guns good!"

We are not talking about gun violence in total. What isn't at a in low is mass shootings. I don't care how much percentage cold blooded mass shootings are of the overall firearm homicide rate, ANY percent is unacceptable. And yes, any homicide by firearm is unacceptable, but as I said, we've put theory into practice to help lower overall gun violence that was mainly concentrated in the inner city. Now we need to put theory into practice to try and lower the rate of mass shootings. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this?

DMC is too busy making everything personal on here to actually give a about gun violence much less offer any possible solutions.

[midnightpulp]

Whatever has been passed, it's not the issue. The issue is that it's treated like we can do even less about something we claim to understand but we think we have some control over random mass shootings and can pin these down to loser basement dwellers who live on 8 chan and never get laid, and have poor eyesight and fair skin.

So "but Chicago is a known issue, we know why it happens" - yet can't do anything about it

Then "however these random mass shootings are out of the blue, unknowns... and we have no idea why they happen.. but it's because of Trump and incel and white" - yet can't do anything about it either.

So because we don't fully understand it, it's not worth trying something? I think it's a pretty logical conclusion that if you throw more obstacles in front of the prospective "incel" en route to firearm purchase, the frequency of these shootings would drop. To what degree, who knows? In any event, a 21 year old minimum age purchase along with a licensing requirement should be an uncontroversial compromise.

[midnightpulp]

Unacceptable, more unacceptable

Some pigs are more equal than others

Mass shootings in Chicago aren't as equal as mass shootings in El Paso.

You're still strawmanning, playing the "If you realllllly cared," game. I just said any murder by firearm is unacceptable. But in the case of "Chicago!" theory is being put into practice, and even in that city, we've seen theory-in-practice reduce the homicide rate. In the case of mass shootings, NO THEORY is being put into practice while these shootings are at all time highs in a very testy and divided period in American history.

[Pavlov]

You're still strawmanning, playing the "If you realllllly cared," game.

Anything to keep from actually discussing the subject.

[DMC]

No one wants to grab yer guns. But it's a ridiculous inconsistency in this country that you can legally buy an AR-15 before you can legally buy a beer. I want reasonable laws ensuring that gun owners are worthy of gun ownership, just like we have laws ensuing motorists are worthy of driving (minimum age [and yeah, 16 is too young], proving competency through a licensing test, etc).

Aren't you a science guy? The pre-frontal cortex, which regulates impulse control, planning, and morality, isn't fully developed all the way until 25. Do you think the still developing brain of an adolescent paired with a firearm is a good combination? Yeah, we can wax poetic about pastoral America when little Johnny got his first 22 at ten and never went on a rampage, but the respective environments aren't the same. Back then, no Internet, sensationalized media, psychotropic drugs, etc, etc. The Internet isn't going away. Sensationalized media isn't going away. And there's no legislation you can pass that will limit those ins utions. Perhaps giving kids SSRIs at 10 years old will go away, but what we can control are certain legal restrictions of firearm purchase. I see a 21 year old minimum age purchase as a starting point that both sides can agree on. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that, unless either side is trying not to cede a "victory" to the other.

If you served in the military then maybe you have a leg to stand on, maybe not. People have been sent to die at age 18 for a long time. Telling them they can carry a gun in Iraq but not in their home town is chicken . But I'm ok with not owning a semi-auto rifle or handgun prior to age 21. How many of these shooters were over that age?

"no one wants to grab yer guns" is bull . Plenty do, they just don't have the balls to try to introduce the bill. They want their position of power more than they want any reform. I'm all for banning guns outright. I encouraged it before and will again. Obama didn't do anything in 12 years though, and you know the GOP isn't going to. Who has the balls to actually do it?

The pre-frontal cortex gets tried as an adult at 18.

[Pavlov]

If you served in the military then maybe you have a leg to stand on

DMC throws up another imaginary barrier to discussion.

[DMC]

You're still strawmanning, playing the "If you realllllly cared," game. I just said any murder by firearm is unacceptable. But in the case of "Chicago!" theory is being put into practice, and even in that city, we've seen theory-in-practice reduce the homicide rate. In the case of mass shootings, NO THEORY is being put into practice while these shootings are at all time highs in a very testy and divided period in American history.

You don't have enough data on mass shootings to build anything close to what Chicago has though. What's the number of shootings in Chicago this year compared to the number of people killed in mass shootings elsewhere in the US?

What is being put into practice is being armed as an individual. Like I said, the solution that prevents anyone from having to make a hard choice that might be seen as insensitive is to worry about yourself, protect yourself. How many mass shootings happen in police stations or gun shows?

Media calls the Garlic festival shooting a mass shooting, 3 people killed. You get 4 killed in Chicago and it's ho hum, not listed. One killed in a Walmart in Mississippi, and that's listed as a mass shooting but 4 more killed in a home in Chicago and the home set ablaze... nothing. Nope, not a mass killing that needs to be mentioned.

[Pavlov]

What is being put into practice is being armed as an individual.

Still false.

The number of households with guns today is lower than in 1990.

[DMC]

There have been 273 fatalities so far this year, and 1,067 injured, according to the Gun Violence Archive. This is nationwide "mass shootings"

According to recent crime statistics released to CBS Chicago, 1,229 people have been shot in Chicago, about 100 fewer than the first six months of 2018, and the lowest total since 2015. Police also said there have been 236 murders through the end of June, 21 fewer than the same time period last year.

[DMC]

Still false.

The number of households with guns today is lower than in 1990.

non sequitur

as usual

[midnightpulp]

If you served in the military then maybe you have a leg to stand on, maybe not. People have been sent to die at age 18 for a long time. Telling them they can carry a gun in Iraq but not in their home town is chicken . But I'm ok with not owning a semi-auto rifle or handgun prior to age 21. How many of these shooters were over that age?

"no one wants to grab yer guns" is bull . Plenty do, they just don't have the balls to try to introduce the bill. They want their position of power more than they want any reform. I'm all for banning guns outright. I encouraged it before and will again. Obama didn't do anything in 12 years though, and you know the GOP isn't going to. Who has the balls to actually do it?

The pre-frontal cortex gets tried as an adult at 18.

I've forever been against the minimum age 18 for military service.

The pre-frontal cortex gets tried as an adult at 18.

Science doesn't care about our arbitrary determination of an "adult." That said, I do agree that children who commit heinous acts should be removed from society, arbitrary adult or not. A 12 year old killing his parents because they took away his Xbox probably won't grow up to be a productive adult, so he probably should be committed lifetime to an ins ution.