Rep. Steve King ( R- Iowa). If you have to be 21 for guns then make it 21 for voting!!

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's a more up to date map of mass shootings between the two nations.

Perhaps cartography can come to the rescue. A map is worth a thousand words. And here are two pertinent examples.

First, a map of all mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in 2015, up to and including the deadliest incident so far, the San Bernardino shooting on December 2nd.. That attack claimed the lives of 14 victims and both perpetrators, as well as injuring a further 23 people.

The map was published by The Boston Globe, and is based on data collated by the Mass Shooting Tracker website. MST defines a "mass shooting" as an incident in which at least four people are shot. By that definition, the U.S. has experienced 353 mass shootings this year, resulting in 462 fatalities and 1,312 people injured (2).

The opacity of the red blobs on the map reflects the geographic density of mass shootings, their size the number of casualties claimed by each. Contrast that with the second map, showing all the mass shootings that have occurred in Australia since 1996.

That's right: none.

There's a reason why 1996 is chosen as the Year Zero for the second map. On 28 April of that year, a lone gunman went on a bloody rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania, killing 35 people and wounding 23. It was the bloodiest shooting spree in Australia’s modern history (3). It was also the last. Shocked by the carnage, the Australian government rapidly enacted strict gun control laws.

So why so focused on mass shootings? The Fla shooter killed 17 people. Chicago does that much or more on a holiday weekend.

Australia has less than one-tenth of our population. The entire country has less than 10 million people than California.

Because people there don't have weapons to protect themselves, other crimes have gone up during the same period from the gun ban forward.

The US ranks 12th in the world for mass murders.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

My goodness,, where to start. Okay......

First of all you can't compare our country with most others. We are a very diverse society, as such, we have groups of people that are much more violent than others. You don't have that in places like Japan and Europe.

Secondly is the fact that our violent (and gun) crimes have been on the decline since the early 90's. It kept dropping up until the Ferguson Effect in 2016. Then police officers stopped being pro-active and only addressed situations they were called out for. Until that time, the drop in violent crime was proportional with states adopting CCW programs and laws that protect the innocent. More people carrying guns.

Thirdly, most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, or areas where a shooter is not in jeopardy of being injured himself. There is a correlation here because many killers just kill themselves once a threat is presented to them. Others just quit shooting and surrender or are caught.

So why you want to use circumstantial evidence like more guns equals more crime, there is stronger evidence to suggest that lack of armed citizens and gun free zones are a larger culprit when it comes to terrible events taking place.

Lastly, based on what you said about your military service, you are a bit older than I. If so, then you know that when we were young, we were considered the drug generation. We walked around with long hair, army jackets, bell bottom pants and we laughed a lot with glassy eyes. Recreational narcotics have been illegal our entire lives, and yet, our drug problem today is the worst in our history with now over 60,000 Americans dying form OD"s every year. In other words, laws don't stop the bad people from getting what they want. Disarm society, and only the criminals and cops will have the guns. I don't want to live in that world.

So America is different because we are a more violent society and so that means we should have more guns? Really? I suggest to you that it's not me that's been brainwashed. The vast majority of Americans want much stricter gun laws and the largest counter to that position is the NRA who keep gun sales high through payola to politicians, and the most blood money by far goes to the GOP. And to equate the drug problem to gun violence is a total non sequitur except to recognize that drug dealers are armed to the teeth. And drug users do more damage to themselves than to others. People are not going around shooting 20 strangers with heroin so they die immediately. It's a silly argument. These students didn't choose to get shot to death because they were hit with a bb and liked the feeling and so it progressed to larger projectiles.
And these mass shootings are just a small part of overall gun violence and fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths. The Japan example and the Aussie example have shown that. .Australia adopted a system of categorizing firearms and assigning different restrictions on who can possess them. They've had good success. Something similar to those two systems may work here but we'll never know unless we try. It's what most Americans want. To feel safe in the street and in their schools and in their places of business. Again, the difference might just be that the NRA has greased so many of the right palms that gun control goes nowhere.

When it comes to contributions, the NRA is at the bottom of the list. They don't contribute all that much money in comparison to other supporters of either party. The NRA is the boogie man the Democrats created. They had nothing to do with the last mass shooting, the one before that, or the one before that.

So why are the libs attacking the NRA? Because the NRA represents millions of Americans; Americans that value our constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm. And since the Democrats hate the constitution and American rights, it's better to attack the largest gun organization instead of making a mistake with another "deplorable" remark that likely cost them the White House. Again..... the NRA nonsense is more brainwashing.

The point I make about recreational narcotics is that the people who want them bad enough will get them no matter how many laws we create. I don't know where to get crack or heroin, but I don't deal with it either. The people who want crack and heroin? They can get it in two hours. The same would hold with guns if the leftists were ever able to rip that right away from us. You are not going to disarm the criminal. It will never happen.

In Australia, there is no concrete proof that their confiscation worked. Here's the chart showing what happened in the US compared too what happened in Australia when they instituted the ban:

View attachment 185683

Now if the gun ban worked, why did it take six years to see any results? In the meantime, the US surpassed Australia in lowering the homicide rate with all our guns.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

Why did you stop that chart in 2004? Curious.

It's the only one I can find.

 

[Wickerthing]

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

My goodness,, where to start. Okay......

First of all you can't compare our country with most others. We are a very diverse society, as such, we have groups of people that are much more violent than others. You don't have that in places like Japan and Europe.

Secondly is the fact that our violent (and gun) crimes have been on the decline since the early 90's. It kept dropping up until the Ferguson Effect in 2016. Then police officers stopped being pro-active and only addressed situations they were called out for. Until that time, the drop in violent crime was proportional with states adopting CCW programs and laws that protect the innocent. More people carrying guns.

Thirdly, most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, or areas where a shooter is not in jeopardy of being injured himself. There is a correlation here because many killers just kill themselves once a threat is presented to them. Others just quit shooting and surrender or are caught.

So why you want to use circumstantial evidence like more guns equals more crime, there is stronger evidence to suggest that lack of armed citizens and gun free zones are a larger culprit when it comes to terrible events taking place.

Lastly, based on what you said about your military service, you are a bit older than I. If so, then you know that when we were young, we were considered the drug generation. We walked around with long hair, army jackets, bell bottom pants and we laughed a lot with glassy eyes. Recreational narcotics have been illegal our entire lives, and yet, our drug problem today is the worst in our history with now over 60,000 Americans dying form OD"s every year. In other words, laws don't stop the bad people from getting what they want. Disarm society, and only the criminals and cops will have the guns. I don't want to live in that world.

So America is different because we are a more violent society and so that means we should have more guns? Really? I suggest to you that it's not me that's been brainwashed. The vast majority of Americans want much stricter gun laws and the largest counter to that position is the NRA who keep gun sales high through payola to politicians, and the most blood money by far goes to the GOP. And to equate the drug problem to gun violence is a total non sequitur except to recognize that drug dealers are armed to the teeth. And drug users do more damage to themselves than to others. People are not going around shooting 20 strangers with heroin so they die immediately. It's a silly argument. These students didn't choose to get shot to death because they were hit with a bb and liked the feeling and so it progressed to larger projectiles.
And these mass shootings are just a small part of overall gun violence and fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths. The Japan example and the Aussie example have shown that. .Australia adopted a system of categorizing firearms and assigning different restrictions on who can possess them. They've had good success. Something similar to those two systems may work here but we'll never know unless we try. It's what most Americans want. To feel safe in the street and in their schools and in their places of business. Again, the difference might just be that the NRA has greased so many of the right palms that gun control goes nowhere.

When it comes to contributions, the NRA is at the bottom of the list. They don't contribute all that much money in comparison to other supporters of either party. The NRA is the boogie man the Democrats created. They had nothing to do with the last mass shooting, the one before that, or the one before that.

So why are the libs attacking the NRA? Because the NRA represents millions of Americans; Americans that value our constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm. And since the Democrats hate the constitution and American rights, it's better to attack the largest gun organization instead of making a mistake with another "deplorable" remark that likely cost them the White House. Again..... the NRA nonsense is more brainwashing.

The point I make about recreational narcotics is that the people who want them bad enough will get them no matter how many laws we create. I don't know where to get crack or heroin, but I don't deal with it either. The people who want crack and heroin? They can get it in two hours. The same would hold with guns if the leftists were ever able to rip that right away from us. You are not going to disarm the criminal. It will never happen.

In Australia, there is no concrete proof that their confiscation worked. Here's the chart showing what happened in the US compared too what happened in Australia when they instituted the ban:

View attachment 185683

Now if the gun ban worked, why did it take six years to see any results? In the meantime, the US surpassed Australia in lowering the homicide rate with all our guns.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

Why did you stop that chart in 2004? Curious.

It's the only one I can find.

And as it shows, the US is in a period of rising homicides at the end of that chart and Australia's numbers are in rapid decline. The chart terminates just as the two lines are about to converge. And the trend is quite clear.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My goodness,, where to start. Okay......

First of all you can't compare our country with most others. We are a very diverse society, as such, we have groups of people that are much more violent than others. You don't have that in places like Japan and Europe.

Secondly is the fact that our violent (and gun) crimes have been on the decline since the early 90's. It kept dropping up until the Ferguson Effect in 2016. Then police officers stopped being pro-active and only addressed situations they were called out for. Until that time, the drop in violent crime was proportional with states adopting CCW programs and laws that protect the innocent. More people carrying guns.

Thirdly, most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, or areas where a shooter is not in jeopardy of being injured himself. There is a correlation here because many killers just kill themselves once a threat is presented to them. Others just quit shooting and surrender or are caught.

So why you want to use circumstantial evidence like more guns equals more crime, there is stronger evidence to suggest that lack of armed citizens and gun free zones are a larger culprit when it comes to terrible events taking place.

Lastly, based on what you said about your military service, you are a bit older than I. If so, then you know that when we were young, we were considered the drug generation. We walked around with long hair, army jackets, bell bottom pants and we laughed a lot with glassy eyes. Recreational narcotics have been illegal our entire lives, and yet, our drug problem today is the worst in our history with now over 60,000 Americans dying form OD"s every year. In other words, laws don't stop the bad people from getting what they want. Disarm society, and only the criminals and cops will have the guns. I don't want to live in that world.

So America is different because we are a more violent society and so that means we should have more guns? Really? I suggest to you that it's not me that's been brainwashed. The vast majority of Americans want much stricter gun laws and the largest counter to that position is the NRA who keep gun sales high through payola to politicians, and the most blood money by far goes to the GOP. And to equate the drug problem to gun violence is a total non sequitur except to recognize that drug dealers are armed to the teeth. And drug users do more damage to themselves than to others. People are not going around shooting 20 strangers with heroin so they die immediately. It's a silly argument. These students didn't choose to get shot to death because they were hit with a bb and liked the feeling and so it progressed to larger projectiles.
And these mass shootings are just a small part of overall gun violence and fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths. The Japan example and the Aussie example have shown that. .Australia adopted a system of categorizing firearms and assigning different restrictions on who can possess them. They've had good success. Something similar to those two systems may work here but we'll never know unless we try. It's what most Americans want. To feel safe in the street and in their schools and in their places of business. Again, the difference might just be that the NRA has greased so many of the right palms that gun control goes nowhere.

When it comes to contributions, the NRA is at the bottom of the list. They don't contribute all that much money in comparison to other supporters of either party. The NRA is the boogie man the Democrats created. They had nothing to do with the last mass shooting, the one before that, or the one before that.

So why are the libs attacking the NRA? Because the NRA represents millions of Americans; Americans that value our constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm. And since the Democrats hate the constitution and American rights, it's better to attack the largest gun organization instead of making a mistake with another "deplorable" remark that likely cost them the White House. Again..... the NRA nonsense is more brainwashing.

The point I make about recreational narcotics is that the people who want them bad enough will get them no matter how many laws we create. I don't know where to get crack or heroin, but I don't deal with it either. The people who want crack and heroin? They can get it in two hours. The same would hold with guns if the leftists were ever able to rip that right away from us. You are not going to disarm the criminal. It will never happen.

In Australia, there is no concrete proof that their confiscation worked. Here's the chart showing what happened in the US compared too what happened in Australia when they instituted the ban:

View attachment 185683

Now if the gun ban worked, why did it take six years to see any results? In the meantime, the US surpassed Australia in lowering the homicide rate with all our guns.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

Why did you stop that chart in 2004? Curious.

It's the only one I can find.

And as it shows, the US is in a period of rising homicides at the end of that chart and Australia's numbers are in rapid decline. The chart terminates just as the two lines are about to converge. And the trend is quite clear.

What is shows is that in spite of our growing gun population, murders went down. So it really has nothing to do with the guns. After Australia took the guns away from their citizens, murders went up. So there is no direct correlation between guns and murder. If you read the article in the link I provided, Great Britain experienced similar problems.

In general, we do have many more shootings than other countries. But using various other data, we have more violent crime as well.

The point: It's the people and not the guns.

 

[Wickerthing]

So America is different because we are a more violent society and so that means we should have more guns? Really? I suggest to you that it's not me that's been brainwashed. The vast majority of Americans want much stricter gun laws and the largest counter to that position is the NRA who keep gun sales high through payola to politicians, and the most blood money by far goes to the GOP. And to equate the drug problem to gun violence is a total non sequitur except to recognize that drug dealers are armed to the teeth. And drug users do more damage to themselves than to others. People are not going around shooting 20 strangers with heroin so they die immediately. It's a silly argument. These students didn't choose to get shot to death because they were hit with a bb and liked the feeling and so it progressed to larger projectiles.
And these mass shootings are just a small part of overall gun violence and fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths. The Japan example and the Aussie example have shown that. .Australia adopted a system of categorizing firearms and assigning different restrictions on who can possess them. They've had good success. Something similar to those two systems may work here but we'll never know unless we try. It's what most Americans want. To feel safe in the street and in their schools and in their places of business. Again, the difference might just be that the NRA has greased so many of the right palms that gun control goes nowhere.

When it comes to contributions, the NRA is at the bottom of the list. They don't contribute all that much money in comparison to other supporters of either party. The NRA is the boogie man the Democrats created. They had nothing to do with the last mass shooting, the one before that, or the one before that.

So why are the libs attacking the NRA? Because the NRA represents millions of Americans; Americans that value our constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm. And since the Democrats hate the constitution and American rights, it's better to attack the largest gun organization instead of making a mistake with another "deplorable" remark that likely cost them the White House. Again..... the NRA nonsense is more brainwashing.

The point I make about recreational narcotics is that the people who want them bad enough will get them no matter how many laws we create. I don't know where to get crack or heroin, but I don't deal with it either. The people who want crack and heroin? They can get it in two hours. The same would hold with guns if the leftists were ever able to rip that right away from us. You are not going to disarm the criminal. It will never happen.

In Australia, there is no concrete proof that their confiscation worked. Here's the chart showing what happened in the US compared too what happened in Australia when they instituted the ban:

View attachment 185683

Now if the gun ban worked, why did it take six years to see any results? In the meantime, the US surpassed Australia in lowering the homicide rate with all our guns.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

Why did you stop that chart in 2004? Curious.

It's the only one I can find.

And as it shows, the US is in a period of rising homicides at the end of that chart and Australia's numbers are in rapid decline. The chart terminates just as the two lines are about to converge. And the trend is quite clear.

What is shows is that in spite of our growing gun population, murders went down. So it really has nothing to do with the guns. After Australia took the guns away from their citizens, murders went up. So there is no direct correlation between guns and murder. If you read the article in the link I provided, Great Britain experienced similar problems.

In general, we do have many more shootings than other countries. But using various other data, we have more violent crime as well.

The point: It's the people and not the guns.

I could show you at least a half dozen sites that dispel that Aussie gun violence went up after the 1996 crackdown but you'll not be convinced so I'll leave it there. Thanks for the honest debate. On this site, that's quite unusual.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And you are a naive follower of a third rate con man. And you have no thoughts of your own outside of the party line that you keep repeating over and over. And that denial of my service is another one of those kneejerk talking points you live by. I'm an America hater? What have you ever done to serve this country? I fought in Vietnam and gave my right leg in battle so that you are free to spout your hogwash. You're welcome.

HAHAHA. Now that proves you're full of it. You didn't lose a leg in Nam and even if you did, there is no way to prove it on the internet. People who say crap like that are always lying.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

How many of our gun homicides are black on black meaning thug on thug? There are thousands of them and that is good news.

Stay away from black men and there is little chance of being shot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many of our gun homicides are black on black meaning thug on thug? There are thousands of them and that is good news.

Stay away from black men and there is little chance of being shot.

And how would one do that?

 

[Wickerthing]

And you are a naive follower of a third rate con man. And you have no thoughts of your own outside of the party line that you keep repeating over and over. And that denial of my service is another one of those kneejerk talking points you live by. I'm an America hater? What have you ever done to serve this country? I fought in Vietnam and gave my right leg in battle so that you are free to spout your hogwash. You're welcome.

HAHAHA. Now that proves you're full of it. You didn't lose a leg in Nam and even if you did, there is no way to prove it on the internet. People who say crap like that are always lying.

I don't need you to approve of what I say. I'd much rather that you didn't believe me. Anything that separates us in any way is a good thing. You're just one of many who've been sold a bill of goods by a flim flam man. A racist who has found his messiah in Trump and in Trumpism. Maybe people in your world are like Trump and lie with every exhale but some folks tell the truth. So, the fact that you don't believe me is very comforting. It's another bit of separation between the truth and those who wouldn't recognize it if it sat on their head.