Another US Campus mass shooting.

[creampuff]

doogz said:

That survival page is mental.

Don't laugh. 22LR ammo is the new currency. You cannot buy it in Walmart any more because it is permanently sold out.
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/outdoors/2015/01...

You can buy goods or services with ammo.
http://www.vocativ.com/money/industry/gun-ammo-new...

[creampuff]

cookie118 said:

Number 1 pays for number 2?

I'm trying to get away from the idea of ban them or take them, so why not buy them? And as above you've got to start somewhere!

OK, I don't agree with your idea, but at least you have come up with an idea which doesn't involve just laughing at fat Americans while telling them they are dumbasses, which is a substantial improvement on the rest of this thread.

Say you have a handgun which currently sells for $500, which is a typical handgun price. You jack the price to $2000 by taxing it, which means the government gets $1500 in revenue. This reduces the number of people who can afford to buy one.

You then also offer to buy back that same model of handgun for $4000, double what it costs to buy it. The govt is down $2500 on the whole trade, assuming the government also destroys the handgun so it has no residual value.

What stops people from doing an arbitrage, just buying one then selling it. If you impose a minimum period of ownership to stop this from happening, then that will just encourage those who can afford the upfront payment to buy a "handgun bond" They buy a handgun for $2000, put it under the bed, then sell it to the government after 5 years or whatever the minimum ownership period is for $4000. Not a bad rate of return and guaranteed by the US Government.

I'd buy loads of guns!!!

Edited by creampuff on Monday 5th October 21:00

[Oakey]

Every time someone suggests something the pro gun people just tell you it won't work or it'd be too hard to implement so it isn't worth trying.

The message is clearly that anything other than things remaining as they currently are regards to guns is out of the question.

Don't want an outright ban, don't want registration, don't want to limit the availability of firearms or ammo, etc, etc.

[creampuff]

La Liga said:

t's a shame you didn't show such statistical diligence when you declared knife crime was on the rise in the UK.

I don't believe I did, though I'm disinclined to read back over the last 10 pages to remind myself what I did say. I believe it was along the lines of 10 teenagers have already died due to knife crime so far this year in London, which seams like a lot to me given that everyone seems qualified to tell what Americans to do when teenagers are also randomly stabbing each other in London.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

cookie118 said:

Number 1 pays for number 2?

I'm trying to get away from the idea of ban them or take them, so why not buy them? And as above you've got to start somewhere!

OK, I don't agree with your idea, but at least you have come up with an idea which doesn't involve just laughing at fat Americans while telling them they are dumbasses, which is a substantial improvement on the rest of this thread.

Say you have a handgun which currently sells for $500, which is a typical handgun price. You jack the price to $2000 by taxing it, which means the government gets $1500 in revenue. This reduces the number of people who can afford to buy one.

You then also offer to buy back that same model of handgun for $4000, double what it costs to buy it.

What stops people from doing an arbitrage, just buying one then selling it. If you impose a minimum period of ownership to stop this from happening, then that will just encourage those who can afford the upfront payment to buy a "handgun bond" They buy a handgun for $2000, put it under the bed, then sell it to the government after 5 years or whatever the minimum ownership period is. Not a bad rate of return and guaranteed by the US Government.

I'd buy loads of guns!!!

I hadn't thought of that!

If you set a deadline when it was to be implemented though-i.e only guns manfactured before 1/1/2016 can be bought back? You might have some people stockpiling before implementation but it would stop the investment in new guns scenario mentioned above.

Even if you didn't want to remove/limit all guns or ammo you could still implement something similar-i.e targeting large magazines (say over 6-maybe with an incremental tax on magazines so every extra round capacity costs you a lot) and buying back large capacity magazines at well above market value-restricting access to the 30 odd round magazines you can get at the moment.

[Sway]

creampuff said:

> Cause for celebration?

No, just to note there are other places with the same problem, even if it is funny to laugh at fat stupid Americans but not at Finns.

The number of mass shootings in the US has increased, without any real increase in the number of guns or any significant changes in gun laws. This suggests that something can be done about it and since the increase was not related to more guns, a decrease in mass shooting can be achieved without changing any laws and without disarming ordinary peaceful gun owners.

The Finns have an usual context.

For a significant part of the year, there is no real daylight. Seasonal depression is massive. There are also large swathes where there is the square root of feck all to do, particularly in winter. Add in legitimate reasons for keeping firearms, plus copious vodka and reindeer piss, and you create a fairly perfect storm.

Go there in summer and the place is jumping - I'd hypothesise that summer rates are hugely lower than winter rates.

I can understand where you're coming from with your rationale of a recent increase in America. What would you suggest the reasons are?

There does seem to be an element of 'alpha aggression' within the American psyche - on here and in general there appears to be a resistance to criticism, censure or instruction that often manifests in directly confrontational behaviour. Looking at the 4chan link posted shows lots of abuse, one-upmanship and daring. As though it's an insult to not be 'brave' enough to shoot up a school until shot by cops. The fact that 'suicide by cop' is an actual thing is fairly shocking to me. Taking as many people with you as possible is, as you can tell, rather incredible to us 'meek' Brits.

You've suggested the proposal most on here favour, an increase in regulation, isn't necessary to reduce the rate of these type of incidents.

What do you suggest is done?

[creampuff]

Sway said:

What would you suggest the reasons are?


What do you suggest is done?

I don't know the reasons. Perhaps it is a similar reason to increased numbers of youths in Europe deciding to join ISIS or become otherwise radicalised, which is also a recent phenomenon. Perhaps the internet makes it easy to happen. Perhaps having internet on your phone so you can have constant reading of unsavoury chatrooms is a problem. Young muslim youth do seem to get radicalised in Europe, but not in the United States while in the United States young white Christian youth seem to perpetrate mass shootings while young muslims don't (although there are a lot more white Christians so this may or may not be of significance).

I really think a good starting point would be no more TV shows/movies trivialising killing, guns and violence and the same for video games.

[mike9009]

creampuff said:

I really think a good starting point would be no more TV shows/movies trivialising killing, guns and violence and the same for video games.

I think this is a bit of a red herring. It is regularly trotted out by the NRA.

However, as I mentioned before, a cultural shift is required and this could be a catalystt for change. If you think this alone will reduce gun crime in the US then i am afraid it would be in vain......

Mike

[AJL308]

Oakey said:

Every time someone suggests something the pro gun people just tell you it won't work or it'd be too hard to implement so it isn't worth trying.

The message is clearly that anything other than things remaining as they currently are regards to guns is out of the question.

Don't want an outright ban, don't want registration, don't want to limit the availability of firearms or ammo, etc, etc.

No, they aren't saying that. At least I'm not.

The fact is that legal restrictions simply are not going to work for all the reasons already stated. Anti-gun politicians are quite happy to trott out the same 'ban them all' lines, or similar, safe in the knowledge that it will never happen.

The actual answer is to change American culture; stop people treating other people like st so that they don't feel the need to go about the place shooting people to bits. Stop treating the people who do it like celebrities by sensational reporting of mass shootings. These are all difficult things to accomplish though and, I suspect, aren't things that politicians actually want to face up to as it paints a pretty depressing picture of US society.

[creampuff]

Hmm, just dug up this.
http://www.infowars.com/every-mass-shooting-shares...
"Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used. The overwhelming evidence points to the single largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes."

=

It's for information, I've not researched if accurate or not.

[AJL308]

cookie118 said:

I hadn't thought of that!

If you set a deadline when it was to be implemented though-i.e only guns manfactured before 1/1/2016 can be bought back? You might have some people stockpiling before implementation but it would stop the investment in new guns scenario mentioned above.

Even if you didn't want to remove/limit all guns or ammo you could still implement something similar-i.e targeting large magazines (say over 6-maybe with an incremental tax on magazines so every extra round capacity costs you a lot) and buying back large capacity magazines at well above market value-restricting access to the 30 odd round magazines you can get at the moment.

Well, if you have say, loads of guns which the government is going to pay you much more than they cost to replace then surely you would sell them to the government and buy even more new guns with the money?

Your original idea that number 1 pays for number 2 couldn't possibly work as your whole stated intention of number 1 was to hugely reduce the number of firearms sold in the first place.

Magazine capacity is a red herring. Large magazines don't really make guns more deadly because you just carry more of them and they are easy to swap.

On another note; people always refer to these things as 'buybacks'. I've always wondered where that started as the government never owned them in the first place.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

La Liga said:

t's a shame you didn't show such statistical diligence when you declared knife crime was on the rise in the UK.

I don't believe I did, though I'm disinclined to read back over the last 10 pages to remind myself what I did say. I believe it was along the lines of 10 teenagers have already died due to knife crime so far this year in London, which seams like a lot to me given that everyone seems qualified to tell what Americans to do when teenagers are also randomly stabbing each other in London.

I'll help you out:

creampuff said:

Nobody likes school shootings. Or any shootings. The UK hasn't done particularly well with stopping kids killing other kids however. I live in London. By my count reading the news, there have been 10 teenage knife deaths so far this year just in London. The population of London is only 8 million. It's a comparable death rate to US school shooting deaths. What are you doing about it? Why are you allowing disaffected youths to go around carrying knives? Why is the the number of knife crimes going up?

La Liga said:

They aren't.

[gavsdavs]

Oakey said:

Every time someone suggests something the pro gun people just tell you it won't work or it'd be too hard to implement so it isn't worth trying.

The message is clearly that anything other than things remaining as they currently are regards to guns is out of the question.

Don't want an outright ban, don't want registration, don't want to limit the availability of firearms or ammo, etc, etc.

Very much this. It happened last month too with the news presenters. Only reasons you couldn't/should' try to control guns.

The will just isn't there. Right to own guns>Individuals.

[durbster]

creampuff said:

Hmm, just dug up this.
http://www.infowars.com/every-mass-shooting-shares...
"Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used. The overwhelming evidence points to the single largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes."

=

It's for information, I've not researched if accurate or not.

Erm, infowars.com? Seriously?

Perhaps have a look round that site first before citing it as a source for anything. It's the kind of extremist batst nutcase stuff you Americans are so good at

[AJL308]

creampuff said:

Hmm, just dug up this.
http://www.infowars.com/every-mass-shooting-shares...
"Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used. The overwhelming evidence points to the single largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes."

=

It's for information, I've not researched if accurate or not.

I've heard similar. The question is - did they do what they did because of the effects of the drugs or the underlying mental illness the drugs were supposed to treat or because of something else.

On a similar note, one of the actors from the Simpsons (forget his name, voiced Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz) was shot dead by his wife who was taking Zoloft, apparently. The manufacturers apparently paid out big to the family.

[gavsdavs]

creampuff said:

Hmm, just dug up this.
http://www.infowars.com/every-mass-shooting-shares...
"Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used. The overwhelming evidence points to the single largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes."

=

It's for information, I've not researched if accurate or not.

People with these mental conditions and the drugs being prescribed to them are not unique to the US. They exist around the world.

If you can accept that, then why aren't the same number of gun related deaths the same around the world ?

Maybe you should at least consider the availability of guns to be a factor, instead of searching for something else to blame it on.

(Sorry, should not use the word *you*. I'm addressing every pro-gun american there btw)

[Oakey]

AJL308 said:

On a similar note, one of the actors from the Simpsons (forget his name, voiced Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz) was shot dead by his wife who was taking Zoloft, apparently. The manufacturers apparently paid out big to the family.

Killed with his own gun no less. No doubt for protection.

Also, his wife was high on cocaine at the time.

[creampuff]

La Liga said:

I'll help you out:

La Liga said:

They aren't.

Mmm, I'm sorry I didn't use your peer reviewed journal standards all the time for all my posts and instead in that instance just relied on newspaper articles saying knife crime had gone up; since it is usually in the newspapers where I notice the continual stream of stories of teenagers knifing each other over nothing. It was this article http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/met... showing an 18% rise in knife crime in London. If you think this is the wrong kind of knife like alcohol abuse and drink driving caused the wrong kind of death as in earlier posts, just let me know.

[anonymous-user]

My mistake. When you said it was going up, I didn't realise what you meant it's 'going up' when you filter the data so it selectively shows what you want.

Road deaths have been going down for many years. What I'll do is just look at a county where they went up in specific time period and conclude they are going up.

creampuff said:

If you think this is the wrong kind of knife like alcohol abuse and drink driving caused the wrong kind of death as in earlier posts, just let me know.

Smoke and mirrors and misrepresentation (much like the phallic comparison). The "wrong deaths" slur was already addressed when you were trying to align individual deaths with individuals killing third parties.

La Liga said:

creampuff said:

Unfortunately it is not going to happen and you can see why. All you have is the anti-gun brigade of which there is a good cross section on this thread saying you cannot compare alcohol and guns because for some reason alcohol related deaths are the wrong kind of death.

It's not that they are wrong, it's that they are totally different. They are health-related individual deaths, not killing other people deaths. The same can be said of smoking, obesity, too much sun or other life-style choices, they don't kill other people in great numbers and are often related to necessities such as eating and driving.

creampuff said:

and instead in that instance just relied on newspaper articles.

As any intelligent person would. Because newspaper articles are renowned for their perspective and statistical context.

[rxtx]

AJL308 said:

I've heard similar.

If it was from infowars you can ignore everything, Alex Jones is a complete headcase.