Other countries are a useful comparison because they show that it's easy access to guns - not exposure to video games, the Internet, mental health issues, music and other red herrings - that is unique to America and contributing to our uniquely American problem of the mass murder of random bystanders by armed individuals.
This happened similarly in Houston when a victim killed the wrong person near an ATM. Knowing your backstop and shooting responsibly takes a lot of training. I'm not pro wild west, but I do think we all should have more training as we head to that societal direction.
Neither is the United States. Stop spreading disinformation. The U.S. just recently set a record with apprehensions. I'm not sure what you are getting at? The political system is interested in clicks? How? Maybe, but that's a pretty macro assessment. Making changes at the macro level are fairly difficult.
Because they have successfully dealt with the problem we continue to ignore. No, and neither are we, but I will bet you didn't know that in order to sustain our economy we need MORE immigration because we are having fewer and fewer babies, and within 25 years will not have enough people to sustain our job market. The Red Herring of Immigration is not actually a problem at all, no matter what talking heads say....or it is at most a very minor one. Agree 100% here, our bought and paid for politicians are killing our country, particularly on the right, but both are culpable. We need the fairness in information act brought back and have it include social media. People have proven they don't research the truth, we need to make sure truth matters. Get rid of lobbying, add term limits to congress and the courts and and take back our demorcracy. Yet we don't honor those that serve or prop them up, and think of local government as a joke or an inconvenience. Serving your community should be honored more. This is just wrong, the poor aren't poor because they are lazy. Most of it is systemic in nature, and passed down from the previous generation. You seem to have a very negative view on the human work ethic when I see it as a net positive. The problem is that we have tipped the scales against the worker - when IKE was President and Unions were present and we had pensions, savings and layaways we build the best economy in the world, when Reagan came in and started spreading the MANURE of Trickle down nonsense to the idiot masses we started this decline. Now our government is bought and paid for my big oil, the NRA and the Koch brothers.....it is extremely upside down in the rich's favor, but every time societies have had this issue it has led to revolution and the cutting off of the heads of the rich....I would like to avoid that. Well, if we don't do it, no one else will, so it is best to have our interests represented......or else China or Russia would step into that void. DD
Just a reminder to the die hards committed to keeping full access to weapons of war, three former presidents (two Republicans and one Democrat) penned this to Congress in 1994 in favor of the assault weapons ban. One of the presidents that wrote that was none other than Ronald Reagan (the others being Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter). Even George W Bush supported renewing the ban in 2004. Also on another note, the assault weapons ban in 1994 passed with less than 60 votes. Republicans (and Conservative Democrats) didn't even filibuster the crime bill. Goes to show just how broken Congress is today. We can't even get a background check bill onto the Senate floor without 60 votes now.
Sounds like a pretty good outcome. The robber was shot and thus stopped (and as a result was arrested and charged). The women were hit but did not suffer life-threatening injuries. The victim of the robbery was unscathed. It really depends on how you define mass murder, random bystanders, armed individuals, and unique. Most of the articles that talk about the "uniquely American" nature of this problem are referring back to one study done by Adam Lankford (Lankford Violence & Victims paper.pdf (crimeresearch.org)). John Lott released a more recent study putting America at below the world average. (How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings: U.S. Rate is Lower than Global Average by John R. Lott :: SSRN).
There are still people who say guns don't kill, people do. Sure, guns won't kill as long as people don't have access to them. Heroin and any other drugs, legal or illegal don't kill people either without being used by people.
First off immigration doesn’t really apply because nearly all of the mass shootings have been done by US Citizens. The El Paso mass shooting was specifically targeting immigrants. Other countries certainly have internet cultures in fact several Asian countries have problems with video game and internet addiction. It’s also and odd argument to say that the problem is government handouts for mass shootings when many countries provide much more social services than the US yet has negligible firearm violence compared to the US. As for being the police of the World yes the US does project power more than other countries that doesn’t mean that other countries don’t deploy troops over seas also.
How do you determine it is a good outcome? Wouldn’t a good outcome be that the perpetrator was shot and do you have any basis on whether an LEO Would’ve done better, worse or the same? I read some of that study and will note a couple of things. First off their methodology isn’t the same as Lankford’s so it’s not a direct comparison. They considered number of casualties while Langford only looked at number of shooters. Also given that they stopped at 2012 that wouldn’t include two of the worst mass shootings, the Pulse Nightclub and Las Vegas, that happened since then nore would it include Parkland. Depending on when the data was gathered might not include Sandy Hook as that happened in December of 2012. Also to note that in most discussions of Us compared to other countries regarding masa shootings is primarily limited to discussion of industrialized nations. It is noted that Lankford is mostly limiting his study to English speaking nations. This study includes failed or near failed states like Syria, Afghanistan and Haiti. In those cases yes the US is much better regards shootings but unless you want to consider the US a near failed state it’s not that apt a comparison.
What I meant by the political system and clicks was we have a media (controlled by the government in various ways) pushing agendas to get “clicks” by their followers. I agree making macro changes are very difficult, but it’s getting to the point something has to give. Biden can ban assault rifles (any automatic rifle should be banned IMO), but the next guy can come in and lift the ban.
Immigration absolutely applies and I’m not talking strictly about mass shootings, I’m talking about gun laws. Illegal immigrants kills thousands of U.S. citizens and the drugs they bring in are more deadly. I didn’t say mass shootings are directly a result of government handouts. I’m sure some countries have those handouts and I’m also sure many of those pay half their income to taxes as well. So it’s really not a “handout”.
Not sure what gun laws have to do with immigration. Most studies show that immigrants of any status commit far less crimes than US citizens. For that matter plenty of US Citizens sell and manufacture drugs domestically. also many drugs are imported through other channels than being carried by on the backs of people crossing the border. Not really clear what’s the point of this then.
I 100% agree with the media being driven by click-bait and that had produced a definite decline in their reporting. I don't agree that the media is controlled by government. They are controlled by desire for profit. I am also with you on wanting changes. At the same time I understand when presidents make executive orders. It shows they care. They know it can be reversed. But that is also a by-product of a congress that is more and more partisan.
We shouldn't have laws about drugs. Prohibition causes more problems than it solves. The perpetrator was shot. I am confused by that portion of your question. I stated why it was a good outcome, and part of that was that yes, when the perpetrator was shot, that is part of it being a good outcome. How a law enforcement officer "would've" done is irrelevant, because there was no law enforcement officer there. The options do not include replacing the victim with a cop, they are victim has guns or victim doesn't have guns. In this particular example, I say had guns was better. Lankford also didn't include those data points, because his study also ended in 2012. Lott specifically was criticizing the methodology of Lankford, so not using the same methodology is the point. He is also including places like France and Norway. Both of which have higher per capita mass shooting stats than the United States. Having a more comprehensive data set is good, not bad. Lankford limited his research to English language accounts, which is going to severely bias the results to have lower rates in countries where the bulk of mass media is in a different language (like France, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Israel, etc.).
Did I miss a mething? Who did Hunter shoot and kill? Outrage deflected as usual. When you don't give a damn how safe your kid is, or how many little caskets get filled each day just pull out your Hunter Biden Card, but don't you dare talk about making gun requirements stricter.
