334 days and 351 U.S. mass shootings in 2015

[Tropico 4,145]

2 hours ago, ajhuffman219 said:

1 hour ago, ajhuffman219 said:

 

Attitudes like this are why I am slowly distancing myself from brainwashed liberals. So pathetic!  

 

It was just a question. Why so mad?

[MonsterOfSpain 8,331]

2 hours ago, ajhuffman219 said:

To outright ban all guns is a ridiculous notion. What do you propose to do with people who are responsible gun owners? And yes, there ARE responsible gun owners; my dad, brother, and grandfather are prime examples. You can't just ban something because it makes YOU (and most other liberals) uncomfortable. That's not how you solve problems, its how you create them. 

Do you REALLY need them though? Nobody I know has a gun, and they never needed a situation when they would need one. Europeans don't have guns under their mattresses and they do OK. There is a need to change the mentality more than anything. You can be perfectly safe without a gun.

[Didymus 34,380]

10 minutes ago, MonsterOfSpain said:

You can be perfectly safe without a gun.

It's not just about safety.

I just think it's dodgy. I mean, we'd still need hunters, we'd still need weapons for the army, we'd still need arms for security guards etc. so there will always be guns around, which means that there will always be an underground gun circuit. It's just not that easy.

And I agree with Luiz (not sure if he wants to extend it as far as I do though) that there are plenty of things we don't need that are actually dangerous, though they're not the target of scrutiny. Alcohol indeed is the most obvious example. You could even go so far to say that money is the ultimate motivator for violence and the idea that we don't really need money is very defendable in theory.

But imagine if guns ànd alcohol ànd cars were forbidden due to (defendable) safety reasons, everyone would be up in arms and protesting. Because in the end it's not about what people need, it's about what they want. And I do think it's horribly unfair that gun owners aren't taken seriously most of the time while people who would hold on strong to their "right" to consume alcohol, to drive cars etc. if those were banned would get mass sympathy. It makes no sense, it's not consistent and therefore this whole gun issue is corrupted with hypocritical concerns from all sides.

[AJH219 4,448]

16 minutes ago, Didymus said:

It's not just about safety.

I just think it's dodgy. I mean, we'd still need hunters, we'd still need weapons for the army, we'd still need arms for security guards etc. so there will always be guns around, which means that there will always be an underground gun circuit. It's just not that easy.

And I agree with Luiz (not sure if he wants to extend it as far as I do though) that there are plenty of things we don't need that are actually dangerous, though they're not the target of scrutiny. Alcohol indeed is the most obvious example. You could even go so far to say that money is the ultimate motivator for violence and the idea that we don't really need money is very defendable in theory.

But imagine if guns ànd alcohol ànd cars were forbidden due to (defendable) safety reasons, everyone would be up in arms and protesting. Because in the end it's not about what people need, it's about what they want. And I do think it's horribly unfair that gun owners aren't taken seriously most of the time while people who would hold on strong to their "right" to consume alcohol, to drive cars etc. if those were banned would get mass sympathy. It makes no sense, it's not consistent and therefore this whole gun issue is corrupted with hypocritical concerns from all sides.

You explained what I wanted to say better than I ever could have. 

Edited for a second thought: I also just want to point out that I grew up in south eastern North Carolina, one of the most rural/conservative parts of the state. Guns were everywhere (not literally, but you get the point) and no one went on weekly killing sprees. The problem at hand isn't so much about guns per say, its about psychos who do not or choose not to understand the value of human life. 

[Qualle1 1,385]

How many casualties did these 351 mass shootings cause?

 

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, Qualle1 said:

How many casualties did these 351 mass shootings cause?

There's no number for it in the source, but since to even apply for the term "mass shooting" you have to have at least four people injured or killed: at the very LEAST, 1.404 people got injured.

[ctherainbow 3,162]

This is really sad.    

That being said, I can guarantee people will use this to indicate that gun violence perpetrated against average Americans is out of control.  I'd like to know how many of these "mass shootings"(which totally suggests shootings against unarmed, innocent bystanders) were actually gun battles between rival gangs, family/group murders in which the victims also had weapons, or targeted family/group murders in which the perp was shot by police.  I couldn't access Reddit to check up on their exact guidelines for what they considered a "mass shooting", but if the guideline is only that four or more people were shot, and that the shooter was also injured, then these were clearly not all cases in which your average Joe was gunned down on the street by a deranged shooter.

Also, come on, Washington Post, since when is Reddit a reliable news source?    

[Goosey 3,017]

The Reddit tracker is not a reliable source.

[MonsterOfSpain 8,331]

2 hours ago, Didymus said:

It's not just about safety.

I just think it's dodgy. I mean, we'd still need hunters, we'd still need weapons for the army, we'd still need arms for security guards etc. so there will always be guns around, which means that there will always be an underground gun circuit. It's just not that easy.

And I agree with Luiz (not sure if he wants to extend it as far as I do though) that there are plenty of things we don't need that are actually dangerous, though they're not the target of scrutiny. Alcohol indeed is the most obvious example. You could even go so far to say that money is the ultimate motivator for violence and the idea that we don't really need money is very defendable in theory.

But imagine if guns ànd alcohol ànd cars were forbidden due to (defendable) safety reasons, everyone would be up in arms and protesting. Because in the end it's not about what people need, it's about what they want. And I do think it's horribly unfair that gun owners aren't taken seriously most of the time while people who would hold on strong to their "right" to consume alcohol, to drive cars etc. if those were banned would get mass sympathy. It makes no sense, it's not consistent and therefore this whole gun issue is corrupted with hypocritical concerns from all sides.

That essay has nothing to do with what I said lol. Of course arms wouldn't disappear, my whole point is that ordinary citizens don't need to have a gun, and the government's strategy should be trying to convince them of so. 

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, MonsterOfSpain said:

That essay has nothing to do with what I said lol. Of course arms wouldn't disappear, my whole point is that ordinary citizens don't need to have a gun, and the government's strategy should be trying to convince them of so. 

I think it does.. your argument is that people shouldn't have guns because they're dangerous and they don't need them. The same argument applies for the examples I mentioned. How does that not apply?

[Goosey 3,017]

2 hours ago, MonsterOfSpain said:

Do you REALLY need them though? Nobody I know has a gun, and they never needed a situation when they would need one. Europeans don't have guns under their mattresses and they do OK. There is a need to change the mentality more than anything. You can be perfectly safe without a gun.

You have tons of guns in your country. You give them to agents of the state.

[MonsterOfSpain 8,331]

Just now, Goosey said:

You have tons of guns in your country. You give them to agents of the state.

But I don't disagree with that! Did you even read my last post? I've left pretty clear that guns ARE necessary, but not for ordinary citizens. It's a pretty obvious thing for me, and I would say 99% of Europeans citizens agree with my statement.

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, MonsterOfSpain said:

But I don't disagree with that! Did you even read my last post? I've left pretty clear that guns ARE necessary, but not for ordinary citizens. It's a pretty obvious thing for me, and I would say 99% of Europeans citizens agree with my statement.

But are you ever gonna reply to the counterarguments though? If it's all for safety, at least alcohol and cars should be banned from ordinary citizen life as well but I doubt you'd agree with that. That's the whole problem with this anti-gun rhetoric: it makes no sense.

[MonsterOfSpain 8,331]

4 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I think it does.. your argument is that people shouldn't have guns because they're dangerous and they don't need them. The same argument applies for the examples I mentioned. How does that not apply?

I think comparisons between guns and alcohol or cars are stupid and demagogue. Are you saying that you'd be equally outraged with people shooting on the streets than with people drinking or driving?

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, MonsterOfSpain said:

I think comparisons between guns and alcohol or cars are stupid and demagogue. Are you saying that you'd be equally outraged with people shooting on the streets than with people drinking or driving?

I'm saying that if guns should be banned for safety reasons, it's idiotic to ignore glorified cultural products that actually cause more damage.