A Perspective on Shootings That Liberals Won't Discuss

[2aguy]

It's worked so well with the drug trade...

Again: Speed limit laws are not meant to prevent ALL speeding. And traffic lights don't prevent ALL accidents that typically happen at the intersections either.

Would you like to see speed limits and traffic lights taken off our roads and highways?

You are welcome.

Your analogy is flawed. Speed limit laws are analogous to murder laws. You have to break them before you chastised.

Gun control laws, you are presumed guilty.

I mean, look at how you talk about gun owners.

You convict them of speeding just for owning a car.

Nope, gun laws are like drug laws, Prevention is the key. All laws, I repeat ALL LAWS, work on the premise that you have to break them befire being punished. Otherwise anyone would walk into your house and arrest you under the presumption you might break some laws.

I do not convict all gun owners at all just as I don't convict all speeding drivers. All I am saying is it's time to curb this bullshit about guns and second amendment. Other people in other countries live just fine without murder weapons on them.

Somehow every gun owner American thinks he's going to be the next Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I see them as potentially the 11PM newsmaker leading story headliner, with their bodies wrapped in a blood soaked white sheet because they got into a gun fight and got hit in the head with a bullet at point blank range.

You really are a goddamned fool if you believe that last paragraph, anyone with a carry permit, like myself, thinks of a firearm as an option of last resort, not the first. There are also a butt load of defensive uses of a gun where it is never fired, the bad guy just knowing a potential victim has one sends him in the other direction. Your theories are really flawed, I suggest you go and get some training, I highly recommend Front Sight in AZ.

Jesus FK! You always think about YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU and YOU!

You may be well trained. But we are not talking about YOU here. There are millions of other gun nut morons here who use guns to kill people. Some use guns recklessly. So please stop proselytizing to me about gun ownership and training.

I don't give a FK how well trained you are. All I am saying is that there's a problem with guns in America. It doesn't matter how much training you've received in the past. What matters is how do we look at the problem comprehensively and solve this crisis? That's where legislation, enforcement and punihsment comes into place.

Gun murders in 2013 via the FBI table 8.....8,454...out of 320 million people, committed mostly by gang members and drug dealers...in small, tiny, geographic areas in big cities.....the rest of the country is as peaceful and probably more peaceful than Europe...

Also, as more Americans carry guns and own them.....11.1 million people carry guns for protection now........OUR GUN MURDER RATE HAS GONE DOWN, not up...so you are wrong....

Accidental gun deaths in 2013 via the CDC........505, out of a country of over 320 million people.....and of the 505, less than 100 are children...so Americans are incredibly responsible gun owners...

You are simply wrong..........there is no gun crisis, there is a criminal culture in our cities that is violent and out of control, but there are guns in over 90 million homes, and only 8,454 murders with guns....again, mostly by criminals in gangs in inner cities....which happen to be run by democrats.....

 

[2aguy]

Funny, that's what they said about the last 20 gun laws, that's what Chicago and DC said when they banned handguns, how'd that work out?

Why would you fine someone for owning a legal product?

Well, too bad, but the fact is that there are many other laws that need to be enforced. If we turn off gun manufacturing and bullet manufacturing then this could stop. There's no will to enforce gun laws or whatever deterrence that works. Banning guns in a small city was never a fool proof soltion. It's like banning unsafe sex in one city but making it legal in the faraway suburbs, No that's not how you control infection. You have to enforce 100% condom usage policy to prevent STDs. Same idea applies here.

You really are a fucking idiot, quit playing word games and speak to the issue or STFU. The fact is there is no way to prevent criminals from getting guns any more than teens can be kept away form alcohol, cigarettes or drugs. So you want to fuck with the people who respect the law.

BTW why don't you answer my questions, you just keep flapping those gums with nothing to contribute.

First of all, I don't give a fuck about your questions and I am not obligated to answer you one bit. But since you decided to act like an asshole, I will tell you this: There are many other countries in this world who enforce gun bans. England, Australia, Japan, Canada to name a few. Too bad fucking morons like yourself never know the facts before they shoot off their ugly mouths.

You must be a real fucking idiot to think that criminals can manufacture their own weapons. How will criminals get weapons once manufacturing stops? If that's the case, why don't we stop all manufacturing of toilet paper and see if you can make some in your home, you fucking idiot. Wanna try that? Fucking moron.

How are the gangs getting automatic weapons now dumbass, they smuggle them in, if we stop manufacturing here, that won't change. BTW none of the countries you mentioned have zero gun crimes, why, criminals smuggle them in. The difference is the population is defenseless.

I never said we can prevent 100% of the crimes. I ve looked at stats and I know that it's much less in countries with gun laws.

I am saying that we've had enough of gun nut morons in America. I don't want anyone else to ddie of gun violence if I can help it

I ve looked at stats and I know that it's much less in countries with gun laws.

And what about the countries with extreme gun control laws and higher gun murder rates than the United STates.......did you look at those stats.....?

I don't want to see anyone else killed by a criminal...and the best way to prevent that is to have a gun....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Arrest criminals caught with guns and put them in jail a long time.....that fixes the problem, they won't want to be caught in possession of a gun, or commit a crime with a gun...that way you focus on the problem...criminals, not law abiding gun owners who don't use guns to break the law.....

As I pointed out, European criminals get guns as easily as our criminals do...even easier since they get fully automatic rifles whenever they want....so their gun laws are no more effective than our gun laws are at Preventing gun violence........

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.


Take rape for example, in the US it's considered to be majorly under reported.

Rape statistics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported. According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime."

In the UK and Europe women are more likely to report rape because there has been a concerted effort to get it reported. And as this is considered violent crime in the UK then it adds to the statistics.

69 000 female 9 000 male rape victims per year visualised get the full data News The Guardian

"Given its nature as an estimate, the figure of 78,000 is perhaps best stated alongside the upper and lower limits of its 95% confidence interval: 60,000 and 95,000 respectively."

So the estimates are for about 78,000 rapes.

In the US "A 2011 report on prison rape by the BJS stated that "in 2008 there were at least 69,800 inmates who were raped under conditions involving force or threat of force, and more than 216,600 total victims of sexual abuse, in America’s prisons, jails, and juvenile detention centers.""

Are any of these reported as violent crime?

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

In fact the NCVS reports rape at 1.3 and the UCR at 0.3 because they only use forcible rape.
Robbery for the NCVS is 2.8 and for the UCR it's 1.1
Aggravated assault for the NCVS is 3.8 and for the UCR it's 2.4

Why the differences? It's all about how things are reported. So violent crime can be whatever you want it to be. Hence why saying that the UK has much higher crimes rates compared to the US is difficult. Certainly there are parts of the US, non-large cities that are incredibly safe, more so than in, say, the UK. However bigger cities in the UK are generally much safer. I've never lived in London and wouldn't want to, nor would I want to live in a big US city. I've seen enough of cities in bother countries, and in other European countries.

So, locking people up works? Doesn't seem to. Diddling the statistics seems to help.... not.

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Actually, it is...we had a 7 year old shot in chicago...his father, a high ranking gang leader was the target. The father was arrested earlier on a gun possession charge, he had over 40 arrests on his record. He was released the day after his arrest on the gun charge. That is the problem...not law abiding people owning and carrying guns.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.

Again...the people in Europe commit less crime of any kind than U.S. criminals do....if you want to talk about drug laws, fine, we can talk about that....but for any criminal using a gun in a crime arresting them and locking them up for a long time reduces the murder rate...or do you just want to let them go....? Also, those societies are homogenous, have similiar income levels across the country, and have more respect for authority and their government...unlike our criminals.

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

Do you realize that Sweden...with their extreme gun control, is the rape capital of Europe.....? did you know that guns are the most effective way for a woman to stop a violent rape...according to all the studies conducted on the subject....? That in Europe, their rape rates are going up as they import immigrants from muslim countries where they see European women as promiscuous and therefore unprotected by sharia......

You want to stop violent crime with guns...so do I. The things you suggest will not accomplish what you say you want. The best way to lower gun vioence short term is to arrest gang members caught with guns and put them in jail a long time...

Another story from chicago...we had a shooting last year at a park...three men.....two of them had been arrested on gun charges and sentenced to 3 years in prison...they pled the charges down to the point they were sent to a "Boot Camp," and were out in about 18 months, they got out and about 30 days later they shot up the park killing several people....

Also.....increase police numbers...in Chicago, we are down 2,000 police officers...but they have enough police to take care of the white, democrat leadership members areas, and not enough for the gang infested neighborhoods.....

That is how you stop gun crime, not by licensing people who don't commit crime, or registering the guns of people who don't commit crime....

You make the claim that it isn't law abiding people owning guns who aren't the problem. The question is, what is law abiding? It's not always what people make it out, the us and them.
Do people not commit crimes for the first time? People who are "law abiding" who then go and commit a crime? Is this not a problem?
What is a problem is that a law abiding person can have their house broken into and their guns stolen because they're not storing the guns correctly, or they've left the gun somewhere, or they are storing it correctly but even that gets found out, or whatever. They can end up with a gun going into the illegal supply chain. Not because they're bad, or because they've done something bad, there is no blame going on here. It's just that guns get into the system quite easily. There are plenty of ways, I'm sure you could use your imagination on this one.

Do I realise that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. Why? Is it because there are more rapes or is it because more rapes are reported?
This is an important issue. Sweden is a very liberal country and women know their rights, and they will report anything. In the US women are far less likely to report their rape.
Does Sweden have higher ACTUAL rape than the USA? Maybe not. We simply don't know.

You say that guns are the best way to deter rape. I'm going to use statistics to prove you massively wrong.

Alaska has the highest rape rate in the country. By a long way. 87.6 per 100,000. Sure, these are stats and I'm not saying I trust them, just making a point.

Let's look at states in the 40s. South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas, Michigan.

I'm going to say that all of those states are places where it's not very difficult to get guns. They're pro-gun states, more or less.

The lowest by far is New York, by quite a way. Again, these are stats, maybe this is not the case. However NY is a place where it's harder to get guns.

Why would the worst places for rape be places where guns are easy to get and the lowest places where guns are harder to get? Do guns stop rape? No, they actually help rape. If a man is going to rape a woman he'd probably do it in a manner where, even if the woman has a gun, she's not going to be able to use it. Whereas the man is in pole position, he can use his gun, and chances are he's got a gun and she doesn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Arrest criminals caught with guns and put them in jail a long time.....that fixes the problem, they won't want to be caught in possession of a gun, or commit a crime with a gun...that way you focus on the problem...criminals, not law abiding gun owners who don't use guns to break the law.....

As I pointed out, European criminals get guns as easily as our criminals do...even easier since they get fully automatic rifles whenever they want....so their gun laws are no more effective than our gun laws are at Preventing gun violence........

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.


Take rape for example, in the US it's considered to be majorly under reported.

Rape statistics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported. According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime."

In the UK and Europe women are more likely to report rape because there has been a concerted effort to get it reported. And as this is considered violent crime in the UK then it adds to the statistics.

69 000 female 9 000 male rape victims per year visualised get the full data News The Guardian

"Given its nature as an estimate, the figure of 78,000 is perhaps best stated alongside the upper and lower limits of its 95% confidence interval: 60,000 and 95,000 respectively."

So the estimates are for about 78,000 rapes.

In the US "A 2011 report on prison rape by the BJS stated that "in 2008 there were at least 69,800 inmates who were raped under conditions involving force or threat of force, and more than 216,600 total victims of sexual abuse, in America’s prisons, jails, and juvenile detention centers.""

Are any of these reported as violent crime?

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

In fact the NCVS reports rape at 1.3 and the UCR at 0.3 because they only use forcible rape.
Robbery for the NCVS is 2.8 and for the UCR it's 1.1
Aggravated assault for the NCVS is 3.8 and for the UCR it's 2.4

Why the differences? It's all about how things are reported. So violent crime can be whatever you want it to be. Hence why saying that the UK has much higher crimes rates compared to the US is difficult. Certainly there are parts of the US, non-large cities that are incredibly safe, more so than in, say, the UK. However bigger cities in the UK are generally much safer. I've never lived in London and wouldn't want to, nor would I want to live in a big US city. I've seen enough of cities in bother countries, and in other European countries.

So, locking people up works? Doesn't seem to. Diddling the statistics seems to help.... not.

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Actually, it is...we had a 7 year old shot in chicago...his father, a high ranking gang leader was the target. The father was arrested earlier on a gun possession charge, he had over 40 arrests on his record. He was released the day after his arrest on the gun charge. That is the problem...not law abiding people owning and carrying guns.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.

Again...the people in Europe commit less crime of any kind than U.S. criminals do....if you want to talk about drug laws, fine, we can talk about that....but for any criminal using a gun in a crime arresting them and locking them up for a long time reduces the murder rate...or do you just want to let them go....? Also, those societies are homogenous, have similiar income levels across the country, and have more respect for authority and their government...unlike our criminals.

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

Do you realize that Sweden...with their extreme gun control, is the rape capital of Europe.....? did you know that guns are the most effective way for a woman to stop a violent rape...according to all the studies conducted on the subject....? That in Europe, their rape rates are going up as they import immigrants from muslim countries where they see European women as promiscuous and therefore unprotected by sharia......

You want to stop violent crime with guns...so do I. The things you suggest will not accomplish what you say you want. The best way to lower gun vioence short term is to arrest gang members caught with guns and put them in jail a long time...

Another story from chicago...we had a shooting last year at a park...three men.....two of them had been arrested on gun charges and sentenced to 3 years in prison...they pled the charges down to the point they were sent to a "Boot Camp," and were out in about 18 months, they got out and about 30 days later they shot up the park killing several people....

Also.....increase police numbers...in Chicago, we are down 2,000 police officers...but they have enough police to take care of the white, democrat leadership members areas, and not enough for the gang infested neighborhoods.....

That is how you stop gun crime, not by licensing people who don't commit crime, or registering the guns of people who don't commit crime....

You make the claim that it isn't law abiding people owning guns who aren't the problem. The question is, what is law abiding? It's not always what people make it out, the us and them.
Do people not commit crimes for the first time? People who are "law abiding" who then go and commit a crime? Is this not a problem?
What is a problem is that a law abiding person can have their house broken into and their guns stolen because they're not storing the guns correctly, or they've left the gun somewhere, or they are storing it correctly but even that gets found out, or whatever. They can end up with a gun going into the illegal supply chain. Not because they're bad, or because they've done something bad, there is no blame going on here. It's just that guns get into the system quite easily. There are plenty of ways, I'm sure you could use your imagination on this one.

Do I realise that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. Why? Is it because there are more rapes or is it because more rapes are reported?
This is an important issue. Sweden is a very liberal country and women know their rights, and they will report anything. In the US women are far less likely to report their rape.
Does Sweden have higher ACTUAL rape than the USA? Maybe not. We simply don't know.

You say that guns are the best way to deter rape. I'm going to use statistics to prove you massively wrong.

Alaska has the highest rape rate in the country. By a long way. 87.6 per 100,000. Sure, these are stats and I'm not saying I trust them, just making a point.

Let's look at states in the 40s. South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas, Michigan.

I'm going to say that all of those states are places where it's not very difficult to get guns. They're pro-gun states, more or less.

The lowest by far is New York, by quite a way. Again, these are stats, maybe this is not the case. However NY is a place where it's harder to get guns.

Why would the worst places for rape be places where guns are easy to get and the lowest places where guns are harder to get? Do guns stop rape? No, they actually help rape. If a man is going to rape a woman he'd probably do it in a manner where, even if the woman has a gun, she's not going to be able to use it. Whereas the man is in pole position, he can use his gun, and chances are he's got a gun and she doesn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then you need to take on the democrat controlled teachers unions who protect the bad teachers and pay off democrat polticians....

Actually, there are more whites in poverty but blacks commit far more crime, they are 13 % of the population but commit about 70-80% of the violent crime....I would say because they have a higher percent of children raised by single teenage moms with no one role modeling civilized, responsible behavior, and that they excuse violent behavior as just a symptom of racism.....as you see whenever a violent black criminal is arrested.

Europeans have more respect for their government because they come from a culture that had Feudalism and royalty.....and that instilled a distinct class system...and keep in mind...they should have less respect for their governments, their governments shipped large numbers of their citizens off to death camps to be murdered..........

Guns are not the issue...our criminal culture is the issue....

Yes, the unions are a pain in the ass. I've seen other countries education systems and they just seem to work, in the US some things work, other things simply don't.

Yes, there are more whites in poverty, more whites in prison. However as a percentage there are more blacks in poverty and more blacks in prison.

A lack of respect exists for a reason, and usually it has to do with governments not treating their people properly. The US govt and politicians seem to have little respect, and also a lot of Americans in general have a lot of disrespect.

Take, for example, native americans. "oh, they're drunks".... well they became this because the US govt destroyed them. They destroyed them on the battlefield, they destroyed them on their land, then when they resettled them they destroyed them again and again. Hardly surprising they became as they did.
Same with black people. After slavery came segregation, better, but still sucked for many, especially in the south. It'd be interesting to see what the rates of crime are for races comparing say, the deep south with New England.

However guns are still an issue and will be an issue unless the US can sort out many of its problems. Because people look simplistically at things. Guns exacerbate the problems that already exist. Hence they are still a problem,

 

[2aguy]

Your analogy is flawed. Speed limit laws are analogous to murder laws. You have to break them before you chastised.

Gun control laws, you are presumed guilty.

I mean, look at how you talk about gun owners.

You convict them of speeding just for owning a car.

Really? What presumption of guilt is made in a background check?

What presumption of guilt is made when a gun must be registered?

For one, felons so not have to register guns....a Supreme Court case said that that would violate their right against self incrimination...

We are against registration because it is the first step to banning or forced turn ins and that has been proven historically.......and criminals won't register their guns...defeating the purpose, and mass shooters will gladly register their guns, then go out and kill lots of people, again defeating your purpose...it is again just a needless layer of paperwork and money against law abiding gun owners......

What is the reason to register gun owners? Again...it is not needed to arrest someone who commits a crime with a gun...right? And it is not needed to arrest a felon who is caught in possession of a gun, right? We can arrest them right now without registration.

If you sell a gun to a felon.....when you catch the felon with a gun...you can arrest that felon..right now, without registration.

Registration is simply the first step to finding out which law abiding citizen has a gun, so they can later be gathered up when the left has the political power to do it.....that is what happened in Germany, Britain and Australia......we are going to keep it from happening here....

The question is, how do you stop guns getting into the hands of criminals? The only way really seems to be to have guns as a rare item. In the US they're just not. People get them easily, so do criminals. To use one isn't such a big deal. You lose one gun, just go get another one.

Until the US can stop this happening then gun violence will still be high. But then some people seem to think this is just great.

Arrest criminals caught with guns and put them in jail a long time.....that fixes the problem, they won't want to be caught in possession of a gun, or commit a crime with a gun...that way you focus on the problem...criminals, not law abiding gun owners who don't use guns to break the law.....

As I pointed out, European criminals get guns as easily as our criminals do...even easier since they get fully automatic rifles whenever they want....so their gun laws are no more effective than our gun laws are at Preventing gun violence........

So it's kind of like there's no point in building a border fence because the illegals will find a way in anyway...

...that sort of reasoning?

No...when they cross the fence you arrest them. It is Also much easier to smuggle a gun into a country that a full size human...they need at least water for the trip......did you see the video of the guy who stashed 17 glock pistols in the center console of his car........and as opposed to gun laws, the border fence works, it works in Israel and it works on our border...where it is up. And getting into our country is not a right for foreigners...........where as guns are a Right for Americans.....

 

[2aguy]

Arrest criminals caught with guns and put them in jail a long time.....that fixes the problem, they won't want to be caught in possession of a gun, or commit a crime with a gun...that way you focus on the problem...criminals, not law abiding gun owners who don't use guns to break the law.....

As I pointed out, European criminals get guns as easily as our criminals do...even easier since they get fully automatic rifles whenever they want....so their gun laws are no more effective than our gun laws are at Preventing gun violence........

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.


Take rape for example, in the US it's considered to be majorly under reported.

Rape statistics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported. According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime."

In the UK and Europe women are more likely to report rape because there has been a concerted effort to get it reported. And as this is considered violent crime in the UK then it adds to the statistics.

69 000 female 9 000 male rape victims per year visualised get the full data News The Guardian

"Given its nature as an estimate, the figure of 78,000 is perhaps best stated alongside the upper and lower limits of its 95% confidence interval: 60,000 and 95,000 respectively."

So the estimates are for about 78,000 rapes.

In the US "A 2011 report on prison rape by the BJS stated that "in 2008 there were at least 69,800 inmates who were raped under conditions involving force or threat of force, and more than 216,600 total victims of sexual abuse, in America’s prisons, jails, and juvenile detention centers.""

Are any of these reported as violent crime?

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

In fact the NCVS reports rape at 1.3 and the UCR at 0.3 because they only use forcible rape.
Robbery for the NCVS is 2.8 and for the UCR it's 1.1
Aggravated assault for the NCVS is 3.8 and for the UCR it's 2.4

Why the differences? It's all about how things are reported. So violent crime can be whatever you want it to be. Hence why saying that the UK has much higher crimes rates compared to the US is difficult. Certainly there are parts of the US, non-large cities that are incredibly safe, more so than in, say, the UK. However bigger cities in the UK are generally much safer. I've never lived in London and wouldn't want to, nor would I want to live in a big US city. I've seen enough of cities in bother countries, and in other European countries.

So, locking people up works? Doesn't seem to. Diddling the statistics seems to help.... not.

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Actually, it is...we had a 7 year old shot in chicago...his father, a high ranking gang leader was the target. The father was arrested earlier on a gun possession charge, he had over 40 arrests on his record. He was released the day after his arrest on the gun charge. That is the problem...not law abiding people owning and carrying guns.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.

Again...the people in Europe commit less crime of any kind than U.S. criminals do....if you want to talk about drug laws, fine, we can talk about that....but for any criminal using a gun in a crime arresting them and locking them up for a long time reduces the murder rate...or do you just want to let them go....? Also, those societies are homogenous, have similiar income levels across the country, and have more respect for authority and their government...unlike our criminals.

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

Do you realize that Sweden...with their extreme gun control, is the rape capital of Europe.....? did you know that guns are the most effective way for a woman to stop a violent rape...according to all the studies conducted on the subject....? That in Europe, their rape rates are going up as they import immigrants from muslim countries where they see European women as promiscuous and therefore unprotected by sharia......

You want to stop violent crime with guns...so do I. The things you suggest will not accomplish what you say you want. The best way to lower gun vioence short term is to arrest gang members caught with guns and put them in jail a long time...

Another story from chicago...we had a shooting last year at a park...three men.....two of them had been arrested on gun charges and sentenced to 3 years in prison...they pled the charges down to the point they were sent to a "Boot Camp," and were out in about 18 months, they got out and about 30 days later they shot up the park killing several people....

Also.....increase police numbers...in Chicago, we are down 2,000 police officers...but they have enough police to take care of the white, democrat leadership members areas, and not enough for the gang infested neighborhoods.....

That is how you stop gun crime, not by licensing people who don't commit crime, or registering the guns of people who don't commit crime....

You make the claim that it isn't law abiding people owning guns who aren't the problem. The question is, what is law abiding? It's not always what people make it out, the us and them.
Do people not commit crimes for the first time? People who are "law abiding" who then go and commit a crime? Is this not a problem?
What is a problem is that a law abiding person can have their house broken into and their guns stolen because they're not storing the guns correctly, or they've left the gun somewhere, or they are storing it correctly but even that gets found out, or whatever. They can end up with a gun going into the illegal supply chain. Not because they're bad, or because they've done something bad, there is no blame going on here. It's just that guns get into the system quite easily. There are plenty of ways, I'm sure you could use your imagination on this one.

Do I realise that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. Why? Is it because there are more rapes or is it because more rapes are reported?
This is an important issue. Sweden is a very liberal country and women know their rights, and they will report anything. In the US women are far less likely to report their rape.
Does Sweden have higher ACTUAL rape than the USA? Maybe not. We simply don't know.

You say that guns are the best way to deter rape. I'm going to use statistics to prove you massively wrong.

Alaska has the highest rape rate in the country. By a long way. 87.6 per 100,000. Sure, these are stats and I'm not saying I trust them, just making a point.

Let's look at states in the 40s. South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas, Michigan.

I'm going to say that all of those states are places where it's not very difficult to get guns. They're pro-gun states, more or less.

The lowest by far is New York, by quite a way. Again, these are stats, maybe this is not the case. However NY is a place where it's harder to get guns.

Why would the worst places for rape be places where guns are easy to get and the lowest places where guns are harder to get? Do guns stop rape? No, they actually help rape. If a man is going to rape a woman he'd probably do it in a manner where, even if the woman has a gun, she's not going to be able to use it. Whereas the man is in pole position, he can use his gun, and chances are he's got a gun and she doesn't.

Yes....guns are the best way for a woman to fight off a violent rapist...bar none.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

********************

So, again a woman's best chance for stopping the rape and ultimately surviving the situation is to use a gun.....

***********************

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

And for 19.95 you can read Southwick's 2000 study on guns that talk about rape.....

Self-defense with guns The consequences

This one gives the actual percentages of how rapes are stopped...guns come out on top...

http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i4/jalt07i4p99.pdf

 

[2aguy]

Arrest criminals caught with guns and put them in jail a long time.....that fixes the problem, they won't want to be caught in possession of a gun, or commit a crime with a gun...that way you focus on the problem...criminals, not law abiding gun owners who don't use guns to break the law.....

As I pointed out, European criminals get guns as easily as our criminals do...even easier since they get fully automatic rifles whenever they want....so their gun laws are no more effective than our gun laws are at Preventing gun violence........

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.


Take rape for example, in the US it's considered to be majorly under reported.

Rape statistics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported. According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime."

In the UK and Europe women are more likely to report rape because there has been a concerted effort to get it reported. And as this is considered violent crime in the UK then it adds to the statistics.

69 000 female 9 000 male rape victims per year visualised get the full data News The Guardian

"Given its nature as an estimate, the figure of 78,000 is perhaps best stated alongside the upper and lower limits of its 95% confidence interval: 60,000 and 95,000 respectively."

So the estimates are for about 78,000 rapes.

In the US "A 2011 report on prison rape by the BJS stated that "in 2008 there were at least 69,800 inmates who were raped under conditions involving force or threat of force, and more than 216,600 total victims of sexual abuse, in America’s prisons, jails, and juvenile detention centers.""

Are any of these reported as violent crime?

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

In fact the NCVS reports rape at 1.3 and the UCR at 0.3 because they only use forcible rape.
Robbery for the NCVS is 2.8 and for the UCR it's 1.1
Aggravated assault for the NCVS is 3.8 and for the UCR it's 2.4

Why the differences? It's all about how things are reported. So violent crime can be whatever you want it to be. Hence why saying that the UK has much higher crimes rates compared to the US is difficult. Certainly there are parts of the US, non-large cities that are incredibly safe, more so than in, say, the UK. However bigger cities in the UK are generally much safer. I've never lived in London and wouldn't want to, nor would I want to live in a big US city. I've seen enough of cities in bother countries, and in other European countries.

So, locking people up works? Doesn't seem to. Diddling the statistics seems to help.... not.

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Actually, it is...we had a 7 year old shot in chicago...his father, a high ranking gang leader was the target. The father was arrested earlier on a gun possession charge, he had over 40 arrests on his record. He was released the day after his arrest on the gun charge. That is the problem...not law abiding people owning and carrying guns.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.

Again...the people in Europe commit less crime of any kind than U.S. criminals do....if you want to talk about drug laws, fine, we can talk about that....but for any criminal using a gun in a crime arresting them and locking them up for a long time reduces the murder rate...or do you just want to let them go....? Also, those societies are homogenous, have similiar income levels across the country, and have more respect for authority and their government...unlike our criminals.

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

Do you realize that Sweden...with their extreme gun control, is the rape capital of Europe.....? did you know that guns are the most effective way for a woman to stop a violent rape...according to all the studies conducted on the subject....? That in Europe, their rape rates are going up as they import immigrants from muslim countries where they see European women as promiscuous and therefore unprotected by sharia......

You want to stop violent crime with guns...so do I. The things you suggest will not accomplish what you say you want. The best way to lower gun vioence short term is to arrest gang members caught with guns and put them in jail a long time...

Another story from chicago...we had a shooting last year at a park...three men.....two of them had been arrested on gun charges and sentenced to 3 years in prison...they pled the charges down to the point they were sent to a "Boot Camp," and were out in about 18 months, they got out and about 30 days later they shot up the park killing several people....

Also.....increase police numbers...in Chicago, we are down 2,000 police officers...but they have enough police to take care of the white, democrat leadership members areas, and not enough for the gang infested neighborhoods.....

That is how you stop gun crime, not by licensing people who don't commit crime, or registering the guns of people who don't commit crime....

You make the claim that it isn't law abiding people owning guns who aren't the problem. The question is, what is law abiding? It's not always what people make it out, the us and them.
Do people not commit crimes for the first time? People who are "law abiding" who then go and commit a crime? Is this not a problem?
What is a problem is that a law abiding person can have their house broken into and their guns stolen because they're not storing the guns correctly, or they've left the gun somewhere, or they are storing it correctly but even that gets found out, or whatever. They can end up with a gun going into the illegal supply chain. Not because they're bad, or because they've done something bad, there is no blame going on here. It's just that guns get into the system quite easily. There are plenty of ways, I'm sure you could use your imagination on this one.

Do I realise that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. Why? Is it because there are more rapes or is it because more rapes are reported?
This is an important issue. Sweden is a very liberal country and women know their rights, and they will report anything. In the US women are far less likely to report their rape.
Does Sweden have higher ACTUAL rape than the USA? Maybe not. We simply don't know.

You say that guns are the best way to deter rape. I'm going to use statistics to prove you massively wrong.

Alaska has the highest rape rate in the country. By a long way. 87.6 per 100,000. Sure, these are stats and I'm not saying I trust them, just making a point.

Let's look at states in the 40s. South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas, Michigan.

I'm going to say that all of those states are places where it's not very difficult to get guns. They're pro-gun states, more or less.

The lowest by far is New York, by quite a way. Again, these are stats, maybe this is not the case. However NY is a place where it's harder to get guns.

Why would the worst places for rape be places where guns are easy to get and the lowest places where guns are harder to get? Do guns stop rape? No, they actually help rape. If a man is going to rape a woman he'd probably do it in a manner where, even if the woman has a gun, she's not going to be able to use it. Whereas the man is in pole position, he can use his gun, and chances are he's got a gun and she doesn't.

Do people not commit crimes for the first time? People who are "law abiding" who then go and commit a crime? Is this not a problem?

Sorry...it isn't a problem...the problem are professional criminals, not normal people who buy and own guns....you are focusing on exactly the wrong group. In fact, studies show that people with concealed carry permits are in fact more law abiding than the average American and more law abiding than uniformed police officers....

There are over 320 million guns in private hands....there are only 8,454 gun murders in the country of over 320 million people......in 2013 and that is going down, not up.....let me repeat that...

the number of gun murders is going down not up...and the number of accidental gun deaths is going down, not up according to both the FBI and the CDC....

So no, first time gun crime is not a problem in this country....organized, repeat criminals who easily get guns because they do not obey the law are the problem.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Gun control" has nothing to do with Liberals.

i have never seen a bigger lie than this in many years..., well, at least on this thread. .....

90% of Americans want to expand background checks and close loopholes.

About 23% of Americans identify themselves as liberals. Gun control is not a 'liberal' issue. It's a mainstream American/centrist issue.

 

[2aguy]

Arrest criminals caught with guns and put them in jail a long time.....that fixes the problem, they won't want to be caught in possession of a gun, or commit a crime with a gun...that way you focus on the problem...criminals, not law abiding gun owners who don't use guns to break the law.....

As I pointed out, European criminals get guns as easily as our criminals do...even easier since they get fully automatic rifles whenever they want....so their gun laws are no more effective than our gun laws are at Preventing gun violence........

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.


Take rape for example, in the US it's considered to be majorly under reported.

Rape statistics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported. According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime."

In the UK and Europe women are more likely to report rape because there has been a concerted effort to get it reported. And as this is considered violent crime in the UK then it adds to the statistics.

69 000 female 9 000 male rape victims per year visualised get the full data News The Guardian

"Given its nature as an estimate, the figure of 78,000 is perhaps best stated alongside the upper and lower limits of its 95% confidence interval: 60,000 and 95,000 respectively."

So the estimates are for about 78,000 rapes.

In the US "A 2011 report on prison rape by the BJS stated that "in 2008 there were at least 69,800 inmates who were raped under conditions involving force or threat of force, and more than 216,600 total victims of sexual abuse, in America’s prisons, jails, and juvenile detention centers.""

Are any of these reported as violent crime?

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

In fact the NCVS reports rape at 1.3 and the UCR at 0.3 because they only use forcible rape.
Robbery for the NCVS is 2.8 and for the UCR it's 1.1
Aggravated assault for the NCVS is 3.8 and for the UCR it's 2.4

Why the differences? It's all about how things are reported. So violent crime can be whatever you want it to be. Hence why saying that the UK has much higher crimes rates compared to the US is difficult. Certainly there are parts of the US, non-large cities that are incredibly safe, more so than in, say, the UK. However bigger cities in the UK are generally much safer. I've never lived in London and wouldn't want to, nor would I want to live in a big US city. I've seen enough of cities in bother countries, and in other European countries.

So, locking people up works? Doesn't seem to. Diddling the statistics seems to help.... not.

Which happens already and isn't solving the problem.

Actually, it is...we had a 7 year old shot in chicago...his father, a high ranking gang leader was the target. The father was arrested earlier on a gun possession charge, he had over 40 arrests on his record. He was released the day after his arrest on the gun charge. That is the problem...not law abiding people owning and carrying guns.

Also, in Europe the number of prisoners is LESS per capita.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is number 2, behind the Seychelles, 707 people per 100,000 compared to....

England and Wales at 148, France at 103, Germany at 78, Spain at 144, Sweden at 60.... and so on.

So, it clearly isn't working for the US. 5 to 10 times more prisoners, 5 times more murders.

Again...the people in Europe commit less crime of any kind than U.S. criminals do....if you want to talk about drug laws, fine, we can talk about that....but for any criminal using a gun in a crime arresting them and locking them up for a long time reduces the murder rate...or do you just want to let them go....? Also, those societies are homogenous, have similiar income levels across the country, and have more respect for authority and their government...unlike our criminals.

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013."

Probably not, seeing as this is about 40% of the level of rape. I can't imagine that the US rape rate is more than half the UK rape rate.

"Rapes and Sexual Assaults are rarely reported to law enforcement. A 2014 report by the Department of Justice showed that only 34.8% cases of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities."

So, in theory we can triple that number to 52,000, which would put it to 100,000 which is potentially higher than the UK rate. But we're working on unknowns, so, probably, the rape rates aren't that different, the difference is one goes to report UK violent crime whereas the other may or may not (I haven't come across anything that indicates either way yet) but anyway the number is far too low.

Do you realize that Sweden...with their extreme gun control, is the rape capital of Europe.....? did you know that guns are the most effective way for a woman to stop a violent rape...according to all the studies conducted on the subject....? That in Europe, their rape rates are going up as they import immigrants from muslim countries where they see European women as promiscuous and therefore unprotected by sharia......

You want to stop violent crime with guns...so do I. The things you suggest will not accomplish what you say you want. The best way to lower gun vioence short term is to arrest gang members caught with guns and put them in jail a long time...

Another story from chicago...we had a shooting last year at a park...three men.....two of them had been arrested on gun charges and sentenced to 3 years in prison...they pled the charges down to the point they were sent to a "Boot Camp," and were out in about 18 months, they got out and about 30 days later they shot up the park killing several people....

Also.....increase police numbers...in Chicago, we are down 2,000 police officers...but they have enough police to take care of the white, democrat leadership members areas, and not enough for the gang infested neighborhoods.....

That is how you stop gun crime, not by licensing people who don't commit crime, or registering the guns of people who don't commit crime....

You make the claim that it isn't law abiding people owning guns who aren't the problem. The question is, what is law abiding? It's not always what people make it out, the us and them.
Do people not commit crimes for the first time? People who are "law abiding" who then go and commit a crime? Is this not a problem?
What is a problem is that a law abiding person can have their house broken into and their guns stolen because they're not storing the guns correctly, or they've left the gun somewhere, or they are storing it correctly but even that gets found out, or whatever. They can end up with a gun going into the illegal supply chain. Not because they're bad, or because they've done something bad, there is no blame going on here. It's just that guns get into the system quite easily. There are plenty of ways, I'm sure you could use your imagination on this one.

Do I realise that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. Why? Is it because there are more rapes or is it because more rapes are reported?
This is an important issue. Sweden is a very liberal country and women know their rights, and they will report anything. In the US women are far less likely to report their rape.
Does Sweden have higher ACTUAL rape than the USA? Maybe not. We simply don't know.

You say that guns are the best way to deter rape. I'm going to use statistics to prove you massively wrong.

Alaska has the highest rape rate in the country. By a long way. 87.6 per 100,000. Sure, these are stats and I'm not saying I trust them, just making a point.

Let's look at states in the 40s. South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas, Michigan.

I'm going to say that all of those states are places where it's not very difficult to get guns. They're pro-gun states, more or less.

The lowest by far is New York, by quite a way. Again, these are stats, maybe this is not the case. However NY is a place where it's harder to get guns.

Why would the worst places for rape be places where guns are easy to get and the lowest places where guns are harder to get? Do guns stop rape? No, they actually help rape. If a man is going to rape a woman he'd probably do it in a manner where, even if the woman has a gun, she's not going to be able to use it. Whereas the man is in pole position, he can use his gun, and chances are he's got a gun and she doesn't.

What is a problem is that a law abiding person can have their house broken into and their guns stolen because they're not storing the guns correctly, or they've left the gun somewhere, or they are storing it correctly but even that gets found out, or whatever. They can end up with a gun going into the illegal supply chain. Not because they're bad, or because they've done something bad, there is no blame going on here. It's just that guns get into the system quite easily. There are plenty of ways, I'm sure you could use your imagination on this one.

Sorry, that is not a problem...that is like saying because women get raped then they shouldn't be allowed to leave their homes. People who have their homes broken into are victims of criminals.....what about the police dept. guns stolen or military guns stolen......?

Alaska has the highest rape rate in the country. By a long way. 87.6 per 100,000. Sure, these are stats and I'm not saying I trust them, just making a point.

as another poster pointed out a lot of criminals end up in Alaska as they try to avoid law enforcement....again, not a gun problem....

Why would the worst places for rape be places where guns are easy to get and the lowest places where guns are harder to get? Do guns stop rape? No, they actually help rape. If a man is going to rape a woman he'd probably do it in a manner where, even if the woman has a gun, she's not going to be able to use it. Whereas the man is in pole position, he can use his gun, and chances are he's got a gun and she doesn't

Sorry....I don't trust that chart on rape......New York has a lower level of rape than Arkansas...Really....could you give a link on where you got that from?

And no...guns are the best way for a woman to stop a rape....you haven't done your research, or read the stories....a woman is never going to be able to beat one man let alone 2 men without a gun...with a gun, even if they are armed she can actually fight them off...and no, the myth that people are easily disarmed by criminals is not born out by the research...in fact, more often an unarmed victim, fighting for their life disarms the attacker.....

 

[2aguy]

"Gun control" has nothing to do with Liberals.

i have never seen a bigger lie than this in many years..., well, at least on this thread. .....

90% of Americans want to expand background checks and close loopholes.

About 23% of Americans identify themselves as liberals. Gun control is not a 'liberal' issue. It's a mainstream American/centrist issue.

and that is a lie of ommission.....most people don't know the issue....they ask..."Do you want expanded background checks for gun purschases." And they get the 90% answer....

Ask it like this, using the truth.......

"Criminals avoid current federal background checks by using someone who can pass a background check to buy their weapon. The other way is they simply steal guns, thus avoiding current federal background checks. Since any expanded background check will be avoided in the exact same way, getting people who can pass the same expanded background check as they did the current federal background check, or by simply stealing the same guns and avoiding the new expanded background check.....does it make sense to add another layer of background checks that will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns?"

Ask that question and see what percent you get........they never ask the true question do they?

 

[2aguy]

Then you need to take on the democrat controlled teachers unions who protect the bad teachers and pay off democrat polticians....

Actually, there are more whites in poverty but blacks commit far more crime, they are 13 % of the population but commit about 70-80% of the violent crime....I would say because they have a higher percent of children raised by single teenage moms with no one role modeling civilized, responsible behavior, and that they excuse violent behavior as just a symptom of racism.....as you see whenever a violent black criminal is arrested.

Europeans have more respect for their government because they come from a culture that had Feudalism and royalty.....and that instilled a distinct class system...and keep in mind...they should have less respect for their governments, their governments shipped large numbers of their citizens off to death camps to be murdered..........

Guns are not the issue...our criminal culture is the issue....

Yes, the unions are a pain in the ass. I've seen other countries education systems and they just seem to work, in the US some things work, other things simply don't.

Yes, there are more whites in poverty, more whites in prison. However as a percentage there are more blacks in poverty and more blacks in prison.

A lack of respect exists for a reason, and usually it has to do with governments not treating their people properly. The US govt and politicians seem to have little respect, and also a lot of Americans in general have a lot of disrespect.

Take, for example, native americans. "oh, they're drunks".... well they became this because the US govt destroyed them. They destroyed them on the battlefield, they destroyed them on their land, then when they resettled them they destroyed them again and again. Hardly surprising they became as they did.
Same with black people. After slavery came segregation, better, but still sucked for many, especially in the south. It'd be interesting to see what the rates of crime are for races comparing say, the deep south with New England.

However guns are still an issue and will be an issue unless the US can sort out many of its problems. Because people look simplistically at things. Guns exacerbate the problems that already exist. Hence they are still a problem,

As far as blacks go...they vote for the very people who created segregation at the rate of 95%. Indians.....live on welfare provided by the very government that put their ancestors on the Reservations...they could leave the reservations you know...and the ones who do actually become successful.......

There are more blacks in prison because right now more black homes are headed by young, single, teenage mothers, and that is a recipe for disaster...but whites, and hispanics are catching up....

 

[2aguy]

Fact is that only .00007% of gun owners are even likely to consider going on a shooting spree. When they do, they will choose a gun-free zone nearly every time. Even though the liklihood of being shot by a mass murderer is less than the chance of getting hit by lightning or way less than the chances of being killed in a car accident, the liberals are in a constant state of alarm just because people are allowed to own guns. Most murders are committed with knives. And more people die due to medical malpractice than any other, but liberals focus on the one thing that tyrants hate- armed citizens. Sorry, but if it was about safety, they would be up in arms about other things and not the right of citizens to own guns. Tyrants only fear people who are able to fight back against tyranny. And it's no coincidence that the left focuses on the 2nd amendment over other things that are far more likely to harm or kill people. They claim it's a safety issue, but I call bullshit considering the things they ignore.

If the left had gotten their way with gun control, those mass shootings would still have occurred. It would just mean a few more laws broken. I know many on the left actually would ban guns if they could. Some are honest about that, though I believe that is the endgame with most. Crazies and criminals never have trouble getting their hands on weapons. The theater shooter could have just as easily pipe bombed the theater or set it on fire and hurt even more people. If a mass murderer was going around tossing bombs, would the media get as upset as they do with guns? You'd think that people doing something illegal would be the biggest complaint and not the means they happen to choose. Murdering, in any fashion, should be the focus, but liberals only focus on shootings, particularly by white males. We don't see the same coverage when it's a Muslim shooting people at a base or a gang member with lots of kills under their belt.

The law abiding citizens, especially NRA members, are constantly told they are responsible whenever a mass shooting happens.

Funny that the auto companies don't get blamed for all the accidents and drunk drivers.

Cell phone companies don't get blamed for all the accidents caused by a driver texting. Hell, in that case, the government made sure they handed out more phones. Are they trying to kill people? I hope they know they will be responsible when a driver with an Obamaphone is texting and crosses the center line and kills someone.

Stores don't get called names for selling knives, rope, lighter fluid and other things often used in murders.

Only the NRA gets blamed for shootings, as if they have anything to do with the criminals and insane people who misuse their weapons. Luckily, it has been very few. Despite it being a rare occurrence, the left and the media act as if it's an epidemic. They ignore the real epidemics, which is gangs, and human or drug trafficking. How many people have died of drug overdoses and how many young girls have disappeared because of human trafficking? The left's answer is to legalize drugs. They likely want prostitution legalized. Not much is being done about the human traffickers because they are 10 steps ahead of law enforcement. Those problems occur every day and yet the media isn't sounding the alarms on that. They are too busy bashing the average gun owner because they disapprove of one of our rights.



"It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.

But some perspective is needed.

Let’s take that figure for the number of people killed in the last 30 years during a mass shooting of 560 and add another nine to it. That makes 569.

Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.

Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?

Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.

Heck, we should ban bathtubs too. Because 341 people die from drowning and submersion while in or falling into bathtubs. And floors. We need to ban floors too, because 565 people die each year from slipping, tripping or falling.

I don’t mean to be flippant, or to trivialize this terrible tragedy. But as the stories fly around in the next few days regarding this event, you can be darn tootin’ liberals will begin pushing their agendas."

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/heres-what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-mass-shootings/

The majority of mass gun shootings happen at schools or people's place of employment, or former employment. The reason people go to these places to shoot and kill people is because they are pissed off at someone. They don't choose those places because they are gun free zones. They choose them because their targets are at those places.

Yeah....so who was the movie theatre shooter pissed off at? Oh yeah...he chose that place because of the fact they advertised themselves as gun free. Why did the ft. Hood shooter choose the cafeteria? Oh yeah because he knew nobody was armed.

There are exceptions to everything. As for Holmes, he picked a movie theater that was close to his home. Actually it was the closest large theater to his home. Did The Aurora Shooter Seek Out A Gun Free Zone GUNFAQ.ORG So again, there is not real proof that Holmes chose this particular theater because it didn't allow guns. Ad for the Ft. Hood shooter, military personnel are not permitted to carry guns on base period, so he went to the cafeteria because that is where the most people were gathered all in one location. So basically, you have nothing.

The most important point......these shooters don't have to make a decision in most cases since almost all of the locations were already mandated gun free zones by law...they didn't have to make a choice.....



actually, that isn't true....of the shooters who selected their sites not based on a previous connection, like work or school, and who left diaries or who were alive to be questioned.....the Santa Barbara shooter said he wanted to go to an outdoor festival but decided not to because their were armed police there...

The South Carolina church shooter wanted to go to a local college...but there were armed police there, which he pointed out, and so chose the unarmed church,

The shooter at the Canadian Parliament made fun of gun free zones on his facebook postings before the shooting,

there were two teenagers who planned on committing school shootings, the one was captured at his storage unit before the attack...he confessed he was going to create a gun free zone buy killing the one police officer that was on the campus first, and thereby be free to kill at will.

There was another guy who essentially said the same thing....

And of 5 church shootings which I can link to......3 had armed civilians on location.......2 did not (The sikh temple and South Carolina) The 3 with armed civilians had a total of 2 deaths...the the Sikh temple and South carolina...15.....

 

[2aguy]

Fact is that only .00007% of gun owners are even likely to consider going on a shooting spree. When they do, they will choose a gun-free zone nearly every time. Even though the liklihood of being shot by a mass murderer is less than the chance of getting hit by lightning or way less than the chances of being killed in a car accident, the liberals are in a constant state of alarm just because people are allowed to own guns. Most murders are committed with knives. And more people die due to medical malpractice than any other, but liberals focus on the one thing that tyrants hate- armed citizens. Sorry, but if it was about safety, they would be up in arms about other things and not the right of citizens to own guns. Tyrants only fear people who are able to fight back against tyranny. And it's no coincidence that the left focuses on the 2nd amendment over other things that are far more likely to harm or kill people. They claim it's a safety issue, but I call bullshit considering the things they ignore.

If the left had gotten their way with gun control, those mass shootings would still have occurred. It would just mean a few more laws broken. I know many on the left actually would ban guns if they could. Some are honest about that, though I believe that is the endgame with most. Crazies and criminals never have trouble getting their hands on weapons. The theater shooter could have just as easily pipe bombed the theater or set it on fire and hurt even more people. If a mass murderer was going around tossing bombs, would the media get as upset as they do with guns? You'd think that people doing something illegal would be the biggest complaint and not the means they happen to choose. Murdering, in any fashion, should be the focus, but liberals only focus on shootings, particularly by white males. We don't see the same coverage when it's a Muslim shooting people at a base or a gang member with lots of kills under their belt.

The law abiding citizens, especially NRA members, are constantly told they are responsible whenever a mass shooting happens.

Funny that the auto companies don't get blamed for all the accidents and drunk drivers.

Cell phone companies don't get blamed for all the accidents caused by a driver texting. Hell, in that case, the government made sure they handed out more phones. Are they trying to kill people? I hope they know they will be responsible when a driver with an Obamaphone is texting and crosses the center line and kills someone.

Stores don't get called names for selling knives, rope, lighter fluid and other things often used in murders.

Only the NRA gets blamed for shootings, as if they have anything to do with the criminals and insane people who misuse their weapons. Luckily, it has been very few. Despite it being a rare occurrence, the left and the media act as if it's an epidemic. They ignore the real epidemics, which is gangs, and human or drug trafficking. How many people have died of drug overdoses and how many young girls have disappeared because of human trafficking? The left's answer is to legalize drugs. They likely want prostitution legalized. Not much is being done about the human traffickers because they are 10 steps ahead of law enforcement. Those problems occur every day and yet the media isn't sounding the alarms on that. They are too busy bashing the average gun owner because they disapprove of one of our rights.



"It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.

But some perspective is needed.

Let’s take that figure for the number of people killed in the last 30 years during a mass shooting of 560 and add another nine to it. That makes 569.

Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.

Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?

Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.

Heck, we should ban bathtubs too. Because 341 people die from drowning and submersion while in or falling into bathtubs. And floors. We need to ban floors too, because 565 people die each year from slipping, tripping or falling.

I don’t mean to be flippant, or to trivialize this terrible tragedy. But as the stories fly around in the next few days regarding this event, you can be darn tootin’ liberals will begin pushing their agendas."

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/heres-what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-mass-shootings/

The majority of mass gun shootings happen at schools or people's place of employment, or former employment. The reason people go to these places to shoot and kill people is because they are pissed off at someone. They don't choose those places because they are gun free zones. They choose them because their targets are at those places.

Schools are an easy target to kill people. In fact, any place is an easy target to kill. Shopping malls, restaurants, cafes, post office....the list is endless. Most killings are done by people who know each other. In rare circumstances you do get shooters like Dylan Roof in Charleston or some other idiot. But this is an exception, not the norm.

Cons don't understand the deadly nature of a weapon they so love. I mean seriously, anyone who wants to keep weapons on them, in their bedrooms, cars, basements or any place else, should understand how deadly a weapon can be in the hands of untrained person.

It's tragic when I hear of little kids playing with guns who end up shooting their siblings or themselves in the head, in the face or wherever. Only RW gun nut cons think this is funny somehow.

That I don't agree with. I don't think anyone thinks that kids accidentally killing their siblings because a parent left a loaded gun laying around is funny. What I see is that for some reason these people honestly believe that they are safer having that gun for protection versus the chance it may be used on a family member either by accident, in anger, or to commit suicide.

You do realize that 2 million times a year Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives? And that in 2013 there were only 8,454 gun murders in a country of over 320 million people with over 320 million guns in private hands...right? And that the number of gun murders is going down, not up....right?

And that accidental gun deaths in 2013 were only 505......and of those less than 100 were children...in a country of over 320 million people and over 320 million guns in private hands...

So no, you are not more likely to be killed by your own gun...the biggest factor.....are you a drug addict? are you an alcoholic? do you live with a violent person? do you live with a violent criminal?....control for those factors and guns are not an issue

 

[2aguy]

Fact is that only .00007% of gun owners are even likely to consider going on a shooting spree. When they do, they will choose a gun-free zone nearly every time. Even though the liklihood of being shot by a mass murderer is less than the chance of getting hit by lightning or way less than the chances of being killed in a car accident, the liberals are in a constant state of alarm just because people are allowed to own guns. Most murders are committed with knives. And more people die due to medical malpractice than any other, but liberals focus on the one thing that tyrants hate- armed citizens. Sorry, but if it was about safety, they would be up in arms about other things and not the right of citizens to own guns. Tyrants only fear people who are able to fight back against tyranny. And it's no coincidence that the left focuses on the 2nd amendment over other things that are far more likely to harm or kill people. They claim it's a safety issue, but I call bullshit considering the things they ignore.

If the left had gotten their way with gun control, those mass shootings would still have occurred. It would just mean a few more laws broken. I know many on the left actually would ban guns if they could. Some are honest about that, though I believe that is the endgame with most. Crazies and criminals never have trouble getting their hands on weapons. The theater shooter could have just as easily pipe bombed the theater or set it on fire and hurt even more people. If a mass murderer was going around tossing bombs, would the media get as upset as they do with guns? You'd think that people doing something illegal would be the biggest complaint and not the means they happen to choose. Murdering, in any fashion, should be the focus, but liberals only focus on shootings, particularly by white males. We don't see the same coverage when it's a Muslim shooting people at a base or a gang member with lots of kills under their belt.

The law abiding citizens, especially NRA members, are constantly told they are responsible whenever a mass shooting happens.

Funny that the auto companies don't get blamed for all the accidents and drunk drivers.

Cell phone companies don't get blamed for all the accidents caused by a driver texting. Hell, in that case, the government made sure they handed out more phones. Are they trying to kill people? I hope they know they will be responsible when a driver with an Obamaphone is texting and crosses the center line and kills someone.

Stores don't get called names for selling knives, rope, lighter fluid and other things often used in murders.

Only the NRA gets blamed for shootings, as if they have anything to do with the criminals and insane people who misuse their weapons. Luckily, it has been very few. Despite it being a rare occurrence, the left and the media act as if it's an epidemic. They ignore the real epidemics, which is gangs, and human or drug trafficking. How many people have died of drug overdoses and how many young girls have disappeared because of human trafficking? The left's answer is to legalize drugs. They likely want prostitution legalized. Not much is being done about the human traffickers because they are 10 steps ahead of law enforcement. Those problems occur every day and yet the media isn't sounding the alarms on that. They are too busy bashing the average gun owner because they disapprove of one of our rights.



"It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.

But some perspective is needed.

Let’s take that figure for the number of people killed in the last 30 years during a mass shooting of 560 and add another nine to it. That makes 569.

Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.

Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?

Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.

Heck, we should ban bathtubs too. Because 341 people die from drowning and submersion while in or falling into bathtubs. And floors. We need to ban floors too, because 565 people die each year from slipping, tripping or falling.

I don’t mean to be flippant, or to trivialize this terrible tragedy. But as the stories fly around in the next few days regarding this event, you can be darn tootin’ liberals will begin pushing their agendas."

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/heres-what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-mass-shootings/

The majority of mass gun shootings happen at schools or people's place of employment, or former employment. The reason people go to these places to shoot and kill people is because they are pissed off at someone. They don't choose those places because they are gun free zones. They choose them because their targets are at those places.

Actually, they don't have to make a choice since those places are mandated by law to be gun free zones...so they never have to worry about guns being there, or making the decision to go somewhere else, and of the mass shooters who commented before the shooting or were captured, who discussed their shooting and attacked places that had no connection to them personally, they all picked gun free zones...including the South Carolina church shooter and the Santa Barbara shooter....the other mass shooters at schools....the schools are mandated gun free zones......

So your point is wrong....

 

[2aguy]

The liberals who wrote the second amendment would have strung the liberals of today up. Gun control is all about totalitarians wanting to disarm a citezenry they despise and want to control...

The liberals of today are not "Liberals" they are lefty socialist/statists, who have taken the name "liberal" because it hides who they truly are....now that that name has become associated with statism and big government, they are changing back to "progressive" to again, hide their true nature.

 

[koshergrl]

I believe the primary reason left wing whackos don't want us to have guns is that they don't want us to be able to defend ourselves when they exert control over our possessions and our bodies. The reason they fear armed people is because they're afraid armed people will object to being controlled, or harassed and killed, by authoritarian pukes like themselves.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Eh. They're only okay with shootings if the targets are US military members, pro-life protestors, or in one of those third world countries they pretend to care about.

 

[Clementine]

I believe the primary reason left wing whackos don't want us to have guns is that they don't want us to be able to defend ourselves when they exert control over our possessions and our bodies. The reason they fear armed people is because they're afraid armed people will object to being controlled, or harassed and killed, by authoritarian pukes like themselves.

That is the very reason we put the 2nd amendment in place.

Some liberals are claiming that mass shooters have a specific target and that is not always the case. The Colorado shooter and the recent church shooter chose places that were gun-free zones.

Schools have been gun-free zones and those with mental problems and feel they don't fit in are simply going to the place where they feel they were victimized. If they weren't gun-free zones or had armed security, I doubt the shooters would go through with it.

 

[koshergrl]

I believe the primary reason left wing whackos don't want us to have guns is that they don't want us to be able to defend ourselves when they exert control over our possessions and our bodies. The reason they fear armed people is because they're afraid armed people will object to being controlled, or harassed and killed, by authoritarian pukes like themselves.

That is the very reason we put the 2nd amendment in place.

Some liberals are claiming that mass shooters have a specific target and that is not always the case. The Colorado shooter and the recent church shooter chose places that were gun-free zones.

Schools have been gun-free zones and those with mental problems and feel they don't fit in are simply going to the place where they feel they were victimized. If they weren't gun-free zones or had armed security, I doubt the shooters would go through with it.

And mass shooters are stopped all the time by armed civilians. But the anti-American, progressive press corps refuse to report on it.