Another person dies, deer hunting.

[Wonky3]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I only looked at the politifact link but it doesn't support your statement "More people die from medical malpractice than guns."


You would need to modify it to "More people die from medical accidents than firearm accidents" then you'd be right using their numbers.

I see Hugo is one of those people who apparently doesn't trust Snopes. And probably like all the others can't tell you why or point to any Snopes posts being wrong.

Anyway this snopes has a lot of information. The same stuff you would find if you did the research instead of them.


https://www.snopes.com/doctors-kill-more...than-guns/

I'd like to say this is going nowhere. Actually it's going the wrong direction. 
We all acknowledge we have a right to own and use guns. So says SCOTUS.
Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment. I doubt it will change law, and if so, not anytime soon. 
The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.
Hugo (and others?) remind us that deaths due to bad medical practice outnumber gun deaths. Forgive the cliche, but that's apples and oranges. Physicians and surgeons are attempting to heal, even as they fail. Auto accidents happen for a variety of reasons but only a tiny fraction are deliberate to cause death. Cancer and heart disease kill millions of people but not from intent. Our warriors die in battle at the direction of our leaders for what we deem as good causes. But far too many of our people are dying from gunshot wounds fired from guns controlled by people who have reasons we seldom truly understand. The numbers present a false argument. The deaths are forever. The grief is long lasting. 
I said in a previous post that I have no solution. I think it's been suggested here there is no solution and so we should just live with the status quo and accept mass shootings as the new normal.
I don't recommend "gun control" (as it's commonly described). 
I don't suggest we limit how many guns a person may own.
I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently) 

So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides. 

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones. 

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective. 

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments. 

Or, we could just ignore this topic. That is an option worth considering. It would be the easy way out.

[Hugo]

Wonky, you don't want dialogue when you open with nonsense about the MEANING of the 2nd amendment. You are already closed to rationality. Thus ends the "conversation".

[bbqboy]

Hilarious

[SFLiberal]

comma


[kom-uh] 
Spell 
noun
1.
the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used forindicating a division in a sentence, as in settingoff a word, phrase, or clause, especially whensuch a division is accompanied by a slight pauseor is to be noted in order to give order to thesequential elements of the sentence. 

A well regulated Militia, (COMMA)being necessary to the security of a free State, (COMMA) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (COMMA) shall not be infringed.

Pretty simple really.

Shall not be infringed.....


The 2nd amendment was not even questioned until almost 200 years after it was written and the rise of liberalism and they way they like to re-write history.

George Orwell in Animal Farm warned us about these folks

[tvguy]

comma


[kom-uh] 
Spell 
noun
1.
the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used forindicating a division in a sentence, as in settingoff a word, phrase, or clause, especially whensuch a division is accompanied by a slight pauseor is to be noted in order to give order to thesequential elements of the sentence. 

A well regulated Militia, (COMMA)being necessary to the security of a free State, (COMMA) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (COMMA) shall not be infringed.

Pretty simple really.

Shall not be infringed.....


The 2nd amendment was not even questioned until almost 200 years after it was written and the rise of liberalism and they way they like to re-write history.

George Orwell in Animal Farm warned us about these folks

You are right about the meaning and the wording of the second amendment.
The fact that you blame liberalism on EVERYTHING you see that you think is wrong says a lot about your herd mentality and the typical stereotyping of all liberals.

[tvguy]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I only looked at the politifact link but it doesn't support your statement "More people die from medical malpractice than guns."


You would need to modify it to "More people die from medical accidents than firearm accidents" then you'd be right using their numbers.

I see Hugo is one of those people who apparently doesn't trust Snopes. And probably like all the others can't tell you why or point to any Snopes posts being wrong.

Anyway this snopes has a lot of information. The same stuff you would find if you did the research instead of them.


https://www.snopes.com/doctors-kill-more...than-guns/

I'd like to say this is going nowhere. Actually it's going the wrong direction. 
We all acknowledge we have a right to own and use guns. So says SCOTUS.
Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment. I doubt it will change law, and if so, not anytime soon. 
The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.
Hugo (and others?) remind us that deaths due to bad medical practice outnumber gun deaths. Forgive the cliche, but that's apples and oranges. Physicians and surgeons are attempting to heal, even as they fail. Auto accidents happen for a variety of reasons but only a tiny fraction are deliberate to cause death. Cancer and heart disease kill millions of people but not from intent. Our warriors die in battle at the direction of our leaders for what we deem as good causes. But far too many of our people are dying from gunshot wounds fired from guns controlled by people who have reasons we seldom truly understand. The numbers present a false argument. The deaths are forever. The grief is long lasting. 
I said in a previous post that I have no solution. I think it's been suggested here there is no solution and so we should just live with the status quo and accept mass shootings as the new normal.
I don't recommend "gun control" (as it's commonly described). 
I don't suggest we limit how many guns a person may own.
I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently) 

So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides. 

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones. 

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective. 

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments. 

Or, we could just ignore this topic. That is an option worth considering. It would be the easy way out.

The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.


"WE"?? Speak for yourself. I don't know ANYONE who is reluctant to acknowledge the amount of deaths by gun violence.
Just who are you talking about?


Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment.

The intent and the meaning is CLEAR.. academics?? LOL

 So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides.

Bla bla bla.. let's sit down and have a discussion  

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones

Again who in the hell denies there is a problem when NUTS have guns?

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective.

Right YOU DON'T have answers but you sure as hell have a way of bloviating and now suggesting that YOU are the one here who is in tune and all about new ideas. and YOU are not narrow minded and that YOU are the one with perspective.
And  you haven't said one word about how to fix the gun problem. It's much easier to go the Wonky route and put others down as engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest.
How about you say who it is you are taking about? OR explain what a guy like you that is open minded and lives in a new normal world? You are OBVIOUSLY above all of us narrow minded selfish fools.. so lets hear something .. ANYTHING other than just your flapping gums.

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments.

If there is a polar opposite of what you call bumper sticker posts it's long winded posts that do little more than profess your self proclaimed authority on what, when and how to post while putting down others.

I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently)

"rapid fire rifles" LOL what the fuck is a rapid fire rifle?

[Wonky3]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I only looked at the politifact link but it doesn't support your statement "More people die from medical malpractice than guns."


You would need to modify it to "More people die from medical accidents than firearm accidents" then you'd be right using their numbers.

I see Hugo is one of those people who apparently doesn't trust Snopes. And probably like all the others can't tell you why or point to any Snopes posts being wrong.

Anyway this snopes has a lot of information. The same stuff you would find if you did the research instead of them.


https://www.snopes.com/doctors-kill-more...than-guns/

I'd like to say this is going nowhere. Actually it's going the wrong direction. 
We all acknowledge we have a right to own and use guns. So says SCOTUS.
Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment. I doubt it will change law, and if so, not anytime soon. 
The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.
Hugo (and others?) remind us that deaths due to bad medical practice outnumber gun deaths. Forgive the cliche, but that's apples and oranges. Physicians and surgeons are attempting to heal, even as they fail. Auto accidents happen for a variety of reasons but only a tiny fraction are deliberate to cause death. Cancer and heart disease kill millions of people but not from intent. Our warriors die in battle at the direction of our leaders for what we deem as good causes. But far too many of our people are dying from gunshot wounds fired from guns controlled by people who have reasons we seldom truly understand. The numbers present a false argument. The deaths are forever. The grief is long lasting. 
I said in a previous post that I have no solution. I think it's been suggested here there is no solution and so we should just live with the status quo and accept mass shootings as the new normal.
I don't recommend "gun control" (as it's commonly described). 
I don't suggest we limit how many guns a person may own.
I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently) 

So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides. 

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones. 

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective. 

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments. 

Or, we could just ignore this topic. That is an option worth considering. It would be the easy way out.

The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.


"WE"?? Speak for yourself. I don't know ANYONE who is reluctant to acknowledge the amount of deaths by gun violence.
Just who are you talking about?


Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment.

The intent and the meaning is CLEAR.. academics?? LOL

 So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides.

Bla bla bla.. let's sit down and have a discussion  

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones

Again who in the hell denies there is a problem when NUTS have guns?

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective.

Right YOU DON'T have answers but you sure as hell have a way of bloviating and now suggesting that YOU are the one here who is in tune and all about new ideas. and YOU are not narrow minded and that YOU are the one with perspective.
And  you haven't said one word about how to fix the gun problem. It's much easier to go the Wonky route and put others down as engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest.
How about you say who it is you are taking about? OR explain what a guy like you that is open minded and lives in a new normal world? You are OBVIOUSLY above all of us narrow minded selfish fools.. so lets hear something .. ANYTHING other than just your flapping gums.

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments.

If there is a polar opposite of what you call bumper sticker posts it's long winded posts that do little more than profess your self proclaimed authority on what, when and how to post while putting down others.

I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently)

"rapid fire rifles" LOL what the fuck is a rapid fire rifle?

A new leaf.
From now on movies, TV, food, books, and local gossip because it's obvious I don't have a clue what I'm talking about during serious discussions.

[Wonky3]

I only looked at the politifact link but it doesn't support your statement "More people die from medical malpractice than guns."


You would need to modify it to "More people die from medical accidents than firearm accidents" then you'd be right using their numbers.

I see Hugo is one of those people who apparently doesn't trust Snopes. And probably like all the others can't tell you why or point to any Snopes posts being wrong.

Anyway this snopes has a lot of information. The same stuff you would find if you did the research instead of them.


https://www.snopes.com/doctors-kill-more...than-guns/

I'd like to say this is going nowhere. Actually it's going the wrong direction. 
We all acknowledge we have a right to own and use guns. So says SCOTUS.
Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment. I doubt it will change law, and if so, not anytime soon. 
The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.
Hugo (and others?) remind us that deaths due to bad medical practice outnumber gun deaths. Forgive the cliche, but that's apples and oranges. Physicians and surgeons are attempting to heal, even as they fail. Auto accidents happen for a variety of reasons but only a tiny fraction are deliberate to cause death. Cancer and heart disease kill millions of people but not from intent. Our warriors die in battle at the direction of our leaders for what we deem as good causes. But far too many of our people are dying from gunshot wounds fired from guns controlled by people who have reasons we seldom truly understand. The numbers present a false argument. The deaths are forever. The grief is long lasting. 
I said in a previous post that I have no solution. I think it's been suggested here there is no solution and so we should just live with the status quo and accept mass shootings as the new normal.
I don't recommend "gun control" (as it's commonly described). 
I don't suggest we limit how many guns a person may own.
I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently) 

So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides. 

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones. 

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective. 

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments. 

Or, we could just ignore this topic. That is an option worth considering. It would be the easy way out.

The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.


"WE"?? Speak for yourself. I don't know ANYONE who is reluctant to acknowledge the amount of deaths by gun violence.
Just who are you talking about?


Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment.

The intent and the meaning is CLEAR.. academics?? LOL

 So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides.

Bla bla bla.. let's sit down and have a discussion  

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones

Again who in the hell denies there is a problem when NUTS have guns?

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective.

Right YOU DON'T have answers but you sure as hell have a way of bloviating and now suggesting that YOU are the one here who is in tune and all about new ideas. and YOU are not narrow minded and that YOU are the one with perspective.
And  you haven't said one word about how to fix the gun problem. It's much easier to go the Wonky route and put others down as engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest.
How about you say who it is you are taking about? OR explain what a guy like you that is open minded and lives in a new normal world? You are OBVIOUSLY above all of us narrow minded selfish fools.. so lets hear something .. ANYTHING other than just your flapping gums.

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments.

If there is a polar opposite of what you call bumper sticker posts it's long winded posts that do little more than profess your self proclaimed authority on what, when and how to post while putting down others.

I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently)

"rapid fire rifles" LOL what the fuck is a rapid fire rifle?

A new leaf.
From now on movies, TV, food, books, and local gossip because it's obvious I don't have a clue what I'm talking about during serious discussions.

Well, one more bit of info. Not to worry, not ONE line by me. 

By all accounts, mass shootings are now claiming more American lives than at any other point in the past thirty-five years. The most recent, on the morning of November 14th, in Rancho Tehama, California, left five victims and the shooter dead and twelve wounded, including six children. Data indicates that mass shootings are contagious and predictable, and that many killers share certain features—notably, as in the case of the shooting earlier this month at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, a history of domestic violence. The Journal of the American Medical Association has repeatedly described gun violence as an epidemic, and gun-rights groups have repeatedly fought to undermine this view. In 1996, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied the Republican Congress to limit funding for gun-related research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. jama recently estimated that research into gun violence receives just 1.6 per cent of the funding that one would expect, given the annual death toll.
The government’s failure to enact gun-reform legislation and to allocate appropriate public-health funding is symptomatic of a broader failure to conceive of these mass killings as an epidemic: that is, as a single problem affecting our country. This failure is particularly apparent in the way we talk about motive. On November 5th, after Devin Patrick Kelley killed twenty-six people in Sutherland Springs, a news alert on my phone notified me that officials were “searching for motive.” It was immediately clear to me that this search would end in one of a few ways. If the shooter had mentioned isis, the motive would be deemed political; if he were nonwhite, it would be racial. If he were white and hadn’t mentioned isis, there might be a domestic or family-related motive, or mental illness, or a bizarre, mysterious lack of motive. Each motive would, in effect, limit the number of people whose problem the killing was. Yet it is impossible to imagine a political terrorist act that is free of personal motives or domestic implications, just as it’s impossible to imagine a domestic crime that doesn’t reflect ideology. And it’s a tautology that every mass shooting involves some degree of mental illness: we would surely count as worthless any definition of mental wellness that was compatible with murdering civilians.
The deficiency of the current categories of motive is particularly evident in the case of Omar Mateen, a twenty-nine-year-old Afghan-American who is said to have abused his widow and a former wife, to have made homophobic remarks, and who, on June 12, 2016, called 911 and claimed affiliation with isis, before shooting to death forty-nine people at a gay night club in Orlando that he himself may have frequented. Was Mateen’s crime personal or political? As the Times put it, “Was the killer truly acting under orders from the Islamic State, or just seeking publicity and the group’s approval for a personal act of hate?” The phrasing is problematic, because it implies an essential difference between personal opportunists and “real” terrorists—as if real terrorists were motivated not by things that happened to them in their own lives but by disinterested ideology, hatred of freedom, or membership in an “axis of evil.”
In Sutherland Springs, the question of motive was resolved more speedily: Kelley’s reason for killing twenty-six people was determined to be a dispute with his mother-in-law. As the regional director for the Texas Department of Public Safety put it, “This was not racially motivated, it wasn’t over religious beliefs. There was a domestic situation going on within the family and the in-laws.” (The mother-in-law wasn’t at the service that day, though her own mother was and died there. Kelley, an Air Force veteran, had previously been court-martialled for assaulting his wife and his stepson.)
Yet it is odd to describe a church shooting as a “domestic situation.” It is odd to consider a “domestic” motive as proof against a political or ideological agenda. What ideological group, least of all isis, has been silent on the subject of domestic life and the role of women? A logical error is built into the very term “domestic violence,” which suggests that murderous rage directed at female relatives is a household affair, private, apolitical, not useful as a predictor of public violence. To view the murder of women as “domestic” is itself ideological, and surely some strain is placed on such a view by the case of a man shooting at a church full of strangers along with his grandmother-in-law. (Among the Rancho Tehama shooter’s first victims were his wife and a female neighbor.)
With Stephen Paddock, who shot and killed fifty-eight people in Las Vegas, in early October, authorities have found no motive. In the weeks and years before the crime, Paddock apparently exhibited no signs of political or religious extremism, no symptoms of mental illness (though the fact that he had stockpiled semiautomatic weapons for decades might be viewed, in retrospect, as a symptom). Paddock was accordingly classified, as a Muslim or a black shooter would not have been, as a sort of human enigma. A CNN headlinealluded to “The unknowable Stephen Paddock and the ultimate mystery: Why?” Another article—“One month later, Las Vegas massacre is still a mystery”—placed the shooting “in stark contrast” to the subsequent “deadly truck attack in New York City, where there were clear ideological or religious motives.”
The “clear ideological or religious” case was that of Sayfullo Saipov, a twenty-nine-year-old Uzbek national who drove onto a bike path in lower Manhattan on Halloween, killing eight pedestrians, came out of the truck shouting “Allahu akbar,” and was shot by the police. Saipov’s ideological tendencies, like Mateen’s, were a recent development. In his home city of Tashkent, Saipov was a law-abiding citizen with a hospitality degree from a well-known university, working at a large hotel catering to foreigners. In 2010, he won the green-card lottery and came to the United States on a diversity visa. He married another Uzbek immigrant, started a family, and, unable to find hotel work, moved from city to city, driving trucks.
Over the years, the Times reported, Saipov had racked up a series of traffic tickets, “the closest thing to snapshots of how Mr. Saipov lived.” In Iowa, in 2011, he waited for thirty-five minutes for officers to check his truck; in 2014, he was “stopped for more than an hour for having a cracked windshield and for missing a reflective device.” On multiple occasions, he was stopped at a Nebraska weigh station, where he got tickets for “driving too long without required rest and for carrying a load just slightly more than allowed.” In October of last year, Saipov was briefly jailed in Missouri for an unpaid traffic ticket. That was around the time that he started planning an attack. Repeated bureaucratic experiences with traffic fines is a familiar American story. But Saipov shouted “Allahu akbar,” and he had downloaded isis videos, so his motive was religious and ideological. Since his motive was religious and ideological, it was not personal or economic or a mystery.
Of the mass killings in Orlando, Las Vegas, New York, Sutherland Springs, and Rancho Tehama, the two committed by isis-invoking Muslims are categorized as terrorist acts; the three committed by white men are “domestic,” a “mystery,” or, in the case of the Rancho Tehama shooter, Kevin Neal, “bizarre.” Donald Trump has used these categories to justify a double standard of responses: terrorist acts are justification for an immigration crackdown, but for a “domestic issue,” mental illness, or “pure evil,” as the President classified the Las Vegas shooting, there is no remedy. As the Governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin, tweeted, in response to calls for gun regulations after Las Vegas: “You can’t regulate evil.”
The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control. It’s also an invitation to think about why so many Americans are trying to shoot up night clubs, churches, and schools in the first place. (Researchsuggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting—but only a hundred and fifty times more likely to own a gun.) It’s an invitation to tell one story about a shared problem that affects every American.
Thinking about the different ruptures that prevent this story from being told, I was reminded of a line from James Baldwin’s “No Name in the Street,” from 1972: “I have always been struck, in America, by an emotional poverty so bottomless, and a terror of human life, of human touch, so deep that virtually no American appears able to achieve any viable, organic connection between his public stance and his private life.” For Baldwin, this disconnect originates in Americans’ need “to safeguard their purity” at all costs—to go to any cognitive length in order to deny that they have profited, and continue to profit, from the suffering of others. How, Baldwin asks, can white Americans live normal lives among the descendants of the slaves who built their wealth? How, for that matter, can men live normal lives alongside women, whose sacrifices and labor were invisible for so many years? How can immigrants from poor and war-torn countries live normal lives as Americans? What Baldwin calls “the failure, in most American lives, of the most elementary and crucial connections” is reflected in the stories we tell, and in the larger stories we don’t tell.
Given our predilection for isolated issues and personal pathologies, it is no surprise that the brain of the Las Vegas shooter has been sent to the Stanford University Medical Center for forensic examination. “I think everybody is pretty doubtful that we’re going to come up with something,” Hannes Vogel, Stanford’s chief of neuropathology, told the Times. “The possibilities, neuropathologically, for explaining this kind of behavior are very few.” The initial autopsy by the Clark County coroner turned up no visible abnormalities, contrary to hopes expressed by the gunman’s brother. “I hope to hell that they find when they do the autopsy that there’s a tumor in his head or something,” Eric Paddock told reporters, “because if they don’t, we’re all in trouble.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com...Q4MDY1MAS2

[tvguy]

I see Hugo is one of those people who apparently doesn't trust Snopes. And probably like all the others can't tell you why or point to any Snopes posts being wrong.

Anyway this snopes has a lot of information. The same stuff you would find if you did the research instead of them.


https://www.snopes.com/doctors-kill-more...than-guns/

I'd like to say this is going nowhere. Actually it's going the wrong direction. 
We all acknowledge we have a right to own and use guns. So says SCOTUS.
Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment. I doubt it will change law, and if so, not anytime soon. 
The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.
Hugo (and others?) remind us that deaths due to bad medical practice outnumber gun deaths. Forgive the cliche, but that's apples and oranges. Physicians and surgeons are attempting to heal, even as they fail. Auto accidents happen for a variety of reasons but only a tiny fraction are deliberate to cause death. Cancer and heart disease kill millions of people but not from intent. Our warriors die in battle at the direction of our leaders for what we deem as good causes. But far too many of our people are dying from gunshot wounds fired from guns controlled by people who have reasons we seldom truly understand. The numbers present a false argument. The deaths are forever. The grief is long lasting. 
I said in a previous post that I have no solution. I think it's been suggested here there is no solution and so we should just live with the status quo and accept mass shootings as the new normal.
I don't recommend "gun control" (as it's commonly described). 
I don't suggest we limit how many guns a person may own.
I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently) 

So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides. 

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones. 

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective. 

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments. 

Or, we could just ignore this topic. That is an option worth considering. It would be the easy way out.

The thing we are reluctant to acknowledge is the toll guns are taking in shooting deaths.


"WE"?? Speak for yourself. I don't know ANYONE who is reluctant to acknowledge the amount of deaths by gun violence.
Just who are you talking about?


Academics may continue to debate the 2nd amendment.

The intent and the meaning is CLEAR.. academics?? LOL

 So, either there is no reason to be concerned about mass shootings (no matter how few by comparison), or our society does see it a a problem that needs to be investigated to determine if there is a reasonable action we might enact and still maintain the freedoms our constitution provides.

Bla bla bla.. let's sit down and have a discussion  

We need to be objective, reasonable, and flexible in trying to solve what is a complex problem. To deny it is a problem is to be blind to the reality of the burden these events inflict on the victims, families and loved ones

Again who in the hell denies there is a problem when NUTS have guns?

I don't have answers. Event the questions are above my pay grade. But some of the responses I see here would suggest that some have not just a pay grade problem, but an engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest. We live with a "new normal" that requires perspective.

Right YOU DON'T have answers but you sure as hell have a way of bloviating and now suggesting that YOU are the one here who is in tune and all about new ideas. and YOU are not narrow minded and that YOU are the one with perspective.
And  you haven't said one word about how to fix the gun problem. It's much easier to go the Wonky route and put others down as engrained position fosters by outdated ideas and positions of people with narrow views of self interest.
How about you say who it is you are taking about? OR explain what a guy like you that is open minded and lives in a new normal world? You are OBVIOUSLY above all of us narrow minded selfish fools.. so lets hear something .. ANYTHING other than just your flapping gums.

We don't need to argue (in the hostile sense) but dialog would help. It's too bad that dialog often requires posts longer than the bumper-sticker posts we are accustomed to, but the reality is that often it does. Even then we are bound to be unclear at times or post without giving thought to our comments.

If there is a polar opposite of what you call bumper sticker posts it's long winded posts that do little more than profess your self proclaimed authority on what, when and how to post while putting down others.

I don't think it's important to restrict the type of guns we can own (although I fail to understand why anyone needs rapid fire rifles that are capable of killing numbers of people in one location at a given time...but that's a personal feeling and I understand many feel differently)

"rapid fire rifles" LOL what the fuck is a rapid fire rifle?

A new leaf.
From now on movies, TV, food, books, and local gossip because it's obvious I don't have a clue what I'm talking about during serious discussions.

Well, one more bit of info. Not to worry, not ONE line by me. 

By all accounts, mass shootings are now claiming more American lives than at any other point in the past thirty-five years. The most recent, on the morning of November 14th, in Rancho Tehama, California, left five victims and the shooter dead and twelve wounded, including six children. Data indicates that mass shootings are contagious and predictable, and that many killers share certain features—notably, as in the case of the shooting earlier this month at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, a history of domestic violence. The Journal of the American Medical Association has repeatedly described gun violence as an epidemic, and gun-rights groups have repeatedly fought to undermine this view. In 1996, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied the Republican Congress to limit funding for gun-related research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. jama recently estimated that research into gun violence receives just 1.6 per cent of the funding that one would expect, given the annual death toll.
The government’s failure to enact gun-reform legislation and to allocate appropriate public-health funding is symptomatic of a broader failure to conceive of these mass killings as an epidemic: that is, as a single problem affecting our country. This failure is particularly apparent in the way we talk about motive. On November 5th, after Devin Patrick Kelley killed twenty-six people in Sutherland Springs, a news alert on my phone notified me that officials were “searching for motive.” It was immediately clear to me that this search would end in one of a few ways. If the shooter had mentioned isis, the motive would be deemed political; if he were nonwhite, it would be racial. If he were white and hadn’t mentioned isis, there might be a domestic or family-related motive, or mental illness, or a bizarre, mysterious lack of motive. Each motive would, in effect, limit the number of people whose problem the killing was. Yet it is impossible to imagine a political terrorist act that is free of personal motives or domestic implications, just as it’s impossible to imagine a domestic crime that doesn’t reflect ideology. And it’s a tautology that every mass shooting involves some degree of mental illness: we would surely count as worthless any definition of mental wellness that was compatible with murdering civilians.
The deficiency of the current categories of motive is particularly evident in the case of Omar Mateen, a twenty-nine-year-old Afghan-American who is said to have abused his widow and a former wife, to have made homophobic remarks, and who, on June 12, 2016, called 911 and claimed affiliation with isis, before shooting to death forty-nine people at a gay night club in Orlando that he himself may have frequented. Was Mateen’s crime personal or political? As the Times put it, “Was the killer truly acting under orders from the Islamic State, or just seeking publicity and the group’s approval for a personal act of hate?” The phrasing is problematic, because it implies an essential difference between personal opportunists and “real” terrorists—as if real terrorists were motivated not by things that happened to them in their own lives but by disinterested ideology, hatred of freedom, or membership in an “axis of evil.”
In Sutherland Springs, the question of motive was resolved more speedily: Kelley’s reason for killing twenty-six people was determined to be a dispute with his mother-in-law. As the regional director for the Texas Department of Public Safety put it, “This was not racially motivated, it wasn’t over religious beliefs. There was a domestic situation going on within the family and the in-laws.” (The mother-in-law wasn’t at the service that day, though her own mother was and died there. Kelley, an Air Force veteran, had previously been court-martialled for assaulting his wife and his stepson.)
Yet it is odd to describe a church shooting as a “domestic situation.” It is odd to consider a “domestic” motive as proof against a political or ideological agenda. What ideological group, least of all isis, has been silent on the subject of domestic life and the role of women? A logical error is built into the very term “domestic violence,” which suggests that murderous rage directed at female relatives is a household affair, private, apolitical, not useful as a predictor of public violence. To view the murder of women as “domestic” is itself ideological, and surely some strain is placed on such a view by the case of a man shooting at a church full of strangers along with his grandmother-in-law. (Among the Rancho Tehama shooter’s first victims were his wife and a female neighbor.)
With Stephen Paddock, who shot and killed fifty-eight people in Las Vegas, in early October, authorities have found no motive. In the weeks and years before the crime, Paddock apparently exhibited no signs of political or religious extremism, no symptoms of mental illness (though the fact that he had stockpiled semiautomatic weapons for decades might be viewed, in retrospect, as a symptom). Paddock was accordingly classified, as a Muslim or a black shooter would not have been, as a sort of human enigma. A CNN headlinealluded to “The unknowable Stephen Paddock and the ultimate mystery: Why?” Another article—“One month later, Las Vegas massacre is still a mystery”—placed the shooting “in stark contrast” to the subsequent “deadly truck attack in New York City, where there were clear ideological or religious motives.”
The “clear ideological or religious” case was that of Sayfullo Saipov, a twenty-nine-year-old Uzbek national who drove onto a bike path in lower Manhattan on Halloween, killing eight pedestrians, came out of the truck shouting “Allahu akbar,” and was shot by the police. Saipov’s ideological tendencies, like Mateen’s, were a recent development. In his home city of Tashkent, Saipov was a law-abiding citizen with a hospitality degree from a well-known university, working at a large hotel catering to foreigners. In 2010, he won the green-card lottery and came to the United States on a diversity visa. He married another Uzbek immigrant, started a family, and, unable to find hotel work, moved from city to city, driving trucks.
Over the years, the Times reported, Saipov had racked up a series of traffic tickets, “the closest thing to snapshots of how Mr. Saipov lived.” In Iowa, in 2011, he waited for thirty-five minutes for officers to check his truck; in 2014, he was “stopped for more than an hour for having a cracked windshield and for missing a reflective device.” On multiple occasions, he was stopped at a Nebraska weigh station, where he got tickets for “driving too long without required rest and for carrying a load just slightly more than allowed.” In October of last year, Saipov was briefly jailed in Missouri for an unpaid traffic ticket. That was around the time that he started planning an attack. Repeated bureaucratic experiences with traffic fines is a familiar American story. But Saipov shouted “Allahu akbar,” and he had downloaded isis videos, so his motive was religious and ideological. Since his motive was religious and ideological, it was not personal or economic or a mystery.
Of the mass killings in Orlando, Las Vegas, New York, Sutherland Springs, and Rancho Tehama, the two committed by isis-invoking Muslims are categorized as terrorist acts; the three committed by white men are “domestic,” a “mystery,” or, in the case of the Rancho Tehama shooter, Kevin Neal, “bizarre.” Donald Trump has used these categories to justify a double standard of responses: terrorist acts are justification for an immigration crackdown, but for a “domestic issue,” mental illness, or “pure evil,” as the President classified the Las Vegas shooting, there is no remedy. As the Governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin, tweeted, in response to calls for gun regulations after Las Vegas: “You can’t regulate evil.”
The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control. It’s also an invitation to think about why so many Americans are trying to shoot up night clubs, churches, and schools in the first place. (Researchsuggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting—but only a hundred and fifty times more likely to own a gun.) It’s an invitation to tell one story about a shared problem that affects every American.
Thinking about the different ruptures that prevent this story from being told, I was reminded of a line from James Baldwin’s “No Name in the Street,” from 1972: “I have always been struck, in America, by an emotional poverty so bottomless, and a terror of human life, of human touch, so deep that virtually no American appears able to achieve any viable, organic connection between his public stance and his private life.” For Baldwin, this disconnect originates in Americans’ need “to safeguard their purity” at all costs—to go to any cognitive length in order to deny that they have profited, and continue to profit, from the suffering of others. How, Baldwin asks, can white Americans live normal lives among the descendants of the slaves who built their wealth? How, for that matter, can men live normal lives alongside women, whose sacrifices and labor were invisible for so many years? How can immigrants from poor and war-torn countries live normal lives as Americans? What Baldwin calls “the failure, in most American lives, of the most elementary and crucial connections” is reflected in the stories we tell, and in the larger stories we don’t tell.
Given our predilection for isolated issues and personal pathologies, it is no surprise that the brain of the Las Vegas shooter has been sent to the Stanford University Medical Center for forensic examination. “I think everybody is pretty doubtful that we’re going to come up with something,” Hannes Vogel, Stanford’s chief of neuropathology, told the Times. “The possibilities, neuropathologically, for explaining this kind of behavior are very few.” The initial autopsy by the Clark County coroner turned up no visible abnormalities, contrary to hopes expressed by the gunman’s brother. “I hope to hell that they find when they do the autopsy that there’s a tumor in his head or something,” Eric Paddock told reporters, “because if they don’t, we’re all in trouble.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com...Q4MDY1MAS2

By all accounts, mass shootings are now claiming more American lives than at any other point in the past thirty-five years.

Before the last 35 tears there were more mass shootings?

The government’s failure to enact gun-reform legislation
The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control.

But OF course NO mention of what type of gun control.


(Researchsuggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting


Gun regulation?? Again not one word about what the hell that means

For the love of God comparing the USA to Japan AGAIN??? Plus this nitwit alleged journalist went from mass shootings to the NUMBER of homicides???

We have FOUR times more crime than Japan. We have 27 times mores rapes than Japan.

Japan's crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.

Step 1 in the process of making America more Japanese would involve ending immigration and multiculturalism and there is little doubt, statistically, that this would do far more to lower our homicide rate, than banning guns.
In 1900, the United States had a lower murder rate than Japan. The United States homicide rate doubled between the 1900s and the 1920s. It declined in the wartime and post-war period when most immigrants had been successfully integrated and it spiked again during the 1960s.
Two years after Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the murder rate rose sharply.  Ten years later in 1975, the US murder rate had doubled.
Anyone who wants Japan's murder rate needn't waste time with its gun control laws and can skip right to its immigration policies.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/169646...greenfield

[Cuzz]

By all accounts, mass shootings are now claiming more American lives than at any other point in the past thirty-five years.

Before the last 35 tears there were more mass shootings?

The government’s failure to enact gun-reform legislation
The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control.

But OF course NO mention of what type of gun control.


(Researchsuggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting


Gun regulation?? Again not one word about what the hell that means

For the love of God comparing the USA to Japan AGAIN??? Plus this nitwit alleged journalist went from mass shootings to the NUMBER of homicides???

We have FOUR times more crime than Japan. We have 27 times mores rapes than Japan.

Japan's crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.

Step 1 in the process of making America more Japanese would involve ending immigration and multiculturalism and there is little doubt, statistically, that this would do far more to lower our homicide rate, than banning guns.
In 1900, the United States had a lower murder rate than Japan. The United States homicide rate doubled between the 1900s and the 1920s. It declined in the wartime and post-war period when most immigrants had been successfully integrated and it spiked again during the 1960s.
Two years after Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the murder rate rose sharply.  Ten years later in 1975, the US murder rate had doubled.
Anyone who wants Japan's murder rate needn't waste time with its gun control laws and can skip right to its immigration policies.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/169646...greenfield

I think it's obvious that comparing the US to Japan in relation to gun violence is not reasonable.

However, I don't have any confidence in the article you linked and quoted. I don't believe for a minute that they can make such claims for early 1900's and back it up with good data. I don't believe the data exists.

[tvguy]

By all accounts, mass shootings are now claiming more American lives than at any other point in the past thirty-five years.

Before the last 35 tears there were more mass shootings?

The government’s failure to enact gun-reform legislation
The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control.

But OF course NO mention of what type of gun control.


(Researchsuggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting


Gun regulation?? Again not one word about what the hell that means

For the love of God comparing the USA to Japan AGAIN??? Plus this nitwit alleged journalist went from mass shootings to the NUMBER of homicides???

We have FOUR times more crime than Japan. We have 27 times mores rapes than Japan.

Japan's crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.

Step 1 in the process of making America more Japanese would involve ending immigration and multiculturalism and there is little doubt, statistically, that this would do far more to lower our homicide rate, than banning guns.
In 1900, the United States had a lower murder rate than Japan. The United States homicide rate doubled between the 1900s and the 1920s. It declined in the wartime and post-war period when most immigrants had been successfully integrated and it spiked again during the 1960s.
Two years after Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the murder rate rose sharply.  Ten years later in 1975, the US murder rate had doubled.
Anyone who wants Japan's murder rate needn't waste time with its gun control laws and can skip right to its immigration policies.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/169646...greenfield

I think it's obvious that comparing the US to Japan in relation to gun violence is not reasonable.

However, I don't have any confidence in the article you linked and quoted. I don't believe for a minute that they can make such claims for early 1900's and back it up with good data. I don't believe the data exists.

You could be right. But I posted it because of the comment about Japan being a nation that is nothing like our nation of immigrants and ethnics.
Japanese people are 98.5% of their population and most of the other are also Asians.
They don't have blacks and Hispanics.
But we do and they make up 60% of our prison population. And that has a lot to do with gun crimes and deaths.
Also I'm sure Japan doesn't have the poverty or ghettos or gangs we have.

[Cuzz]

By all accounts, mass shootings are now claiming more American lives than at any other point in the past thirty-five years.

Before the last 35 tears there were more mass shootings?

The government’s failure to enact gun-reform legislation
The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control.

But OF course NO mention of what type of gun control.


(Researchsuggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting


Gun regulation?? Again not one word about what the hell that means

For the love of God comparing the USA to Japan AGAIN??? Plus this nitwit alleged journalist went from mass shootings to the NUMBER of homicides???

We have FOUR times more crime than Japan. We have 27 times mores rapes than Japan.

Japan's crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.

Step 1 in the process of making America more Japanese would involve ending immigration and multiculturalism and there is little doubt, statistically, that this would do far more to lower our homicide rate, than banning guns.
In 1900, the United States had a lower murder rate than Japan. The United States homicide rate doubled between the 1900s and the 1920s. It declined in the wartime and post-war period when most immigrants had been successfully integrated and it spiked again during the 1960s.
Two years after Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the murder rate rose sharply.  Ten years later in 1975, the US murder rate had doubled.
Anyone who wants Japan's murder rate needn't waste time with its gun control laws and can skip right to its immigration policies.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/169646...greenfield

I think it's obvious that comparing the US to Japan in relation to gun violence is not reasonable.

However, I don't have any confidence in the article you linked and quoted. I don't believe for a minute that they can make such claims for early 1900's and back it up with good data. I don't believe the data exists.

You could be right. But I posted it because of the comment about Japan being a nation that is nothing like our nation of immigrants and ethnics.
Japanese people are 98.5% of their population and most of the other are also Asians.
They don't have blacks and Hispanics.
But we do and they make up 60% of our prison population. And that has a lot to do with gun crimes and deaths.
Also I'm sure Japan doesn't have the poverty or ghettos or gangs we have.

I think the greater difference is the culture and history of Japan is totally foreign to our own.

[tvguy]

By all accounts, mass shootings are now claiming more American lives than at any other point in the past thirty-five years.

Before the last 35 tears there were more mass shootings?

The government’s failure to enact gun-reform legislation
The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control.

But OF course NO mention of what type of gun control.


(Researchsuggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting


Gun regulation?? Again not one word about what the hell that means

For the love of God comparing the USA to Japan AGAIN??? Plus this nitwit alleged journalist went from mass shootings to the NUMBER of homicides???

We have FOUR times more crime than Japan. We have 27 times mores rapes than Japan.

Japan's crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.

Step 1 in the process of making America more Japanese would involve ending immigration and multiculturalism and there is little doubt, statistically, that this would do far more to lower our homicide rate, than banning guns.
In 1900, the United States had a lower murder rate than Japan. The United States homicide rate doubled between the 1900s and the 1920s. It declined in the wartime and post-war period when most immigrants had been successfully integrated and it spiked again during the 1960s.
Two years after Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the murder rate rose sharply.  Ten years later in 1975, the US murder rate had doubled.
Anyone who wants Japan's murder rate needn't waste time with its gun control laws and can skip right to its immigration policies.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/169646...greenfield

I think it's obvious that comparing the US to Japan in relation to gun violence is not reasonable.

However, I don't have any confidence in the article you linked and quoted. I don't believe for a minute that they can make such claims for early 1900's and back it up with good data. I don't believe the data exists.

You could be right. But I posted it because of the comment about Japan being a nation that is nothing like our nation of immigrants and ethnics.
Japanese people are 98.5% of their population and most of the other are also Asians.
They don't have blacks and Hispanics.
But we do and they make up 60% of our prison population. And that has a lot to do with gun crimes and deaths.
Also I'm sure Japan doesn't have the poverty or ghettos or gangs we have.

I think the greater difference is the culture and history of Japan is totally foreign to our own.

Well yes but you are just saying the same as me a different way.

Give Japan the same amount of minorities that we have and see how fast their crime rate goes up.

I guess what I'm saying and I know it sounds VERY racist. But if we were 99% Caucasian like Japan is 99% Asian.
We would not lead the world with the most incarcerated and the most crime for developed countries.

[Wonky3]

By all accounts, mass shootings are now claiming more American lives than at any other point in the past thirty-five years.

Before the last 35 tears there were more mass shootings?

The government’s failure to enact gun-reform legislation
The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control.

But OF course NO mention of what type of gun control.


(Researchsuggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting


Gun regulation?? Again not one word about what the hell that means

For the love of God comparing the USA to Japan AGAIN??? Plus this nitwit alleged journalist went from mass shootings to the NUMBER of homicides???

We have FOUR times more crime than Japan. We have 27 times mores rapes than Japan.

Japan's crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.

Step 1 in the process of making America more Japanese would involve ending immigration and multiculturalism and there is little doubt, statistically, that this would do far more to lower our homicide rate, than banning guns.
In 1900, the United States had a lower murder rate than Japan. The United States homicide rate doubled between the 1900s and the 1920s. It declined in the wartime and post-war period when most immigrants had been successfully integrated and it spiked again during the 1960s.
Two years after Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the murder rate rose sharply.  Ten years later in 1975, the US murder rate had doubled.
Anyone who wants Japan's murder rate needn't waste time with its gun control laws and can skip right to its immigration policies.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/169646...greenfield

I think it's obvious that comparing the US to Japan in relation to gun violence is not reasonable.

However, I don't have any confidence in the article you linked and quoted. I don't believe for a minute that they can make such claims for early 1900's and back it up with good data. I don't believe the data exists.

You could be right. But I posted it because of the comment about Japan being a nation that is nothing like our nation of immigrants and ethnics.
Japanese people are 98.5% of their population and most of the other are also Asians.
They don't have blacks and Hispanics.
But we do and they make up 60% of our prison population. And that has a lot to do with gun crimes and deaths.
Also I'm sure Japan doesn't have the poverty or ghettos or gangs we have.

I think the greater difference is the culture and history of Japan is totally foreign to our own.

Well yes but you are just saying the same as me a different way.

Give Japan the same amount of minorities that we have and see how fast their crime rate goes up.

I guess what I'm saying and I know it sounds VERY racist. But if we were 99% Caucasian like Japan is 99% Asian.
We would not lead the world with the most incarcerated and the most crime for developed countries.

Ethnic groups of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan#p-search]
Though it is said that Ethnic Japanese make up 98.5% of the total population and that the rest are Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%,[1] in fact these numbers are not known. The Ministry of Justice in Japan conflates nationality with ethnicity, and they have no official data on the actual ethnic breakdown of people in Japan.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan

[tvguy]

I think it's obvious that comparing the US to Japan in relation to gun violence is not reasonable.

However, I don't have any confidence in the article you linked and quoted. I don't believe for a minute that they can make such claims for early 1900's and back it up with good data. I don't believe the data exists.

You could be right. But I posted it because of the comment about Japan being a nation that is nothing like our nation of immigrants and ethnics.
Japanese people are 98.5% of their population and most of the other are also Asians.
They don't have blacks and Hispanics.
But we do and they make up 60% of our prison population. And that has a lot to do with gun crimes and deaths.
Also I'm sure Japan doesn't have the poverty or ghettos or gangs we have.

I think the greater difference is the culture and history of Japan is totally foreign to our own.

Well yes but you are just saying the same as me a different way.

Give Japan the same amount of minorities that we have and see how fast their crime rate goes up.

I guess what I'm saying and I know it sounds VERY racist. But if we were 99% Caucasian like Japan is 99% Asian.
We would not lead the world with the most incarcerated and the most crime for developed countries.

Ethnic groups of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan#p-search]
Though it is said that Ethnic Japanese make up 98.5% of the total population and that the rest are Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%,[1] in fact these numbers are not known. The Ministry of Justice in Japan conflates nationality with ethnicity, and they have no official data on the actual ethnic breakdown of people in Japan.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan

Right I'm sure they have tons of blacks and Hispanics and they just blend in LOL.. Those numbers may not be accurate but they are no where near the mixed bag of cultures and races like we are.
Which was the point.

[Wonky3]

You could be right. But I posted it because of the comment about Japan being a nation that is nothing like our nation of immigrants and ethnics.
Japanese people are 98.5% of their population and most of the other are also Asians.
They don't have blacks and Hispanics.
But we do and they make up 60% of our prison population. And that has a lot to do with gun crimes and deaths.
Also I'm sure Japan doesn't have the poverty or ghettos or gangs we have.

I think the greater difference is the culture and history of Japan is totally foreign to our own.

Well yes but you are just saying the same as me a different way.

Give Japan the same amount of minorities that we have and see how fast their crime rate goes up.

I guess what I'm saying and I know it sounds VERY racist. But if we were 99% Caucasian like Japan is 99% Asian.
We would not lead the world with the most incarcerated and the most crime for developed countries.

Ethnic groups of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan#p-search]
Though it is said that Ethnic Japanese make up 98.5% of the total population and that the rest are Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%,[1] in fact these numbers are not known. The Ministry of Justice in Japan conflates nationality with ethnicity, and they have no official data on the actual ethnic breakdown of people in Japan.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan

Right I'm sure they have tons of blacks and Hispanics and they just blend in LOL.. Those numbers may not be accurate but they are no where near the mixed bag of cultures and races like we are.
Which was the point.

Yes, and in the article I posted the reference to Japan was only a minor point. And let it be know that white guys kill too. 
whatever....the killing will continue.   But I won't be shooting anyone anytime soon because I don't have a gun. 
And I'm already sorry I bothered to respond. 

[tvguy]

I think the greater difference is the culture and history of Japan is totally foreign to our own.

Well yes but you are just saying the same as me a different way.

Give Japan the same amount of minorities that we have and see how fast their crime rate goes up.

I guess what I'm saying and I know it sounds VERY racist. But if we were 99% Caucasian like Japan is 99% Asian.
We would not lead the world with the most incarcerated and the most crime for developed countries.

Ethnic groups of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan#p-search]
Though it is said that Ethnic Japanese make up 98.5% of the total population and that the rest are Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%,[1] in fact these numbers are not known. The Ministry of Justice in Japan conflates nationality with ethnicity, and they have no official data on the actual ethnic breakdown of people in Japan.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan

Right I'm sure they have tons of blacks and Hispanics and they just blend in LOL.. Those numbers may not be accurate but they are no where near the mixed bag of cultures and races like we are.
Which was the point.

Yes, and in the article I posted the reference to Japan was only a minor point. And let it be know that white guys kill too. 
whatever....the killing will continue.   But I won't be shooting anyone anytime soon because I don't have a gun. 
And I'm already sorry I bothered to respond. 

 I'm sorry you responded too. For one thing your comment "that white guys kill too" is totally fucking ignorant because it implies I said something otherwise.

 



And if you can't post with some disclaimer that you wished you didn't then DON'T>

[Wonky3]

Well yes but you are just saying the same as me a different way.

Give Japan the same amount of minorities that we have and see how fast their crime rate goes up.

I guess what I'm saying and I know it sounds VERY racist. But if we were 99% Caucasian like Japan is 99% Asian.
We would not lead the world with the most incarcerated and the most crime for developed countries.

Ethnic groups of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan#p-search]
Though it is said that Ethnic Japanese make up 98.5% of the total population and that the rest are Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%,[1] in fact these numbers are not known. The Ministry of Justice in Japan conflates nationality with ethnicity, and they have no official data on the actual ethnic breakdown of people in Japan.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan

Right I'm sure they have tons of blacks and Hispanics and they just blend in LOL.. Those numbers may not be accurate but they are no where near the mixed bag of cultures and races like we are.
Which was the point.

Yes, and in the article I posted the reference to Japan was only a minor point. And let it be know that white guys kill too. 
whatever....the killing will continue.   But I won't be shooting anyone anytime soon because I don't have a gun. 
And I'm already sorry I bothered to respond. 

 I'm sorry you responded too. For one thing your comment "that white guys kill too" is totally fucking ignorant because it implies I said something otherwise.

 



And if you can't post with some disclaimer that you wished you didn't then DON'T>

Thing is...
I may regret it.
You deal with it!