Current Events > Gun nuts: Terrorist attack happens, we need to close the borders

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mass shooting happens: Stop politicizing this tragedy! Too soon!!! Stop pushing your agenda!! How dare you??

Biggest hypocrites ever?
---

Not really. They just don't like minorities.
---

Ok let's talk about it. Tougher immigration laws would indeed prevent Islamic extremists from entering the country. What new law would have prevented this shooting?
---

This is how you spend your weekends.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Ok let's talk about it. What new law would have prevented this shooting?

Any ban on semiautomatic rifles likely would have. Australia had multiple mass shooting involving semiautl rifles and once they were banned, they stopped completely.

But let me guess, "America is different and people will always shoot up schools no matter what" or something along those lines, right?
---

How would closing the borders stop terrorists from influencing weak-minded Americans in to doing their killing for them?
---

pepe is a nazi

008Zulu posted...

How would closing the borders stop terrorists from influencing weak-minded Americans in to doing their killing for them?

This. CEs resident Trumpers are all pretty ok with Russia influencing their opinions over social media. In fact, they seem to just downright support it. What kind of laws can we place that would prevent Russia from radicalizing yet another of America's right wing basket cases?
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Any ban on semiautomatic rifles likely would have. Australia had multiple mass shooting involving semiautl rifles and once they were banned, they stopped completely.

1) Australia's "ban" didn't remove the guns. 2/3 of the guns are still in the hands of their owners.
2) Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before their "ban" so having few mass shootings afterward is statistically negligible.
3) After Australia's gun ban, their homicide rate declined at a slower rate than the US' did after that period.
5) The trend in Australia's homicide rate did not decline at any faster rate than it was already declining before their ban.
6) Even if the US did go directly against the Constitution and implement a buyback program like Australia's, not only would Americans be way less likely to turn theirs in than Australians, but there's such an enormous supply of guns in private hands already that it would only create a black market of firearms unregulated by the ATF.
7) Rifles are used in less than 1% of gun homicides, and the worst school shooting in history was committed with handguns. Banning rifles is nonsensical from a statistical point of view and there's no reason whatsoever to believe it would stop mass shootings.
8) There has never been a causal connection made between gun bans and lower gun homicides.

Any other ideas?
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Ok let's talk about it. What new law would have prevented this shooting?

Any ban on semiautomatic rifles likely would have. Australia had multiple mass shooting involving semiautl rifles and once they were banned, they stopped completely.

But let me guess, "America is different and people will always shoot up schools no matter what" or something along those lines, right?

Despite what you think you know, Australia is different than the US.

1) Geographically isolated. New guns cannot enter the country easily.
2) Mental illness is not as big of an issue in Australia as it is in the US.
3) Australia is pretty much homogeneous. There are no real conflicts in race, ideology, etc.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Ok let's talk about it. Tougher immigration laws would indeed prevent Islamic extremists from entering the country. What new law would have prevented this shooting?

They couldnt just come in illegally?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Any ban on semiautomatic rifles likely would have. Australia had multiple mass shooting involving semiautl rifles and once they were banned, they stopped completely.

1) Australia's "ban" didn't remove the guns. 2/3 of the guns are still in the hands of their owners.
2) Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before their "ban" so having few mass shootings afterward is statistically negligible.

The University of Sydney, in a 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found Australia hadn't experienced a fatal mass shooting one in which five or more people are killed since the 1996 shooting. In the 18 years prior, 1979-1996, there were 13 fatal mass shootings in Australia.

Yeah, "statistically insignificant".

Where do you people get your bullshit facts from? I've really like to know. I'm only at #2 and already I have to disprove a massive lie.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

3) Australia is pretty much homogeneous. There are no real conflicts in race, ideology, etc.

how much do you know about the country
---

LordRazziel posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Ok let's talk about it. Tougher immigration laws would indeed prevent Islamic extremists from entering the country. What new law would have prevented this shooting?

They couldnt just come in illegally?

Sure, which is why we also need to be vigilant about deporting illegal immigrants when they're apprehended.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

The University of Sydney, in a 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found Australia hadn't experienced a fatal mass shooting one in which five or more people are killed since the 1996 shooting. In the 18 years prior, 1979-1996, there were 13 fatal mass shootings in Australia.

ChainedRedone posted...

2) Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before their "ban" so having few mass shootings afterward is statistically negligible.

The bolded part is why it's statistically negligible. Try to keep up.

Also,

Sephiroth1288 posted...

5) The trend in Australia's homicide rate did not decline at any faster rate than it was already declining before their ban.

---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Ok let's talk about it. Tougher immigration laws would indeed prevent Islamic extremists from entering the country. What new law would have prevented this shooting?

They couldnt just come in illegally?

Sure, which is why we also need to be vigilant about deporting illegal immigrants when they're apprehended.

We could also be vigilant about enforcing reasonable gun control laws. *Gasp*
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

The University of Sydney, in a 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found Australia hadn't experienced a fatal mass shooting one in which five or more people are killed since the 1996 shooting. In the 18 years prior, 1979-1996, there were 13 fatal mass shootings in Australia.

ChainedRedone posted...

2) Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before their "ban" so having few mass shootings afterward is statistically negligible.

The bolded part is why it's statistically negligible. Try to keep up.

I already disproved that. They were not rare. It's like I'm talking to a wall here.
---

Also, there is this:

http://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-homicide-rates-79654

A chart about half way through shows that knives are just as bad as firearms are. Therefore, should we ban knives as well? Should we ban being unarmed too, as being unarmed is one of the most common way to commit homicide?
---

ChainedRedone posted...

We could also be vigilant about enforcing reasonable gun control laws. *Gasp*

Most proposed gun control laws aren't reasonable though.

That's why the Obama administration never made any Federal gun control laws. Not even Democrats could come up with something they thought was feasible.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

The University of Sydney, in a 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found Australia hadn't experienced a fatal mass shooting one in which five or more people are killed since the 1996 shooting. In the 18 years prior, 1979-1996, there were 13 fatal mass shootings in Australia.

ChainedRedone posted...

2) Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before their "ban" so having few mass shootings afterward is statistically negligible.

The bolded part is why it's statistically negligible. Try to keep up.

I already disproved that. They were not rare. It's like I'm talking to a wall here.

Other than the massacre in 96; homicides where firearms were used remain relatively close the same as it was before the 'ban.' Look at the chart I posted.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

I already disproved that. They were not rare. It's like I'm talking to a wall here.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

5) The trend in Australia's homicide rate did not decline at any faster rate than it was already declining before their ban.

---

There definitely need to be changes to law around firearms.

That said, people need to fucking learn that assault rifle and 'assault weapon' are two different things. 'Assault weapon' is a stupid term that needs to be dropped.
---

Blbmbr666 posted...

There definitely need to be changes to law around firearms.

That said, people need to fucking learn that assault rifle and 'assault weapon' are two different things. 'Assault weapon' is a stupid term that needs to be dropped.

A change is society is more useful than a change to firearm laws.
---

Blbmbr666 posted...

That said, people need to fucking learn that assault rifle and 'assault weapon' are two different things. 'Assault weapon' is a stupid term that needs to be dropped.

thats another problem. you have people trying to make these laws on things they know nothing about which only pushes the other side further away from you.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

There definitely need to be changes to law around firearms.

That said, people need to fucking learn that assault rifle and 'assault weapon' are two different things. 'Assault weapon' is a stupid term that needs to be dropped.

A change is society is more useful than a change to firearm laws.

It's probably going to take multiple changes in a few different areas to actually 'fix' this issue.

I'm personally of the belief that mental health is a larger cause than the guns themselves, but it's much easier to start with a very simple licensing test for rifles than to overhaul mental health industries.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

I already disproved that. They were not rare. It's like I'm talking to a wall here.

Sephiroth1288 posted...

5) The trend in Australia's homicide rate did not decline at any faster rate than it was already declining before their ban.

Regardless if it seems to be have been the trend, mass shootings still did dropped dramatically. But maybe firearm homicides in general would have kept decreasing. Obviously you can never know, but we do know they did continue to drop post-ban.
---

Blbmbr666 posted...

It's probably going to take multiple changes in a few different areas to actually 'fix' this issue.

I'm personally of the belief that mental health is a larger cause than the guns themselves, but it's much easier to start with a very simple licensing test for rifles than to overhaul mental health industries.

Or we can be more aggressive about getting help to people with mental illnesses in general, before they maneuver a way to kill people with an improvised explosive and the like.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

It's probably going to take multiple changes in a few different areas to actually 'fix' this issue.

I'm personally of the belief that mental health is a larger cause than the guns themselves, but it's much easier to start with a very simple licensing test for rifles than to overhaul mental health industries.

Or we can be more aggressive about getting help to people with mental illnesses in general, before they maneuver a way to kill people with an improvised explosive and the like.

I agree. However, me agreeing to a licensing test works both as a simple solution to start with, and if it doesn't work, proof that the firearms themselves aren't the issue.
---

Blbmbr666 posted...

but it's much easier to start with a very simple licensing test for rifles than to overhaul mental health industries.

you say that, but here we are 24 years after the AWB and pretty much nothing else has been accomplished. the gun community has triple downed on everything after that no matter how small. mental health might be a far easier thing to go for that people of both sides can agree on.
---

prince_leo posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

3) Australia is pretty much homogeneous. There are no real conflicts in race, ideology, etc.

how much do you know about the country

Yeah this is false. Australia isn't "pretty much homogeneous".
---

Dark_Spiret posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

but it's much easier to start with a very simple licensing test for rifles than to overhaul mental health industries.

you say that, but here we are 24 years after the AWB and pretty much nothing else has been accomplished. the gun community has triple downed on everything after that no matter how small. mental health might be a far easier thing to go for that people of both sides can agree on.

Also a fair point. I'll freely admit I haven't done much deeper thinking on a real solution to this, but to me it seems almost easier to prove mental health is a much bigger issue than spooky looking guns.
---

Blbmbr666 posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

There definitely need to be changes to law around firearms.

That said, people need to fucking learn that assault rifle and 'assault weapon' are two different things. 'Assault weapon' is a stupid term that needs to be dropped.

A change is society is more useful than a change to firearm laws.

It's probably going to take multiple changes in a few different areas to actually 'fix' this issue.

I'm personally of the belief that mental health is a larger cause than the guns themselves, but it's much easier to start with a very simple licensing test for rifles than to overhaul mental health industries.

The only problem is that even with a licensing test for guns... people who use guns for shootings/etc are not the 'legal' owners nor have they obtained the weapon legally.

This can provide more insight:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.ec2674ba931d

At least 167 of mass shooters weapons were obtained legally and 49 were obtained illegally. Its unclear how 76 weapons were acquired.

So basically, at least 50 shootings would've still occurred. However, the 167 weapons were not shown if it was the 'legal' owner of the gun or not.

The vast majority were between the ages of 20 and 49. More than half 88 of them died at or near the scene of the shooting, often by killing themselves.

This shows that there is a pretty large change that most of these perpetrators suffer from some form of mental illness.

In the 50 years before the Texas tower shooting, there were just 25 public mass shootings in which four or more people were killed, according to author and criminologist Grant Duwe. Since then, the number has risen dramatically, and many of the deadliest shootings have occurred within the past few years.

This shows that something has 'changed' in the last few decades. Weapons have always had the same sort of 'laws' so why is the change occurring now?
---

Window_Starer posted...

prince_leo posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

3) Australia is pretty much homogeneous. There are no real conflicts in race, ideology, etc.

how much do you know about the country

Yeah this is false. Australia isn't "pretty much homogeneous".

The 2016 census data shows a much more homogeneous country than the US.
---

Blbmbr666 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

It's probably going to take multiple changes in a few different areas to actually 'fix' this issue.

I'm personally of the belief that mental health is a larger cause than the guns themselves, but it's much easier to start with a very simple licensing test for rifles than to overhaul mental health industries.

Or we can be more aggressive about getting help to people with mental illnesses in general, before they maneuver a way to kill people with an improvised explosive and the like.

I agree. However, me agreeing to a licensing test works both as a simple solution to start with, and if it doesn't work, proof that the firearms themselves aren't the issue.

Well, there's already proof that firearms aren't the issue. Firearm sales have been going up for decades and in that same timeframe homicides have been plummeting.

Licensing for firearms creates several issues of precedent. If the 2nd Amendment is ruled to be subject to licensing, then every other right we have can then also be subject to license. That includes the right to free expression, the right to vote, the right against searches and seizures...

Suffice to say, it would take us down a dark road.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Weapons have always had the same sort of 'laws' so why is the change occurring now?

I agree completely. It's not about access to guns IMO. I'm trying to imagine what concessions would have to be made to get to the root of the problem though.
---

Brown person shoots someone: BAN ALL IMMIGRANTS
White person shoots someone: Thots and payers
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Any ban on semiautomatic rifles likely would have. Australia had multiple mass shooting involving semiautl rifles and once they were banned, they stopped completely.

1) Australia's "ban" didn't remove the guns. 2/3 of the guns are still in the hands of their owners.
2) Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before their "ban" so having few mass shootings afterward is statistically negligible.
3) After Australia's gun ban, their homicide rate declined at a slower rate than the US' did after that period.
5) The trend in Australia's homicide rate did not decline at any faster rate than it was already declining before their ban.
6) Even if the US did go directly against the Constitution and implement a buyback program like Australia's, not only would Americans be way less likely to turn theirs in than Australians, but there's such an enormous supply of guns in private hands already that it would only create a black market of firearms unregulated by the ATF.
7) Rifles are used in less than 1% of gun homicides, and the worst school shooting in history was committed with handguns. Banning rifles is nonsensical from a statistical point of view and there's no reason whatsoever to believe it would stop mass shootings.
8) There has never been a causal connection made between gun bans and lower gun homicides.

Any other ideas?

You realize this means nothing without sources right
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

Brown person shoots someone: BAN ALL IMMIGRANTS
White person shoots someone: Thots and payers

Yes lord thots
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Ok let's talk about it. Tougher immigration laws would indeed prevent Islamic extremists from entering the country. What new law would have prevented this shooting?

They couldnt just come in illegally?

Sure, which is why we also need to be vigilant about deporting illegal immigrants when they're apprehended.

So in the same way immigration can't stop Islamic extremists, but could reduce their numbers, couldn't stricter gun laws reduce incidents of mass murder?
---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

You realize this means nothing without sources right

This entire discussion hinges on the notion that a gun ban will have a causal correlation with less gun homicide. Show me a source on that first.
---

LordRazziel posted...

So in the same way immigration can't stop Islamic extremists, but could reduce their numbers, couldn't stricter gun laws reduce incidents of mass murder?

I just wanna point out that your comparison is flawed. Immigration changes would stop the perpetrators of violence, a gun law would only make a tool harder to acquire instead of stopping the perpetrators.
---

Blbmbr666 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

So in the same way immigration can't stop Islamic extremists, but could reduce their numbers, couldn't stricter gun laws reduce incidents of mass murder?

I just wanna point out that your comparison is flawed. Immigration changes would stop the perpetrators of violence, a gun law would only make a tool harder to acquire instead of stopping the perpetrators.

Depends on how you look at it.
My point is reduction through increased difficulty. In that way, it's an apt comparison.
---

---

LordRazziel posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

So in the same way immigration can't stop Islamic extremists, but could reduce their numbers, couldn't stricter gun laws reduce incidents of mass murder?

I just wanna point out that your comparison is flawed. Immigration changes would stop the perpetrators of violence, a gun law would only make a tool harder to acquire instead of stopping the perpetrators.

Depends on how you look at it.
My point is reduction through increased difficulty. In that way, it's an apt comparison.

A psycho who wants to kill people and can't get a gun will use other things instead, like a truck or a pressure cooker bomb.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

So in the same way immigration can't stop Islamic extremists, but could reduce their numbers, couldn't stricter gun laws reduce incidents of mass murder?

I just wanna point out that your comparison is flawed. Immigration changes would stop the perpetrators of violence, a gun law would only make a tool harder to acquire instead of stopping the perpetrators.

Depends on how you look at it.
My point is reduction through increased difficulty. In that way, it's an apt comparison.

A psycho who wants to kill people and can't get a gun will use other things instead, like a truck or a pressure cooker bomb.

You mean the pressure cooker bombs that killed 3 people in Boston? Yeah those things sure are as deadly as guns that kill dozens in minutes. It's amazing you guys can't deduce simple conclusions. Guns make it easier to kill.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

So in the same way immigration can't stop Islamic extremists, but could reduce their numbers, couldn't stricter gun laws reduce incidents of mass murder?

I just wanna point out that your comparison is flawed. Immigration changes would stop the perpetrators of violence, a gun law would only make a tool harder to acquire instead of stopping the perpetrators.

Depends on how you look at it.
My point is reduction through increased difficulty. In that way, it's an apt comparison.

A psycho who wants to kill people and can't get a gun will use other things instead, like a truck or a pressure cooker bomb.

Always? Every time?
If an Islamic Extremist wants to get in the country, won't they just come in anyway?
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

So in the same way immigration can't stop Islamic extremists, but could reduce their numbers, couldn't stricter gun laws reduce incidents of mass murder?

I just wanna point out that your comparison is flawed. Immigration changes would stop the perpetrators of violence, a gun law would only make a tool harder to acquire instead of stopping the perpetrators.

Depends on how you look at it.
My point is reduction through increased difficulty. In that way, it's an apt comparison.

A psycho who wants to kill people and can't get a gun will use other things instead, like a truck or a pressure cooker bomb.

You mean the pressure cooker bombs that killed 3 people in Boston? Yeah those things sure are as deadly as guns that kill dozens in minutes.

The majority of mass shootings have fewer than 5 deaths.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Blbmbr666 posted...

LordRazziel posted...

So in the same way immigration can't stop Islamic extremists, but could reduce their numbers, couldn't stricter gun laws reduce incidents of mass murder?

I just wanna point out that your comparison is flawed. Immigration changes would stop the perpetrators of violence, a gun law would only make a tool harder to acquire instead of stopping the perpetrators.

Depends on how you look at it.
My point is reduction through increased difficulty. In that way, it's an apt comparison.

A psycho who wants to kill people and can't get a gun will use other things instead, like a truck or a pressure cooker bomb.

You mean the pressure cooker bombs that killed 3 people in Boston? Yeah those things sure are as deadly as guns that kill dozens in minutes.

The majority of mass shootings have fewer than 5 deaths.

This guy still doesn't get it. Is it really so hard to understand that a gun can mow down a crowd in seconds? Sheesh you people will never admit it.
---