UCSB School Shooting

[Balta1701]

Funny how in his rantings the killer mentioned that he seeked out a gun free zone. Guess those pesky signs didn't deter him very much.

Great, so you'd be in favor of much stronger measures?

[Y2HH]

Great, so you'd be in favor of much stronger measures?

 

Kind of the opposite of his point.

 

At this juncture, stop talking, as you aren't even reading.

[Balta1701]

Sorry but you can't just "normalize" something like that.

That's one of the silliest statements I've ever read.

[Balta1701]

Kind of the opposite of his point.

 

At this juncture, stop talking, as you aren't even reading.

I agree.

 

But if you're going to make fun of how pathetically weak our ability to control where people take guns is, which is what laughing at the "gun-free zone" signs is, then it certainly seems like any reasonable person would say "hey what happens if we tried something a lot stronger".

[Y2HH]

That's one of the silliest statements I've ever read.

 

No, it's not if you actually thought for yourself for a minute.

 

The sheer societal complexity a massive population adds CANNOT be normalized and then compared to a completely different culture/society, which is exactly what you're attempting to do here. So as stated, try harder.

 

Your argument is weak and you f***ing know it.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Y2HH

[EvilMonkey]

Great, so you'd be in favor of much stronger measures?

In favor or removing the signs, perhaps.

[EvilMonkey]

I agree.

 

But if you're going to make fun of how pathetically weak our ability to control where people take guns is, which is what laughing at the "gun-free zone" signs is, then it certainly seems like any reasonable person would say "hey what happens if we tried something a lot stronger".

Like armed guards in schools? Sure, let's do that. Except when that was last proposed many on the anti side s*** their pants at the mere thought of a gun in school, regardless of who was possessing it.

[Balta1701]

No, it's not if you actually thought for yourself for a minute. Of course we aren't taking about rocks here so maybe you're out of bounds.

 

The sheer societal complexity a massive population adds CANNOT be normalized. So as stated, try harder.

If we just focus on the metro areas, Sydney and Melbourne have about 4 million people each. The murder rate in Sydney is about 1 per 100,000, the murder rate in Melbourne is closer to 5.

 

A metro area in the U.S. with a similar population is Phoenix. It reported 123 murders per 100,000 people last year.

 

Another similar comp in size is the San Francisco Metro Area, with 70 murders per 100,000 people.

 

Same sized cities. We're gunning ourselves down like crazy, they don't.

[EvilMonkey]

If we just focus on the metro areas, Sydney and Melbourne have about 4 million people each. The murder rate in Sydney is about 1 per 100,000, the murder rate in Melbourne is closer to 5.

 

A metro area in the U.S. with a similar population is Phoenix. It reported 123 murders per 100,000 people last year.

 

Another similar comp in size is the San Francisco Metro Area, with 70 murders per 100,000 people.

 

Same sized cities. We're gunning ourselves down like crazy, they don't.

What is the gang activity in those 4 cities?

[Balta1701]

Like armed guards in schools? Sure, let's do that. Except when that was last proposed many on the anti side s*** their pants at the mere thought of a gun in school, regardless of who was possessing it.

Of course, UCSB actually employs an armed police force, like most schools do.

[Balta1701]

What is the gang activity in those 4 cities?

I can't figure out how you guys think this somehow gives you an out.

[Y2HH]

If we just focus on the metro areas, Sydney and Melbourne have about 4 million people each. The murder rate in Sydney is about 1 per 100,000, the murder rate in Melbourne is closer to 5.

 

A metro area in the U.S. with a similar population is Phoenix. It reported 123 murders per 100,000 people last year.

 

Another similar comp in size is the San Francisco Metro Area, with 70 murders per 100,000 people.

 

Same sized cities. We're gunning ourselves down like crazy, they don't.

 

AGAIN, I reiterate, you are ignoring the complex societal differences of the US vs Australia. People do this with a ton of countries as there is none quite like this one. The sheer mix of races, religions and languages is un-f***ing-paralleled. So accounting for nothing BUT "like sized populations" is weak, and you're smart enough to know it.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Y2HH

[EvilMonkey]

I can't figure out how you guys think this somehow gives you an out.

Because if you want to pass laws that will only screw with ME instead of gangbangers and criminals, then they laws do nothing except screw with ME. Then when they don't work, you will b**** and moan that we need yet MORE laws to stop the gangbangers, and whatever you propose will again only screw ME, and so on, and so on. Gangs don't give a rat's ass about waiting periods, magazine restrictions or gun free zones. They just serve as points to catch otherwise law abiding people with serious penalties should they forget something.

[Y2HH]

I can't figure out how you guys think this somehow gives you an out.

 

It's not an out, it's accounting for a reality they don't have to deal with, which again, you want to ignore. Sorry, you can't just choose to ignore that massive cultural reality because it doesn't fit your narrow assed narrative.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

AGAIN, I reiterate, you are ignoring the complex societal differences of the US vs Australia. People do this with a ton of countries as there is none quite like this one. The sheer mix of races, religions and languages is un-f***ing-parallels when compared. So accounting for nothing BUT "like sized populations" is weak.

It appears you have just laid out a case for less guns.

[Y2HH]

It appears you have just laid out a case for less guns.

 

I'm not a gun guy, so what was your attempted point here?

 

I was merely talking about mass murders, and how they happen with or without guns. Do they make it easier? Perhaps. But they still happen regardless. I just feel people need to account for the massive societal differences when I see them compare the US to Sweden, Australia and a mess of other countries that simply don't have to deal with 95% of what the us deals with in terms of culture clash, language barrier, and size. Not to mention speaking within the bounds of CURRENT rules, laws and realities of the US as compared to elsewhere when doing so.

 

Ignoring the realities surrounding the US as it is, right now, is easy. Figuring out a solution INCLUDING those realities, however, isn't something a lot of people are doing in this thread, and IMO it's weak to speak in non-realities when discussing reality. I can't speak on hypothetical realities, and neither can anyone else here, so they should just stop and focus on what is, not some faux reality that doesn't exist.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

When you talk about changing society you are always talking about a "faux" reality that doesnt exist. Thats the point of change.

 

Alpha,

 

The laws will screw with everyone equally. You wont be able to have a gun, they wont be able to have a gun. If you have a gun, you go to jail. If they have a gun, they go to jail.

 

What you are trying to argue is that you wont break the law, but they will. If this was a good reason not to pass a law, then we would have 0 laws because I cant think of any law that people dont break. Thus every law is "screwing you" instead of the law breaker.

[Reddy]

Kind of the opposite of his point.

 

At this juncture, stop talking, as you aren't even reading.

 

you're the one who thinks percentages = total numbers

[Reddy]

It's not an out, it's accounting for a reality they don't have to deal with, which again, you want to ignore. Sorry, you can't just choose to ignore that massive cultural reality because it doesn't fit your narrow assed narrative.

the cultural difference exists because of our lack of regulation. start regulating and the culture will change. slowly. but it'll change.

[Y2HH]

the cultural difference exists because of our lack of regulation. start regulating and the culture will change. slowly. but it'll change.

 

There is a LOT more of a cultural difference than simple regulation.

[Y2HH]

When you talk about changing society you are always talking about a "faux" reality that doesnt exist. Thats the point of change.

This isn't always true. You have to consider the laws as they are, not laws as you wish the would be. The second amendment will NOT be changed within our lifetime and that's that. If anything, it's gotten stronger the past decade, so a sudden weakening of it just isn't reality and there is no point in adding it to the discussion.

[Balta1701]

This isn't always true. You have to consider the laws as they are, not laws as you wish the would be. The second amendment will NOT be changed within our lifetime and that's that. If anything, it's gotten stronger the past decade, so a sudden weakening of it just isn't reality and there is no point in adding it to the discussion.

And the answer to that is to yawn when this happens again in a few months. Which is pretty much what happened this time.

[Y2HH]

And the answer to that is to yawn when this happens again in a few months. Which is pretty much what happened this time.

 

The answer is to stop reelecting a congress that has a single digit approval rating, but even that's short sighted of what's necessary. Even our local governments approvals are often dismal only to get reelected countless times on broken promises.

 

The people have the power to change things, but they repeatedly show they don't actually want change, they just want to talk about change.

[Jenksismyhero]

the cultural difference exists because of our lack of regulation. start regulating and the culture will change. slowly. but it'll change.

 

Hey Rachel Maddow/liberal talking head, give an example of a regulation that would have prevented this shooting. A REAL, viable option.

[Reddy]

This isn't always true. You have to consider the laws as they are, not laws as you wish the would be. The second amendment will NOT be changed within our lifetime and that's that. If anything, it's gotten stronger the past decade, so a sudden weakening of it just isn't reality and there is no point in adding it to the discussion.

the second amendment isn't even pertinent to the conversation tbh. it even f***ing says "well regulated"