Forums / Discussion / General

Really is messed up… My heart goes out to the victims. On a day of love none the less.

Thoughts?

i'm sure that just tweeting out "thoughts and prayers" will solve the problem this time.

@poochyena

your sarcasm proves a valid point.

I'm sure you are referring to the US President and his lame tweets.

One of the reporters in the video I embedded made an awesome point in that a minor can not purchase a "side arm"/pistol but at his age can buy a SEMI AUTOMATIC rifle…. 0_o

the actual fuck people… it really upsets me because I was in the US Army and was in charge of my unit's small arms. m16s/240 bravos/m249 s.a.w.s./ and m203/mark19 grenade launchers.

That shit has no business in anyones hands because I know the damage these things can do, first hand.

I was watching the news stream live and all the people in the comments were saying "FAKE NEWS loloolol, fakefakefake" See how fake it is when a round pierces your body IRL.

Sorry guys I'm just disgusted by it all. And to top it all off everyone was saying "oooooh I bet it was a white guy, yeah, white men kill everybody"

The shooter's last name is Cruz…

I really think that semi-automatic weapons should be banned, or they should at least have large amounts of regulations.

Good luck getting that past the NRA's sentries.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456471/2nd-amendment-rights-support-not-cowardly

"This is a problem that transcends mass shootings and impacts “regular” gun violence. Prosecutors are notoriously reluctant to prosecute purchasers who lie on background checks, including straw purchasers. We’ve also seen background-check systems fail and multiple instances where law-enforcement officials failed to effectively follow up on leads provided by private citizens that could have prevented an attack. Conservatives are keenly aware of these failings, and rightfully wonder why there is such confidence that the next legal reform will be more effective than the last -- especially when the practical effect is often to inconvenience the law-abiding without offering any meaningful corresponding public-safety benefit."

In this particular instance above all else it was the failure of the FBI. They admitted as such.

I am honestly amazed that there are still people who think we shouldn't overhaul our firearm restrictions at this point. Something is wrong with the current system, and we need to fix it so we can spot people like this before they open fire. Saying "well there's nothing we can do" is just a self-fulfilling prophecy, and using background checks instead of implementing broader restrictions on guns and ammo or running all firearm purchases through something like the PRISM system to detect people stockpiling for a massacre is just not strong enough to help at this point.

America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation, yet school shootings have only started to ramp up in the last 20 years.

And what has happened within that last 20 years that is so different from the last 220 years?

This is an inaccurate statement. There are twice as many guns per captia than in 1968. The number of guns manufactured in 2013 was more than double that of 2008 or any recent year previous. Additionally, and somewhat surprisingly, the number of households with guns has also declined, though at a much slower rate than the previous two statistics have increased.

I'm not going to say that this means that we can only have new gun control regulations to change things, but I would not be so fast to immediately dismiss guns as not having an effect as your post suggests. It is not true that "America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation". This is especially true given that many of the types of guns most commonly used for these shooting did not exist 240 years ago, and are less than 100 years old.

Adding a brief two cents here:
Is adding some regulations like gun licenses and clearance tests too much? I'm all for the American people having a right to arm themselves, hell, I firmly stand against the idea of banning guns whatsoever, but just like having a driver's license to drive a car, seatbelt laws, all that other hooie, maybe it'd be a semi-decent first step to at least make sure whoever is buying a gun isn't the wrong person.
And in the same vein, perhaps law enforcement can BE A LITTLE MORE EFFECTIVE in responding and knowing how to handle events like this. Surveillance isn't the answer, but quick response procedure reforms might be a start, if anything.
But take this with a grain of salt.

@Zombie_Boy
I don't know if English is your native language or not, because many of your posts and comments seem to be filled with either grossly mischaracterizing what is happening, to what feels like might be straight up lying.

"There was also an increase of 126million people to the population"

Based on your statement appears you lack fundamental understanding of the term "per capita". It means "per person". The number of guns per person has increased. This is an incredibly atrocious oversight on your part if you honestly believe I do not think that the population of the United States has not increased. The number of guns in the US has increased at a faster rate than the population. I legitimately do not understand how it is possible you believe that the population growing puts a different spin on a per captia increase statistic.

"That is because under Obama gun sales soared to heights never experienced before in American history."

This is more data to the argument that things relating to guns have not remained a constant in the +240 year history of the United States, especially in relatively recent history.

"The whole gun culture in America that has been guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment didn’t mysteriously change with the increased availability of military-grade weapons and ammunition. Their messaging and reasons for owning a gun hasn’t changed in over 200 years."

You are right in that it did not mysteriously change with the availability military grade weapons (though seeing as guns are almost always used in a military since their creation when they area available, I question the usage of "military grade" as muskets could technically qualify at one point, but I digress).

What did change gun culture were events in the 60's with the Black Panther Movement and a change in leadership in the NRA. Prior to this, the general consensus was the second amendment was for militias to have firearms but not necessary constitutionally protected for private individual use. More Perfect did a radio program on this, though I cannot seem to find a text transcript at this time.

"Everything else has changed, yet nobody wants to examine how that change relates to the gun culture in America."

I do not know anyone who legitimately believes that we should not look non-gun aspects of gun violence. While I certainly know there are people who prioritize guns over other issues, they do not think that nothing should be done about better access to metal health care or that there should not be better channels in place for people to be able to report suspicious individuals. I only know of one group that refuses to acknowledge that some aspect has changed, and that is the pro-gun group.

"They just want to change it for the sake of change. “Do something!” Nothing worse then passing knee-jerk reaction laws that do nothing but harm law abiding citizens."

Yes, how dare people see children being gunned down at a school and think we should do something to prevent it from happening again. Surely the people who refuse to hear any suggestion to gun regulations, even those that have popular support form the public like universal background checks have the right idea.

I do not believe that "take away the guns" is a feasible answer to stop these problems, nor that any one solution is going to be perfect on it's own. However, treating guns like some holy cow where every other aspect must be intensely scrutinized, while forbidding even suggestions of popular supported regulations or even creating a national database on gun violence to gain a better understanding on how to prevent it is guaranteed not the solution either.

"Based on your statement appears you lack fundamental understanding of the term “per capita”.."

I know what "per capita" means but you are being disingenuous when you leave out the fact America grew by 126 million since 1968. Are you honestly surprised that there are individuals who buy more than one gun? Gun enthusiasts (or hunters/farmers) tend to have well over a dozen firearms each. Canada has a relatively high number of guns per person because of such people. Do you know anybody whose hobby it is to collect guns of all kinds? I know a few myself. These are not "outliers" either, these people make up a significant portion of gun owners.

"This is more data to the argument that things relating to guns have not remained a constant in the +240 year history of the United States, especially in relatively recent history."

You obviously didn't look at the data that showed huge spikes of gun sales under Obama with sales trending upwards despite said "black friday" gun sales. And why is that? Because all the talk of implementing "more" gun-control from Obama and other officials has scared gun owners and people on the fence about arming themselves to go out and buy a gun before government manages to ram through some half-baked gun control bill like they did with Obamacare. Add in the abuses of the government via the IRS, the whole Bundy fiasco and now the FBI scandals and these people are further arming incase they actually need to revolt. I am not joking.

"I question the usage of “military grade”

I'm glad we can sorta agree on something! I used the term "military grade" because we've advanced firearms to the point that there is a clear distinction between a military grade firearm (full auto, picatinny rails, grips, etc) and something non-military grade (hunting rifles, single-barrel hunting shotguns, that dirty old .38 special).

"What did change gun culture were events in the 60’s with the Black Panther Movement and a change in leadership in the NRA. Prior to this, the general consensus was the second amendment was for militias to have firearms but not necessary constitutionally protected for private individual use. More Perfect did a radio program on this, though I cannot seem to find a text transcript at this time."

You also forget to mention that the Kent State shootings happened in the 60s as well. I am not sure how Black Panthers tie into the changing of the gun culture in America, you'll have to explain in more detail.

"I do not know anyone who legitimately believes that we should not look non-gun aspects of gun violence."

Look at the politicians, media whores and the people who listen to them work themselves up into a tizzy because more gun control legislation isn't being passed right now immediately 10 seconds ago. They will take nothing short of banning something to appease them.

"While I certainly know there are people who prioritize guns over other issues, they do not think that nothing should be done about better access to metal health care or that there should not be better channels in place for people to be able to report suspicious individuals."

The problem with such issues is that these are not an immediate pay-off. These sorts of things take time, effort and money. Certain people (namely those who use such tragedies to push their own agendas) do not want to wait that long. It then becomes another political issue to further divide an already fractured nation, "elect me I'll pass gun laws" and suddenly what should be a multi-layered reasoning for voting for any candidate becomes a binary reason to the detriment of pretty much everything else.

"I only know of one group that refuses to acknowledge that some aspect has changed, and that is the pro-gun group."

Well for one thing the NRA itself as an organization seemingly prides itself on proficiency and safety when using firearms. Have you heard of any NRA members going on a mass shooting, or have been involved in any major gun crimes? I haven't. The media is trying to link the shooter to them to no avail, shows how desperate they are, but more importantly, if there was a shooting with an actual NRA member their cups would runneth over with self-righteous indignation and horror.

"Yes, how dare people see children being gunned down at a school and think we should do something to prevent it from happening again."

How dare they let their emotions get the better of them and blindly rant and rage about something that is highly unlikely to happen. I can understand the people involved doing so, but most everybody else? Come on. You just need to kill enough of your emotions so your an emotionless machine, like me!

"However, treating guns like some holy cow where every other aspect must be intensely scrutinized.."

Damn those crotchity old men from 1776ish for crafting a bill of rights that enshrined gun ownership as a right that government cannot infringe upon. People don't treat the actual guns themselves as the sacred cow, its the whole idea behind it that was espounded upon in the 2nd amendment. The same document that says your rights as an individual will always trump whatever the government tries to do.

"..while forbidding even suggestions of popular supported regulations or even creating a national database on gun violence to gain a better understanding on how to prevent it is guaranteed not the solution either."

Because we already have gun control legislation that as pointed out earlier in David French's article, is not being enforced enough. So naturally people will be skeptical at any further attempt to implement more legislation when we don't even enforce the current ones to an apparent sufficient standard at present.

"I don’t know if English is your native language or not"

English is my 2nd and only language. Monkey see monkey do, I think I've done well enough to develop my own style.

"..many of your posts and comments seem to be filled with either grossly mischaracterizing what is happening, to what feels like might be straight up lying."

What? Are you saying you Obama didn't abuse his pen and phone to side-step congress and the senate to create DACA? DACA is an executive order for a reason.

Oh..

"DACA stands for differed action on childhood arrivals. It’s literally words in the first sentence of the article. It is for people who arrived as children, not people who came here and had children."

me: "Or they brought their ork spawn with them."

Dreamers are the DACA children that grew up. Let me rephrase my original statement then. "DACA is about giving citizenship to illegals who came here with their children, so-called “Dreamers.” Yes?

"The argument is that since they were children, they had no choice in breaking the law and entering illegally, and know much more about the United States than any other country."

The same reason we don't let children of bankrobbers keep the money their parents stole. Their parents committed a crime, using the child as an excuse to nullify that crime is to dilute the law itself and weaken the whole reason for having such laws in the first place.

"Additionally DACA never had a plan to make these people citizens."

Of course, DACA was a political maneuver by Obama. The standard old kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

"Making them citizens has been proposed by the Trump administration"

Trump is using it as a tool to beat the Democrats over the head with it. If the Democrats under Obama had actually accomplished their "comprehensive immigration reform" during the 2 years they had total control to pass something like Obamacare, then we wouldn't be arguing about DACA right now.

And seeing as how Trump is a better deal-maker then Obama, he's using DACA as a tool to show he's willing to negotiate with Democrats when it comes to his wall; DACA for the wall.

I wonder when our replies will take up a whole page? :)

"I know what “per capita” means but you are being disingenuous when you leave out the fact America grew by 126 million since 1968"

Again, you say that, but then you don't really explain how this supposed to affect a per capita statistic. Your argument was that "America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation". My argument is that this is not true, and that there has been a more recent increase in the number of gun which has outpaced the population (which is true).

"You obviously didn’t look at the data that showed huge spikes of gun sales "

I literally said that there was a large increase in gun sales between 2008 and 2013. I don't know how it is possible you got "You obviously didn’t look at the data" out of that. You are now committed to an agreement with me that there have been changes involving guns since the founding of the country.

"you’ll have to explain in more detail."

Does your computer lack the ability to play audio?

"more gun control legislation isn’t being passed right now immediately 10 seconds ago."

This comic was made in 2011. There really hasn't been much in the way of national changes to gun regulations, even those that have widespread public support, since then. I do believe that we should should not just make legislation and pass it without trying to figure out if it will actually have a positive impact or just make things worse. However, when a side shows complete and adamant refusal to even allow for studies to take place to actually do this, they are only making the problem worse.

"The problem with such issues is that these are not an immediate pay-off. These sorts of things take time, effort and money."

These are problems with any reform on anything, including gun control. I would take the "we should focus on metal health more than guns" argument more seriously from certain groups if they didn't have so much overlap with people who feel health care is a privilege not a right. I do agree, though, that many on the anti-gun do seem to see this solution as a better solution than it realistically will be if it ever was implemented.

" It then becomes another political issue to further divide an already fractured nation, “elect me I’ll pass gun laws” "

If there wasn't an absolute refusal by certain people to even hear out even publicly popular reforms such as universal background checks this would not become as much of an issue. I am glad that people do take the Constitution to heart, but at the same time, it was written at a different era and meant to be a living document. This is certainly not to say I want the second amendment gone, but it was interpreted for applying to militias more than private citizens for the majority of it's history.

"How dare they let their emotions get the better of them and blindly rant and rage about something that is highly unlikely to happen."

Many things are statically unlikely. That alone is not enough to justify doing nothing to change it, especially as the statistics have made it increasingly more likely. The federal government passing any major gun restrictions seems much more statically unlikely than another mass shooting incident occurring. I don't know why you are so worried about something so unlikely actually happening.

"You just need to kill enough of your emotions so your an emotionless machine, like me!"

No better place to make a joke about people grieving and in horror after the one of the worst school shooting in US history wanting to prevent it from happening again.

"Damn those crotchity old men from 1776ish for crafting a bill of rights that enshrined gun ownership as a right that government cannot infringe upon."

Again, prior to the 1960's the second amendment was generally seen as specific to militias and not private citizens. The people alive in 1787-88 who drafted the Constitution lived at a time when single shot muskets with bayonets were "military grade" weapons. It is impossible to know what they would think of the weapons that exist today. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 bans new fully automatic weapons for civilians. In 1994 there was the (now expired) assault weapons ban. Would you consider these infringements on the 2nd Amendment?

"Because we already have gun control legislation that as pointed out earlier in David French’s article, is not being enforced enough."

This seems to suggest you do not think existing gun legislation is an infringement on the second amendment. More to the point, I would suggest actually allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to create a modern electronic searchable database.

By all means, I agree that there should be better enforcement of existing regulations, but that on it's own is not enough to nullify arguments for other regulations.

"English is my 2nd and only language."

I sincerely hope this was a typo.

Please keep the DACA comments to it's own area. I'm more than willing to continue that discussion there. The thread is getting off topic as it is.

"Again, you say that, but then you don’t really explain how this supposed to affect a per capita statistic."

Go re-read my post again. I pointed out why that number would increase with the number of people increasing.

"You are now committed to an agreement with me that there have been changes involving guns since the founding of the country."

Just because the guns have changed doesn't mean the culture that makes use of such guns has changed. The whole gun culture in America that has been guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment didn’t mysteriously change with the increased availability of military-grade weapons and ammunition. Their messaging and reasons for owning a gun hasn’t changed in over 200 years.

"..didn’t have so much overlap with people who feel health care is a privilege not a right"

Yes, well, some day we are going to have to put aside such notions and broad strokes and argue in good faith with individuals of opposing ideologies. We can't keep bashing easy targets and strawman all the time.

"If there wasn’t an absolute refusal.."

Because the War on Guns will fail just like the War on Drugs and prohibition. It wouldn't be a problem if people on the left argued in good faith, but they never have when it comes to guns. Especially when people try to use dishonest facts regarding 18 school shootings this year. Someone committes suicide in a school parking lot afterhours? School shooting!

"..it was written at a different era and meant to be a living document."

And look whats happened to the document after being treated as a living piece of toilet paper by government, the judicial courts and political activities for the past 50 years. What America was founded on is now a complete 180 from where it is today. All thanks to that living document that has now enslaved more Americans under the same reason they broke away and started America in the first place.

"No better place to make a joke about people grieving and in horror after the one of the worst school shooting in US history wanting to prevent it from happening again."

And? Are you staking out some sort of moral highground here?

"Again, prior to the 1960’s the second amendment was generally seen as specific to militias and not private citizens. The people alive in 1787-88 who drafted the Constitution lived at a time when single shot muskets with bayonets were “military grade” weapons. It is impossible to know what they would think of the weapons that exist today."

They were not focused on the weapons in use so much as having the means to defend yourself, your belongings, property and also for those rare times when government has become a tyrannical dictator and seeks to violate your constitutional rights. Would they be horrified at the guns today? Probably, but they would probably still schill for individual gun ownership because government also has such guns.

"The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 bans new fully automatic weapons for civilians. In 1994 there was the (now expired) assault weapons ban. Would you consider these infringements on the 2nd Amendment?"

A ban? Yes. Something that is not a ban? I don't have a problem.

"By all means, I agree that there should be better enforcement of existing regulations, but that on it’s own is not enough to nullify arguments for other regulations."

Better enforcement is needed to see if such laws are sufficient enough to pass mustard. How can we be certain new laws will be sufficient if we just half-ass them like the laws before?

"I sincerely hope this was a typo."

I have a self-depreciating sense of humor.

"Please keep the DACA comments to it’s own area. I’m more than willing to continue that discussion there. The thread is getting off topic as it is."

Boooooo-urns.

So, if I read your posts correctly:
You do agree that:

• There are twice as many guns per captia than in 1968
• The number of households with guns has also declined
• The number of guns manufactured in 2013 was more than double that of 2008 or any recent year previous
• The types of guns most commonly used for these shooting did not exist 240 years ago

Agreeing to any one of these claims about how gun statistics have changed puts you at odd with the claim "America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation." We clearly have more guns and we have different guns. It is naive to completely dismiss out of hand the possibility this has an effect.

But okay, maybe the raw factual data itself changing isn't ultimately what you want to focus on as evidenced by your claim: "Just because the guns have changed doesn’t mean the culture that makes use of such guns has changed."

Did you know that the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was partially drafted by the National Rifle Associate? They actually did suggest quite a few regulations that seems a bit surprising given it's reputation now.

Again, I highly suggest listening to the audio link I posted. As I have stated multiple times, and as you have quoted me on, the second amendment was largely interpreted as applying to militias, not inherently applying to private individuals prior to the 1960's.

(1:11 if you want the exact part)

It's a little ironic if you actually believe the statement "the document after being treated as a living piece of toilet paper by government, the judicial courts and political activities for the past 50 years" to be true if you also hold that the second amendment has to apply to private citizens.

It was not until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Where the Supreme Court officially ruled "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

"Agreeing to any one of these claims about how gun statistics have changed puts you at odd with the claim “America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation.”

When you dive into a general statement and start parting the forest for the trees you would have a hard time not finding anything at odds with data.

"We clearly have more guns and we have different guns. It is naive to completely dismiss out of hand the possibility this has an effect."

So how does this relate to "And what has happened within that last 20 years that is so different from the last 220 years?" Did we just all of a sudden hit a tipping point in 1998?

"But okay, maybe the raw factual data itself changing isn’t ultimately what you want to focus on as evidenced by your claim: “Just because the guns have changed doesn’t mean the culture that makes use of such guns has changed.”

That is wishful thinking on your part. You want the culture to change as reflected by the increase in gun ownership because it suits your argument, nothing more.

"Again, I highly suggest listening to the audio link I posted. As I have stated multiple times, and as you have quoted me on, the second amendment was largely interpreted as applying to militias, not inherently applying to private individuals prior to the 1960’s"

Great, we've established that the federal government does its own thing, irregardless of state rights. There are 17 states that refer to the right to bear arms as an individual right, along with another 15 states that such a right belongs to everyone. State rights vs Federal rights, who do you think gun owners support?

"It’s a little ironic if you actually believe the statement.."

Such a statement isn't restricted to this conversation, or was it aimed solely at how the courts treat gun rights.

"It was not until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Where the Supreme Court officially ruled “The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

On a federal level, which is still at odds with the state level; do you think California would follow such a law to the letter?

So, before going off into oblivion regarding a single statement, how does this whole over-arching argument of yours apply to the single statement of ""And what has happened within that last 20 years that is so different from the last 220 years?" Are you trying to do a long, roundabout segue into an argument that with the increased availability of guns has given mentally deranged people an excuse to go on mass shootings, in the last 20 years?

"When you dive into a general statement and start parting the forest for the trees you would have a hard time not finding anything at odds with data."

And yet when I previously said " [America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation] is an inaccurate statement." due to evidence, you said "Inaccurate statement? Hardly."

You again seem to again be reaffirming that my stance on this statement as being inaccurate was correct. Literally this entire conversation is built on this phrasing of suggesting that everything else has changed but "all these guns" have not. Had you just said "School shootings have only started to ramp up in the last 20 years. And what has happened within that last 20 years that is so different from the last 220 years?" I would not have any reason to respond.

""And what has happened within that last 20 years that is so different from the last 220 years?" Are you trying to do a long, roundabout segue into an argument that with the increased Are you trying to do a long, roundabout segue into an argument that with the increased availability of guns has given mentally deranged people an excuse to go on mass shootings, in the last 20 years?"

The main argument I have been making though out all of my posts has been that completely discounting changes in gun demographics as having literally no effect out of hand is disingenuous. My point was never to show what specific events directly lead into specific shootings (indeed there are too many different factors, gun related and not, which all play off of each other to point to any one specific thing as the only cause of any event). As I explained in my first post I do not believe that we should just blame guns for all the problems, but just ignoring it completely under the faulty premise of "this hasn't changed" when the data clearly shows it has is not good either.

Hopefully some sort of solution is worked out so that this kinda shit stops. Very depressing

"And yet when I previously said " [America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation] is an inaccurate statement." due to evidence, you said “Inaccurate statement? Hardly.”"

That is because you focused on that one statement without taking into account how it ties in with my second statement. Context.

You focused on the numbers, I focused on the culture. We argued about both. Parted the forest to look at the trees, then finally after 4 or 5 replies got to my second statement. Yay.

"Literally this entire conversation is built on this phrasing of suggesting that everything else has changed but “all these guns” have not."

No, that is you trying to force the conversation on your terms.

"Had you just said “School shootings have only started to ramp up in the last 20 years. And what has happened within that last 20 years that is so different from the last 220 years?” I would not have any reason to respond."

That is because you are dead set on trying to establish as fact that gun choice and gun sales have contributed more to the increase in mass shootings in the past 20 years than anything else. I beg to differ.

"The main argument I have been making though out all of my posts has been that completely discounting changes in gun demographics as having literally no effect out of hand is disingenuous."

There's a difference between "insignificant compared with" and "no effect". That is you putting words in my mouth. I asked you how your argument regarding an increase in guns and gun choice ties in with my second statement of "increase in mass shootings in the last 20 years".

"My point was never to show what specific events directly lead into specific shootings (indeed there are too many different factors, gun related and not, which all play off of each other to point to any one specific thing as the only cause of any event)."

I don't think we argued that one yet. Or was that your secondary point? On the contrary (where you expecting anything different?), the more specific events that become numerous and can be identified, the easier it would be to identify those susceptible to becoming the next mass shooter. So like, when somebody says "I'm going to shoot up the school" or something, that is a specific event (technically!), people in authority should act with due diligence. They apparently stopped another school shooting in California by doing just that. Contrast that with Florida where they dropped the ball on numerous occasions.

"As I explained in my first post I do not believe that we should just blame guns for all the problems, but just ignoring it completely under the faulty premise of “this hasn’t changed” when the data clearly shows it has is not good either."

The data would need to support the argument that the gradual increase of individual gun ownership from the 1960s to now, coupled with the availability of different types of guns, has either directly or indirectly lead to the rise in mass shootings in the past 20 years. You need to make a convincing argument, not just simply cite some stats in an attempt to counter my argument.

"“Literally this entire conversation is built on this phrasing of suggesting that everything else has changed but “all these guns” have not.” "No, that is you trying to force the conversation on your terms.""

No, have you seen my comments recently? It's quite literally the phrasing which suggests everything else has changed but gun statistics (which we both agree is false) therefore we should not even consider if that had any affect what so ever. I did not have any interest in joining this conversation other than to address this misleading statement.

"That is because you are dead set on trying to establish as fact that gun choice and gun sales have contributed more to the increase in mass shootings in the past 20 years than anything else."

For someone complaining of putting words in their mouth you sure don't seem opposed to doing it yourself. Can you point to literally anything I have said that suggests I believe this? As I have repeatedly said, I believe a multitude of factors are at play here, and that discounting any one of them out of hand as having no affect is disingenuous. I have never suggested that availability of guns were the most important factor, only that it is a factor that should be considered along with everything else and not immediately discredited out of hand, especially when the supporting argument that seemed to be presented (America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation) is not true. I have absolutely never said or suggested that they are the most important factor to consider.

"the more specific events that become numerous and can be identified, the easier it would be to identify those susceptible to becoming the next mass shooter."

As I have said multiple times elsewhere before, having a standardized national database on gun related incidents would be extremely useful in helping to actually be able to see trends and prevent incidents before they happen. This would include not just what gun was used, if they were registered the weapon, how many guns they have access to, but if the perpetrator was under the influence of drugs (and what kind), were they under the influence of alcohol, their age, if they had known medical conditions, was there recent contact to law enforcement that they were a threat, etc.

"There’s a difference between “insignificant compared with” and “no effect”. That is you putting words in my mouth."

Alright good, we seem to actually agree that gun demographics both have not changed and are something that should be discounted out of hand as having no effect are incorrect. Your first post which started all of this did not suggest that you believed this (which again is why I asked if English was your first language as making a statement like this may have been accidental.) If you did in fact believe this the entire time and only made statements that seemed to suggest the opposite
("Inaccurate statement? Hardly.") then I apologize for wasting both of our time.

As I have repeatedly said, this was the only reason I responded. As we apparently both agree (and it seems we may have agreed from near the onset, it just was not clear). There is not anything I can add to further this specific conversation.

"For someone complaining of putting words in their mouth you sure don’t seem opposed to doing it yourself."

So what you're saying is..

"Can you point to literally anything I have said that suggests I believe this? As I have repeatedly said, I believe a multitude of factors are at play here, and that discounting any one of them out of hand as having no affect is disingenuous. I have never suggested that availability of guns were the most important factor, only that it is a factor that should be considered along with everything else and not immediately discredited out of hand, especially when the supporting argument that seemed to be presented (America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation) is not true. I have absolutely never said or suggested that they are the most important factor to consider."

And yet your original reason for pointing out your statistics was to argue that my original statement was inaccurate because I didn't go into minute detail about gun ownership per capita increasing since 1960 or the technological advances in guns from 1776. You said "I would not be so fast to immediately dismiss guns as not having an effect as your post suggests" without arguing anything else outside of what I have just mentioned in this word-salad of a paragraph -- I mean, yeah, I would like to know you better, but I don't know you enough to be able to read your thoughts regarding guns not being your only reason to argue with my statement.

"As I have said multiple times elsewhere before, having a standardized national database on gun related incidents would be extremely useful in helping to actually be able to see trends and prevent incidents before they happen."

Horray, we agreed on something again! One more and that'll for sure be Half-Life 3 confirmed.

"Alright good, we seem to actually agree that gun demographics both have not changed and are something that should be discounted out of hand as having no effect are incorrect."

How does “There’s a difference between “insignificant compared with” and “no effect”." turn into me acknowledging they have no effect period? Get your words away from my mouth! Bad Jacob! Bad!

"Your first post which started all of this did not suggest that you believed this (which again is why I asked if English was your first language as making a statement like this may have been accidental.)"

I think the problem was my first post was not clear enough or air-tight enough to get my point across without you trying to insert your reasons as to why my first post was an "inaccurate statement".

A better statement would be:
"America has had guns and a gun culture since the founding of the nation, yet school shootings have only started to ramp up in the last 20 years.

And what has happened within that last 20 years that is so different from the last 220 years?"

I said it was hardly an inaccurate statement ("Inaccurate statement? Hardly") in the context of your first post regarding the statistics you brought up, by arguing as to why those statistics don't have the effect you so desire ("insignificant vs no effect", two responses of arguing as to why).

Then after either shooting down or arguing other tangential points you circle back to your original reason for responding to me by saying that "Agreeing to any one of these claims the statistics you argued in your first post about how gun statistics have changed puts you at odd with the claim “America has had all these guns since the founding of the nation.” to which I say, yeah, its a general statement, "…you would have a hard time not finding anything at odds with [the] data.", which does not mean "…suggesting that everything else has changed but “all these guns” have not. That is me saying in rather poorly worded fashion "You can dig into any general statement with cherry picked stats, here's why", and you trying to pull a Cathy Newman on me.

Then I say "…you [are] trying to force the conversation on your terms.", "because you are dead set on trying to establish as fact that gun choice and gun sales have contributed more to the increase in mass shootings in the past 20 years than anything else." to which you are denying ("Can you point to literally anything I have said that suggests I believe this"), to which we go back to your original post saying my original post was inaccurate because "There are twice as many guns per captia than in 1968." (How do you think the increase of guns per capita happened? Gun sales), and "This is especially true given that many of the types of guns most commonly used for these shooting did not exist 240 years ago, and are less than 100 years old." (Gun choice).

Your whole original reason for trying to nit-pick my first post was to point out how a supposed lack of detail on "gun demographics" made my statement inaccurate. We only managed to meander into your other reasons due to the natural discovery one goes through in the course of a criminal investigation (argument), that would not have come up if I wasn't a nit-picking asshole on the internet ("SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!!11!!!").

I have a feeling we're just getting started.