[Verv]

(1) The US "gun violence" problem exists only because the US has a violence problem and the possession of guns is a guaranteed right.

Most people would agree that increased violence occurs in urban and minority areas like Baltimore or New Orleans because of something like "inequality" or some other form of deprivation that drives these communities to greater amounts of violence. No one would ever say that they arm the minorities so that they commit more crimes, because it literally makes no sense to say that the presence of guns results in violence by itself.

(2) The point about France was brought up only to demonstrate the bias of Amnesty International.

[Pants-of-dog]

(1) The US "gun violence" problem exists only because the US has a violence problem and the possession of guns is a guaranteed right.

Most people would agree that increased violence occurs in urban and minority areas like Baltimore or New Orleans because of something like "inequality" or some other form of deprivation that drives these communities to greater amounts of violence. No one would ever say that they arm the minorities so that they commit more crimes, because it literally makes no sense to say that the presence of guns results in violence by itself.

So you agree that the USA has several types of gun violence problems.

(2) The point about France was brought up only to demonstrate the bias of Amnesty International.

And it failed there too, because you assumed the reason was bias when it may have been another cause.

[SolarCross]

@BigSteve & @Finfinder
Don't be fooled by pants he is not a real Canadian and he hates canadians as much as he hates gringo americanos. He is there the way a termite is in the tree but he is not the wood itself. Don't go hating on Canadians for his account.

[Unthinking Majority]

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

That's like a few months worth of mass shootings if it were the US.

[Unthinking Majority]

(1) The US "gun violence" problem exists only because the US has a violence problem and the possession of guns is a guaranteed right.

A country like the US that prioritizes the right to own ultra-portable machines designed to kill people en masse over the right of people to be safe from those machines is filled with god darned morons (well, at least those that support that right).

And then for some insane reason these same Americans don't want to guarantee the right for people to be able to have affordable health care and debt-crippling debt & deductibles when they or their kids are shot and bleeding out in the hospital.

The US has reaped what it has sowed.

[Unthinking Majority]

I used to travel extensively throughout Canada. I'm confident, in fact, that I've seen more of Canada than most Canadians.

Your comment is so far removed from reality it's silly...

Canada has gun violence much lower than the US, but higher than much of western Europe. This is because much of the wretched American gun culture and guns themselves find their way (illegally) into the country.

American gun culture is a fatal disease that spreads.

[ThirdTerm]

The travel advisory addressed growing gun violence, mostly hate crimes, including racism and discrimination, highlighting that the traveler’s race, country of origin, ethnic background, sexual orientation or gender identity may place them at higher risk after recent attacks linked to white supremacist ideology.

You can stay safe, if you avoid usual targets like mosques, synagogues or shopping malls. Political demonstrations are deemed dangerous for travellers as well. Japan urged citizens traveling to South Korea to stay away from anti-Japan protests. The U.S. and several other countries issued Hong Kong travel warnings due to ongoing anti-China protests.

[BigSteve]

Canada has gun violence much lower than the US, but higher than much of western Europe. This is because much of the wretched American gun culture and guns themselves find their way (illegally) into the country.

American gun culture is a fatal disease that spreads.

[Unthinking Majority]

The problem is there's a whole lot of legal and illegal gun owners who keep killing other people. Most gun owners are ok, but many aren't.

The legal gun ownership has created a security spiral in the US. The reality is, if you own a gun designed to kill other people efficiently (i'm not talking hunting rifles or crossbows), whether legal or illegal, sometimes those owners are going to use it and people will die.

There is no defense for the kind of gun ownership in the US. There's no reason for anyone other than hunters, farmers, police, and military to own a gun. The rest of the modern world is doing just fine and in fact much, much better without masses of gun ownership. The stats don't lie.

[Verv]

A country like the US that prioritizes the right to own ultra-portable machines designed to kill people en masse over the right of people to be safe from those machines is filled with god darned morons (well, at least those that support that right).

And then for some insane reason these same Americans don't want to guarantee the right for people to be able to have affordable health care and debt-crippling debt & deductibles when they or their kids are shot and bleeding out in the hospital.

The US has reaped what it has sowed.

Take a gander at the historic murder rates for North Dakota[1] -- throughout the 90s & 2000s, it had a murder rate on par with very developed Western European states (lower than most) and its gun ownership rate is at 47.9%[2]. Notice as well that many of these other states with very high gun ownership are also low crime places, while some of the places famous for urban crime have very low gun ownership rates (New York, California). It is also surprising that the area most famous for crime in the midwest, Illinois (due to Chicago), has the lowest gun ownership rate among its neighbors.

So, ultimately, the average American is living in a place that is suburban, right? The violent reality of urban crime doesn't affect them at all. One of the sad numbers is that blacks make up 13% (roughly) of the US population, but accounted for 51% of murder victims in 2017[3]. Since blacks are more likely to make up the urban poor, this helps to show you where the problem really exists and is largely isolated to.

Let's take the murder number from 2017 -- 15,129. How many of these people were killed in mass shootings that we recognize?

To find this out, I looked at the Wikipedia list for mass shootings in the US in 2017[4]. This would be only news worthy shootings in the US, and not these lists of "250 mass shootings in the US!" where the overwhelming majority are simply events where 3,4+ people were shot at once, and almost always involve criminal elements interacting with each other and nothing about it is random.

I only recognized two of these events: the Las Vegas[5] shooting and the Sutherland church shooting[6]. Some of them I am surprised I do not recognize them because they were very soft targets, such as the Aztec High School shooting[7], but this was perhaps because the body count was very low (2). Many of these other attacks are simply noteworthy incidents of criminal violence that somehow have wikipedia entries. I was surprised, as well, I did not recognize the Plano shooting[8]. Let's count that one, too, because it seems quite random, and has a high body count of 9.

Let's add it up:

2 (Aztec) + 8 (Waco - Gunman excluded) + 26 (Southerland - Gunman excluded) + 58 (Gunman excluded) = 94.

94 / 15,129 (the total number of murders) = 0.6% of murders were from recognizable mass shootings.

Let's say that another 150 people were killed in the mass shootings I never heard of:

244 / 15,129 = 1.6% of homicide victims would have been killed in these sorts of random spree shooting events in 2017.

I doubt there are many people who have that kind of recall, though. I doubt that many people are even victimized in this fashion. The number of people murdered is very small, and it has a disparate impact on specific communities who have close proximity to criminality, and the percent of people who are randomly murdered is exceedingly low.

You sound like an alarmist when you tell an American that they are going to get murdered by "gun violence" and they have to give up their hunting rifles and hteir sense of security in a world with slow response times and a country with much higher crime than Europe (but not in 99% of neighborhoods)....

It just doesn't match up with what we are concerned with.


[1] Disaster Center
[2] Business Insider
[3] Statista
[4]2017 US Mass Shootings wiki
[5]2017 Las Vegas Shooting/
[6]Sutherland Springs church shooting
[7] Aztec High Shooting
[8] Plano Shooting

[Unthinking Majority]

You sound like an alarmist when you tell an American that they are going to get murdered by "gun violence" and they have to give up their hunting rifles and hteir sense of security in a world with slow response times and a country with much higher crime than Europe (but not in 99% of neighborhoods)....

I never said Americans have to give up their hunting rifles, in fact I specifically said hunting rifles aren't the problem:

The reality is, if you own a gun designed to kill other people efficiently (i'm not talking hunting rifles or crossbows), whether legal or illegal, sometimes those owners are going to use it and people will die.

There is no defense for the kind of gun ownership in the US. There's no reason for anyone other than hunters, farmers, police, and military to own a gun. The rest of the modern world is doing just fine and in fact much, much better without masses of gun ownership. The stats don't lie.

I imagine North Dakota is made up of a bunch of hunting rifle owners. People owning handguns and assault rifles etc, ie: guns designed to kill humans efficiently, are the problem, whether legal or illegal.

Poor broken families (often black) are also a problem, they lead to gangs and gun violence. But that's not the entirety of the problem, although it's most of it. White middle-class people who are pissed off at the world are also killing people, grabbing guns and going Columbine. Remember when Columbine was a shocking rarity?

Most people who own a gun that isn't a hunting rifle are making a bad decision. But as I said, now it's a security spiral. You're much more likely to be involved in gun violence if you own a gun, and mistakes can be made, or guns stolen, or someone other than the owner grabbing the gun. Paranoia about some imaginary enemy or imaginary government takeover is a crappy reason to own a gun. In reality, people are dying en masse.

[Pants-of-dog]

One of the sad numbers is that blacks make up 13% (roughly) of the US population, but accounted for 51% of murder victims in 2017[3]. Since blacks are more likely to make up the urban poor, this helps to show you where the problem really exists and is largely isolated to.

Is that why most US citizens do not care about gun violence?

Let's take the murder number from 2017 -- 15,129. How many of these people were killed in mass shootings that we recognize?

To find this out, I looked at the Wikipedia list for mass shootings in the US in 2017[4]. This would be only news worthy shootings in the US, and not these lists of "250 mass shootings in the US!" where the overwhelming majority are simply events where 3,4+ people were shot at once, and almost always involve criminal elements interacting with each other and nothing about it is random.

I only recognized two of these events: the Las Vegas[5] shooting and the Sutherland church shooting[6]. Some of them I am surprised I do not recognize them because they were very soft targets, such as the Aztec High School shooting[7], but this was perhaps because the body count was very low (2). Many of these other attacks are simply noteworthy incidents of criminal violence that somehow have wikipedia entries. I was surprised, as well, I did not recognize the Plano shooting[8]. Let's count that one, too, because it seems quite random, and has a high body count of 9.

Let's add it up:

2 (Aztec) + 8 (Waco - Gunman excluded) + 26 (Southerland - Gunman excluded) + 58 (Gunman excluded) = 94.

94 / 15,129 (the total number of murders) = 0.6% of murders were from recognizable mass shootings.

Let's say that another 150 people were killed in the mass shootings I never heard of:

244 / 15,129 = 1.6% of homicide victims would have been killed in these sorts of random spree shooting events in 2017.

Why are you only counting the mass shootings you remember?

That seems like a very poor way to do this sort of research.

Why not just use all incidents where four or more people were shot for reasons that had nothing to do with criminal intent?

Or simply look at the research already done?

I doubt there are many people who have that kind of recall, though. I doubt that many people are even victimized in this fashion. The number of people murdered is very small, and it has a disparate impact on specific communities who have close proximity to criminality, and the percent of people who are randomly murdered is exceedingly low.

You sound like an alarmist when you tell an American that they are going to get murdered by "gun violence" and they have to give up their hunting rifles and hteir sense of security in a world with slow response times and a country with much higher crime than Europe (but not in 99% of neighborhoods)....

It just doesn't match up with what we are concerned with.


[1] Disaster Center
[2] Business Insider
[3] Statista
[4]2017 US Mass Shootings wiki
[5]2017 Las Vegas Shooting/
[6]Sutherland Springs church shooting
[7] Aztec High Shooting
[8] Plano Shooting

Again, you seem to be ignoring a whole bunch of mass shootings for arbitrary reasons.

[Verv]

I never said Americans have to give up their hunting rifles, in fact I specifically said hunting rifles aren't the problem:

I imagine North Dakota is made up of a bunch of hunting rifle owners. People owning handguns and assault rifles etc, ie: guns designed to kill humans efficiently, are the problem, whether legal or illegal.

Poor broken families (often black) are also a problem, they lead to gangs and gun violence. But that's not the entirety of the problem, although it's most of it. White middle-class people who are pissed off at the world are also killing people, grabbing guns and going Columbine. Remember when Columbine was a shocking rarity?

Most people who own a gun that isn't a hunting rifle are making a bad decision. But as I said, now it's a security spiral. You're much more likely to be involved in gun violence if you own a gun, and mistakes can be made, or guns stolen, or someone other than the owner grabbing the gun. Paranoia about some imaginary enemy or imaginary government takeover is a crappy reason to own a gun. In reality, people are dying en masse.

I think we actually have some amount of argument where we have some lapover.

We both agree that the primary cause of violence and criminality isn't the mere presence of guns, and that guns merely facilitate the commissioning of crime, right? Like, it is absurd when we deny that having guns doesn't enable mass shootings. It clearly does, and that is likely why today in Sydney it was a becrazed (immigrant?) Muslim with a blade stabbing people and not shooting them. Maybe, in reality, it does prevent these sort of massive attacks that you see in places like El Paso or Christchurch or... Paris (lol, ok, sorry).

But here is the question for you... Why should people in North Dakota or Iowa or rural Ohio be concerned about giving up their guns, their right, when the reasons to give up guns do not impact them?

... The second discussion point would be the fact that you are talking about not confiscating hunting rifles at all, right, but only hand guns and assault rifles. Right?

Handguns are great means of self-defense because they are easily accessible and portable. If someone has to work in a rough area, why should they not have a means of self-defense at work? That's my question. Why should they relinquish that right -- when it is a better protection for them than the police, and we all know that the government is not going to get all the guns off the streets just like how they did not get all of the drugs off the streets.

[Unthinking Majority]

But here is the question for you... Why should people in North Dakota or Iowa or rural Ohio be concerned about giving up their guns, their right, when the reasons to give up guns do not impact them?

It does impact them, just not as much. Having a lower amount of gun violence doesn't mean it doesn't exist in that state. Packing assault rifles and handguns is asking for trouble, especially when regulation in obtaining those weapons is limp.

... The second discussion point would be the fact that you are talking about not confiscating hunting rifles at all, right, but only hand guns and assault rifles. Right?

I'm not talking about confiscating anything. There's gun buyback programs. I really don't know the answer, other than tighter regulation on new weapons, which would probably have a modest effect but not entirely solve the problem.

Handguns are great means of self-defense because they are easily accessible and portable. If someone has to work in a rough area, why should they not have a means of self-defense at work? That's my question. Why should they relinquish that right -- when it is a better protection for them than the police, and we all know that the government is not going to get all the guns off the streets just like how they did not get all of the drugs off the streets.

Self-defense from what? I don't live in the US, I live in a country where if your workplace is being robbed, you give the robbers what they want, and then they'll usually leave and nobody is hurt, then after they leave the police are called and your insurance company replaces what is stolen for you. Thugs want your property not your life. Many times the robbers don't even have a gun, if they know the business owner or citizen likely doesn't have one. In the US it's different, it's a security spiral, if one party is known to have guns, the other party feels they need them to, and this makes catastrophe more likely, it's like the nuke race in the cold war.

[Down East]

America is far more violent than Canada, because it was a multi racial country. If the American founders had had an ounce of wisdom, they would have realised that slavery wasn't politically viable long term. They would have stopped the importation of slaves immediately. On the other hand Lincoln's solution of giving the slaves citizenship led to the violent, angry divided society that followed abolition.

90% of black violent crime victims are assaulted by other blacks, so were is the racial aspect in this?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... s/table-43

[Rich]

90% of black violent crime victims are assaulted by other blacks, so were is the racial aspect in this?

Canada just doesn't have these violent crime ridden ghettos. At least part of the problem is that most Blacks in America identify as descendants of slaves of that country. This identification while understandable is particularly intense in the US. This is a problem for West Indians who have immigrated to Britain, whose ancestors were slaves of the British Empire, but at least there is no memory of slave society in Britain itself.

But also the violence nature of the Black ghettos is profoundly corrosive to the rest of society. Its profoundly corrosive to liberty. In the same way that the conflict in Northern Ireland, although only involving a tiny percentage of the UKs population corroded civil liberties on the main land.

Multi racial societies are a disaster waiting to happen and only the completely demented would deliberately create one. On the other hand Conservatives are thoroughly dishonest if they think that America's Black's identity issues can somehow be wished away. The idea that America's crime and violence problems were cause by welfare is a pathetic fantasy.

[Down East]

Canada just doesn't have these violent crime ridden ghettos. At least part of the problem is that most Blacks in America identify as descendants of slaves of that country. This identification while understandable is particularly intense in the US. This is a problem for West Indians who have immigrated to Britain, whose ancestors were slaves of the British Empire, but at least there is no memory of slave society in Britain itself.

But also the violence nature of the Black ghettos is profoundly corrosive to the rest of society. Its profoundly corrosive to liberty. In the same way that the conflict in Northern Ireland, although only involving a tiny percentage of the UKs population corroded civil liberties on the main land.

Multi racial societies are a disaster waiting to happen and only the completely demented would deliberately create one. On the other hand Conservatives are thoroughly dishonest if they think that America's Black's identity issues can somehow be wished away. The idea that America's crime and violence problems were cause by welfare is a pathetic fantasy.

We have elderly black people who lock themselves in their homes afraid to even take a evening walk, or go out to the grocery store because of the current culture of violence in their neighborhoods.

This isn't about welfare.

When America's black population begins to start loving themselves, we will see change.

[QatzelOk]

America is far more violent than Canada, because it was a multi racial country.

Both Canada and the USA were composed of 'many nations' before they were invaded and ethnic cleansed by Britain.

If the American founders had had an ounce of wisdom, they would have realised that slavery wasn't politically viable long term. They would have stopped the importation of slaves immediately. On the other hand Lincoln's solution of giving the slaves citizenship led to the violent, angry divided society that followed abolition.

The notion that America is violent 'because blacks' is a huge part of its problem. If Americans don't see one another as fully human, there will be no end of insane violence. And this is very stupid and backwards on many levels.