No let’s look at a real sample size. I think anything over a year is worth looking at.

I can’t imagine that claim being anywhere near factual. I would be shocked if radicalized right account for more than 5% of murders or even if all people from the right account for 50% or more.

Well his claim doesn't mention murder and even then I don't think it really serves a purpose to turn the thing he didn't mention being measured turning into a scoreboard...

I mean I guess we can examine that particular area and introduce it as evidence for or against the actual claim...

Probably better to first establish what the radical right is first before anything

I don’t require anything be fully solved. I’d trade out to make even the smallest dent and even if it took 10 years to see a result. We’ve been hearing “this won’t work, that won’t work, it’s too hard, bad people are just going to get them anyway so why bother, what about all the guns out there now, oh the problem isn’t guns it’s actually _______” etc etc, for how long now? And what does it matter? None of those excuses or theories ever lead to meaningful change.

I disagree about repealing the 2nd Amendment having no effect. As far as being impractical, is this a moral issue at least in part? I was browsing the leftist site that some posters here started. Someone posted that that folks that are opposed to more gun control are preventing politicians from having the political will to act on gun control. That seems like a ridiculous take to me. I mean politicians as victims? Politicians need to lead on this issue.

Let’s be clear here. I think it is very clear that the vast majority of gun owners aren’t murderers. On the other hand, it is pretty easy for those inclined to murder to get a gun.

Background checks? I think both shooters this weekend would have passed backround checks as they exist today. What background checks would have flagged either of those guys?

“Assault weapon” bans. That might have dissuaded these shooters but not sure.

Oh rly?

Omar Mateen Orlando Mass Muderer

San Bernardino Mass Shooting

Sandy Hook Mass Muder

Mass Murder at a FL High School

Virginia Tech Mass Murder

Aurora Colorado Mass Muder

Columbine

2017 Congressional Shooting

Oh yeah and not carried out with a gun

Boston Marathon Massacre

There’s more but I will stop here

There was a strong grass roots movement after MSD. It accomplished nothing.

There was strong political will after the gradeschoolers and nothing.

You seem kinda delusional about the process here.

I'm sorry but it's you whose embraced delusion Victor. Sadly you're correct in pointing out I was right even if you don't (or are pretending not to) realise it.

Go-on have a look at what I said instead of embracing the making stuff up to try to be mean on the internet thingy.

FYI

Federal Assault Weapon Ban 1994-2004

Quote:

Background

Efforts to create restrictions on assault weapons at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, California with a semi-automatic Kalashnikov pattern rifle.[1][2][3] The Luby's shooting in October 1991, which left 23 people dead and 27 wounded, was another factor.[4] The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hell-Fire triggers.[5] The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon", as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a "large capacity ammunition feeding device".[6]:1–2

In November 1993, the proposed legislation passed the U.S. Senate. The bill's author, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.[7] In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns". They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.[8]

US Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX), then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried unsuccessfully to remove the assault weapons ban section from the crime bill.[9] The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that assault weapons "are used in only 1 percent of all crimes".[10] The low usage statistic was supported in a 1999 Department of Justice brief.[6] The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its sunset provision.
......
Effects



Total deaths in US mass shootings from 1982 to 2017, according to Mother Jones.[27]
Violence

A 2017 review found that the ban did not have a significant effect on firearm homicides.[28]

A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[29] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives".[30][31]

A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipios during 2005 and 2006."[32]

In 2013, Koper reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[33]

In relation to a 2001 study the National Research Council in 2005, stated "evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes."[34]

In 2004, a research report commissioned by the National Institute of Justice found that if the ban was renewed, the effects on gun violence would likely be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study, by the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found no significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. The authors also report that "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." [35]

In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[36] A review of firearms research from 2001 by the National Research Council "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that guns were relatively rarely used criminally before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would likely be very small.[37]

Research published by John Lott in 1998 found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates.[38] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's look at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults.[38] Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state assault weapon bans and twelve other different types of gun control laws.[38]

Mass shootings

A 2019 study found that the ban was associated with a reduction in mass-shooting related homicides during the 1994 to 2004 time period.[39]

A 2015 study found a small decrease in the rate of mass shootings followed by increases beginning after the ban was lifted.[40] The same report also noted that all mass shootings in Australia occurred before the 1996 National Firearms Agreement which placed tight control on semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons.[40][41] However, since the report's publication, there have been mass shootings in Australia.[42]

You think 'the right' mean white people and 'the left' means colored people. You're and old dumb racist.

On a progressive YouTube channel, one of the moderators said over a year ago, it's useless trying to argue sensibly with Trump supporters.
He was right.
Ideally we'd like to have a conversation where all opinions are heard.
But I'm not going to counter argue, and give them credibility, with someone who feels offended and the need to be defensive at the suggestion that we have a white racist radical problem.

.

I might become anti video game just to trigger these worthless chuds

We are still waiting on that source that shows white radicalization is the reason for gun violence in this country? And if that wasn't the claim what was the claim?

By the way, I am not offended at the notion gun violence is because of white racist radicals. I am just wondering why someone would think that. To fix a problem it helps to know the cause of the problem and you all are failing to show gun violence has to do with any kind of political or racial radicals.

I said I don't think repealing the 2nd Amendment isn't practical.
But of course I agree that stricter gun control measures are needed.
I just happen to believe that we can have both.

Why would it be impractical?
This may sound like a cop out but I really don't want to veer the thread in another direction. And I don't want to engage in a back and forth about this subject at the moment either.

Like I said, I believe in stricter gun laws, and that that doesn't infringe on the 2nd a. We can have both.

Keep waiting

Here is some reading:

I'm not trying to direct this directly at you itshotinvegas, but please feel free to answer.

Do you believe the lives of those killed in mass shootings are more important than those that are killed in domestic disputes, drive bys and other more common murders? If not, why do you, politicians and the media spend so much more time analyzing how to stop mass shootings than the more every day variety of murders?

This mass shooter is getting more attention than others...I let you decide for yourself why that is.

As far as terrorism, all mass shootings are terrorism, in one form or another, and that has a bigger emotional impact on people than the common murder.

Hellscape of freedom

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...otings/595474/

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...liberties.html

That's a clever argument.

Per the LA Times op-ed who the writers are compiling data on mass shooters:


The bold creates the personality disorder, early on in their lives. These folks are exposed to what ever flavor of politics/hate/prejudices. In the case of the El Passo, racism, almost always coming from the parents, or close relatives. These personality disorders creates a dynamic where they are never wrong in their own minds. So, they deny, justify, ignore, or deflect criticism. This causes them to start rationalizing and justifying violence/abuse. Most of these folks do not commit mass murder, but almost all of them engage in abusive behavior. Seeing mass shootings plants the idea, and some of them go through with it. Typically, they get triggered by something else, so they revert to their crutch anger to avoid what ever personal crisis they encounter, normally some sort of confrontation of their failings, which they react with rage, and start deflecting to avoid dealing with the criticism which has nothing to do with their crutch anger.

That's the short and somewhat simplistic answer.

huh, that article seems to miss the bullet point of the fact that all the shooters had EASY ****ING ACCESS TO WEAPONS OF WAR.

So what? I do not know how you stop people with undiagnosed personalty disorders from getting these weapons, outside of repealing the 2A.

How about making it illegal to sell any non bolt-action, single load rifles?