who said that? must be someone who is ignorant of guns.

glock mag can have 19 rounds in it. if he had 2 mags he could technically kill 48 people, maybe more.

not sure what sig sauer he had but they'll also hold a lot of ammo in the mag.

Still well behind but as of page 26, yep, that was still the worst

Dude, it was 1st graders trapped in a classroom. You want to laugh? You realize that a single bullet could have and likely pierced and imploded multiple skulls?

Seriously man, get a grip before you get to excited

Wait, so I didn't actually click LK's cite until reading Mondo's response, but did Low Key really just add up death rates per 100,000 people for eight different countries to make them look worse than the USA?

Did that really happen?



awful, awful posting

To be fair I think the post was in reply to "USA vs All of Europe" or something, as that discussion was going on earlier.

But there are roughly a kajillion other conflating factors that affect homicide rates as well. It's entirely possible that moar guns = moar homicide even if homicides drop.

er, 19 * 2 is 38

:/

im tired?

lol did he seriously add them? i just assumed it was an average. holy wow batman.

OMG! Second shooter! Let the conspiritarding begin!

I'm not an expert on mass shootings, but don't a lot of them take place in locations that have some connection to the shooter (their office, school, somewhere with political significance, etc.)? I mean, I'm sure there are some situations where the shooter picks the location based on the place where he thinks he can inflict the most damage (in which case the presence of armed civilians or police might be a deterrent), but I'm not sure that that is always (or even often) the deciding factor.

Dude. He added the per capita rates. There is nothing that makes that level of math fail "fair".

Low Key: Let's say that Haiti and the Dominican Republic each have a firearms-related death rate of exactly 3.00 per 100,000 people. What is the firearms-related death rate for the island of Hispaniola?

(edit: this is Hispaniola)

Second shooter on the grassy knoll ITT.

Ugh, yeah, I blame the fact it is ridiculous o'clock and I have been gaming all night and should go to bed. My bad.

Um, yeah, that doesn't help... He took the rates of gun deaths PER 100,000 in the US and compared that number to (number per 100k in country A + number per 100k in country B + number per 100k in country C, etc.), and then, without averaging the second number, tried to present the 2nd number as evidence that the US had less gun violence than those other countries, even though each of those countries' individual per capita death rates are much lower than the US.

So, he either didn't understand the statistics he was creating or he intentionally made up a number to try to undermine the simple fact that the US has much higher rates of gun violence than other similarly economically developed countries.

ETA: Damn my pony, she should go to bed too...

Hopefully the former, trying to get the latter by you lot is just lolbad/arrogant.

What I have been saying. Ikes either doesn't understand that or does but refuses to comment.

I'd like to see some homicide by firearm statistics filtered for illegal/legal acquisition.

Enforce the damn gun laws we have and the problem is near nil.

I'd like to see a comparison of first world countries with and without legal firearms that excludes the US. There are too many other variables involving the US.

Wasn't there a shooting at New Life church in colorado springs that could have been much worse but they had people there with guns that stopped it?

Switzerland might have guns. But they helped Nazis with banking. Maybe their lower crime rate is low because they're just so nice and help out anyone in need.

The tragedy that happened today has more to do with our failed mental health system than it does to do with gun control.

That being said our massive illegal exportation of firearms to mexico is 100% because of our refusal to enforce any kind of sane gun control. No one expects that we're going to ban guns in any meaningful way in the US, but currently there's basically no responsibility born by gun owners for what is done with their firearms. That's the problem.

If you buy a gun you are responsible for that gun. If that gun is stolen and used in a crime that should be on you to some extent. If it shows up in Mexico without you filling out a long and miserable amount of paperwork complete with proof of it being stolen you should go to prison. Period. The government should know what and how many guns you own. And you should be accountable for them.

Owning a gun should also involve a mental health check. Most of the shooters who purchased their guns legally would not have passed such a check. They also would have found getting guns a lot harder if the people selling them to them had some responsibility for what they did with them.

You're allowed to own a gun. A gun is a dangerous piece of equipment that you are taking responsibility for when you purchase it. That would mean a lot more red tape and a few sad stories about unlucky people going to prison. We imprison people for smoking weed in this country... I think we could afford to send a few rednecks to jail for selling their guns to drug gangs.

The Swiss example is bull****. Every male in the country has also done military service which comes with a pretty thorough psych exam. Those aren't the people you need to be worried about owning guns. I suspect getting a gun in Switzerland without being a member of the armed forces is a bitch... And completely impossible if you're a foreigner. A huge % of the population is foreign.

Gun nuts,

More guns --> more homicides.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

educationally,
goofball

Also under the system I outlined stolen guns should be taken SERIOUSLY. Like steal a gun and take a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence seriously. Complete with police units who do nothing with their time but try to track down stolen guns. Possession of an unlicensed firearm should be a really really big deal. New York isn't hard enough on this (and the rest of the country is hilariously far behind that).

Criminals stop carrying guns around when they face large felony charges for carrying guns around. I have zero problem with sane citizens carrying around concealed flamethrowers. As long as they can prove they are sane and everything they do with said flamethrower is traceable directly to them.

This isn't about taking away people's right to bear arms, simply demanding that once they choose to bear them they bear responsibility for those arms.

I highly doubt access to mental health treatment was a factor in this case. The shooter's family is quite wealthy.