Tony_Tarantula on 12/6/2016 at 18:11

---

It's utterly predictable unfortunately. There's a strong correlation between unemployment rates and homicide rates((https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/53294/theeffectsofunemploymentoncimerates.pdf)). Can't post the summary due to how it's formatted but the correlation exceeds 99% confidence.

Combine that with economics that are much worse than anyone lets on and if you used a regression forecast you would expect to have rising levels of violence.


Regarding the economic stats, here's the sight that a lot of businesses use when they need accurate information for decision making and forecasting: (http://www.shadowstats.com/) . Legit site, the guy's made a good amount of money with it because a lot of the data that companies use to forecast market size, potential revenue, earnings, etc. is dependent on having good economic data to input into the model and government statistics are unreliable at best.

I'd wager that's why Canada has a much lower rate of violence despite a noticeable higher rate of gun ownernship.




"Amassing guns for a planned shooting"? Nobody who knows what they're doing "amasses guns". This isn't a video game where you can carry ten weapons, with a full load of ammo, and dozens of explosives all magically stuffed inside a bag where they all fit and where the weight doesn't slow you down.

All you need is one gun with a fast fire rate(semi-auto or better), eye/ear/hand protection, and a lot of spare magazines fully loaded. Hell all a professional soldier typically takes into combat is a single semi-automatic carbine, 3-4 grenades, and 180-300 rounds of ammo stored in 30 round magazines. The rest of the heavy weapons will be mounted on the vehicles with the exception of whoever gets stuck carrying the machine gun.




It's not like requiring more trigger pressure is going to stop them. If you want to stop police acting with extreme prejudice, the place to start is by clearing house at the Department of Justice and reforming the federal court system starting with federal prosecutors. You'd also do well to adjust the legal structure so that municipalities can't benefit from asset forfeiture.

Those the key drivers. Not only are municipalities encouraging law enforcement to take an adversarial stance against the population in order to extract more revenue(which also influences hiring practices, training, etc) but most judges are former federal prosecutors. This means that they will NEVER rule against cops or censure cops. When cops are incentivized to be start conflict with the citizens and are more or less immune from consequences for any misconduct they perpetrate the only thing that can happen is that people who enjoy abusing others are attracted to the profession and over time they turn into oppressors rather than protectors.

Fun fact: The US Federal Courts have a higher conviction rate than did Nazi German....and you wonder why Americans distrust government.

catbarf on 13/6/2016 at 00:44

---

A lot of this has to do with how they're reported. There's been a recent push in the last couple of years, primarily by the Mass Shooting Tracker, to (http://truthinmedia.com/fact-check-355-mass-shootings-far-2015/) broaden the definition of 'mass shooting' to inflate the statistics for rhetoric effect. The statistic that reports over 350 mass shootings in 2015 uses the definition of 'any shooting event in which four or more people are injured', which until they were called out on it included such events as two kids shooting their neighbors with BB guns.

By their definition if a gangbanger shoots a store owner, gets shot by police, the police hit a bystander in the crossfire, and someone half a mile away is startled by the gunfire and twists his knee on the sidewalk, that's four hospitalizations related to a shooting so they call it a mass shooting. Three would-be burglars get shot by a homeowner, who is taken to the hospital because he feels faint? Mass shooting, apparently. It's a little dishonest to throw those in the same linguistic and reporting category as school shootings and terrorist attacks, because those certainly aren't the kind of events most people think of when they hear 'mass shooting'.



Not only was the worst school shooting in US history (Virginia Tech) conducted with handguns and ten-round magazines, but by FBI statistics handguns represent over 90% of homicides, under 3% are committed with rifles, and only a fraction of those are assault weapons. From a statistical standpoint, it's not AR-15s that are the problem, it's dirt cheap single-stack handguns like Hi-Points and Jimenezes. Focusing on assault weapons always strikes me as a way of looking for scary-looking scapegoats (not even effectively at that- since 'assault weapon' is an arbitrary aesthetic categorization it's easy to circumvent, just google 'ny legal ar15') rather than addressing the sociological issues that underpin violence in the first place.

Our focus on assault weapons and rare but sensational events is indicative of our lack of interest in the killing that goes on daily in communities destroyed by the War on Crime, War on Drugs, systemic racism in the justice system, destruction of blue-collar jobs, and rising income inequality. Caring about any of that is much harder than passing some feel-good law about assault weapons and patting ourselves on the back for doing something about gun violence. If anything I'd much sooner support a ban on handguns than one on assault weapons, because of the two categories the latter is overwhelmingly less likely to be used for criminal purposes.

Starker on 13/6/2016 at 02:29

---

Inflated or not, US still has a f*ckton of mass shootings, way more than most other countries. But it's a good point that they are somewhat over-sensationalised. And the way they are reported can be really irresponsible:

[video=youtube;PezlFNTGWv4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4[/video]

PigLick on 13/6/2016 at 02:37

---

But if by banning assault type weapons you can prevent a person from walking into a crowded public space and clock up 50+ body count, isnt that still a good thing?

Volitions Advocate on 13/6/2016 at 03:21

---

I just spent 9 hours today at my local shooting club. I was surrounded by 15 other people all day, and every single one of us had an "assault weapon type" (whatever the hell that means) rifle. I also had a pistol strapped to my hip all day, and so did everybody else. Everybody brought a shotgun too. Amazingly enough, not a single person was shot, imagine that! It was a fun day full of new friends and camaraderie. I got a certificate because I had the fastest time in my division. Not bad for a fatass who has never shot in competition before.

I did not skip out on this event because of how bad I felt about the shooting in Florida. I do not think it was disrespectful to continue with my match today despite the idiotic tragedy down there, though some I know would see it that way.

I don't thinkiIt makes sense for me to give up this hobby, with all the wonderful people I share it with, over a type of gun because some deranged extremist asshole decided he had to make a statement. I had a great day today, and finally had the chance to do something I've been dreaming of doing for years. Some people would call me a fetishist because of that, and they can have their opinion if they want.

And I honestly don't think a ban will stop things like this from happening. All it will do is stop people like me from safely enjoying a pastime that has nothing to do with hate. Of the 50 various firearms I saw being fired today, not a single one of them has ever been fired at a person, and I doubt they ever will be.

Banning guns is the easy way out that doesn't actually do much of anything. It would actually take EFFORT to get to the root cause of the hatred that caused this tragedy, yet in all of the news articles I've seen so far it has been all about the gun, and nothing about the man.

Or maybe I'm just from Canada. Whatever. I hope that fucktard rots in whatever hell he thought he was avoiding by doing this.