Page 2 of 2

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:41 pm
by Spock
Mr. Kelley>>>Well, since my state got dragged into this discussion, I should probably point out that for the most recent year I could find, Indianapolis had only the fifth highest murder rate in Indiana. Most Hoosiers could probably guess the city with the highest rate, Gary. And Gary fits in with Spock's point pretty well. But how do you explain the second highest rate for towns with more than 10000 population-- Clarksville? It's certainly not "urban" problems. It might be an anomaly, it might be a symptom of the opioid epidemic, or it might be a symptom of the welfare state, since rural whites make much more use of those programs than black folks do here<<<<

It is not a black thing for me, it is more of a broken home-missing fathers thing. Generally speaking, the shattering of the Black family happened a few decades before the sahttering of the white family (which is rapidly occurring) and the populations tend to be concentrated in Newark, Gary, etc-so we have almost pure data points.

I am sure if we looked at data for the middle class "black" suburbs in, say, the Atlanta area the numbers would be fine and compare to other similar "white" suburbs.

We have touched on before how one of the things that I noticed since I have kids in school, that there are not as many bad people around as one might think. However, unfortunately, while kids from good families often get in trouble, the kids without a dad around or with extremely broken families have more of a chance to get in serious trouble.

What chance do some of those kids even have?

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:45 pm
by Spock
silverscreenselect wrote:
Spock wrote:
For example. compare Montana and Baltimore. The murder rate in Montana (2016) was 3.5. per 100,000 In Baltimore it was 50.
Very disingenuous of you here Spock to just happen to pick the city that's had the biggest spike in murders in the last couple of years to use for your comparison.

And population density has a good bit to do with the murder rate as well. The more people you come in close contact with, the more likely that something's going to lead to violence.
I picked at random. We could compare any 2 points.

Hell, we could compare the bad neighborhoods in Chicago with the good neighborhoods. With the murders being concentrated in a few southern and western neighborhoods in Chicago-the difference between the bad areas and the good areas has to be exponential. Why is there such a difference?

Per Montana-the basic question is: With the high presence of guns there, why is the murder rate so low?

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:59 pm
by flockofseagulls104
silverscreenselect wrote:It's amazing that the same people who concoct stories of supposed voting fraud and use that as an excuse to put restriction after restriction on the right to vote don't seem to want to limit gun ownership in any way whatsoever despite 59 examples staring them in the face today.
Perfect example of why a 'discussion' won't be happening. Apples and elephants, SSS. In a debate, you don't finger point to left field to justify your point. That's what Trump did in the campaign. It seems to work on the easily swayed. And it shows you don't absorb anything outside your own made up mind.

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:16 pm
by themanintheseersuckersuit
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 49b19c8ada
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:19 pm
by silverscreenselect
Spock wrote:
Per Montana-the basic question is: With the high presence of guns there, why is the murder rate so low?
Well, I don't know where you get your statistics, but here's some from the Kaiser Family Foundation that dispute your point:

Number of Deaths in 2015 Due to Firearms Injuries per State (per 100,000)

U.S. Average 11.1

California 7.7
Illinois 9.5
Maryland 11.9
Massachusetts 3.0
Michigan 11.7
New York 4.2

Now, here's some presumably big gun ownership states:

Alabama 19.7
Georgia 14.1
Idaho 14.9
Montana 19.4
Wyoming 19.8

Now, these statistics include accidental deaths and suicides as well as murders, but take away the gun and almost all the accidental deaths and many of the suicides would still be alive.


https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat ... 2asc%22%7D

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:31 pm
by jarnon
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Our country has had guns ever since it was founded. Lunatic mass shootings were rare up until the past few decades. Now they are common. We have to ask ourselves, and as liberals say, have a REAL conversation (not a finger pointing contest) about WHY. An in depth and thorough conversation that does not discount any viewpoint as politically incorrect if it has merit. Why are more and more people taking whatever weapons they can find and trying to kill people they don't know? Is it our culture? Is it mental health? Is it the media? What steps can we take that will stop people from doing these horrible things before they do them?
I’m pleased with flock’s call for a real conversation. The debate, on the Bored and elsewhere, has been dominated by name-calling and making cheap points. Slogans like “Anti-gun politicians want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate your guns” and “Pro-gun politicians care more about NRA contributions than kids’ safety” accomplish nothing.
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Illinois apparently has the some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gun control laws do not seem to work there.
But enough guns to fill an arsenal are bought (legally) in Indiana and taken (illegally) to Chicago. Neither the Democrats in Chicago nor the Republicans in Indiana have found a way to stop the flow. If a solution can be found, let’s use it on the Mexican border too. As Bored Buddies know from the “Operation Fast and Furious” topic, American guns are smuggled into Mexico, and even a huge wall won’t stop them.
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Machine guns have been banned since 1986. Somehow the law didn't stop this asshole from getting several or converting several semi automatics.
The S.O.B. also had ammonium nitrate. If he couldn’t assemble his arsenal, he was smart enough to build a car bomb.

No law is going to stop determined evil people. I’d be satisfied with some common sense changes that respect the rights of gun owners and reduce accidents, suicides and so on.

Existing laws should be enforced and not weakened. Loopholes should be closed. With today’s technology, it’s easy to do background checks at a gun show. Machine guns are illegal; a “bump stock” like the Vegas shooter used should be illegal too.

Every gun sold should come with a childproof lock. Not everyone will use it, but responsible people with kids around will. Even better would be reliable technology that prevents anyone but the gun’s owner from shooting it.

Background checks ought to cover domestic abusers with restraining orders, radical Islamic terrorists, and suicidal people. But you have to avoid going overboard. Last year a proposed regulation would have stopped SSI recipients who have a responsible payee from buying guns. A responsible payee is a convenience for people who aren’t good with finances, but why should you forfeit a constitutional right if you have one?

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:41 pm
by BackInTex
silverscreenselect wrote:....but take away the gun ....
Wow, that didn't take long for the actual plan to be spilled.

And why we can't have a conversation with you about "common sense" gun laws. To you, the only common sense gun law is guns are outlawed.

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:42 pm
by Bob Juch
jarnon wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Our country has had guns ever since it was founded. Lunatic mass shootings were rare up until the past few decades. Now they are common. We have to ask ourselves, and as liberals say, have a REAL conversation (not a finger pointing contest) about WHY. An in depth and thorough conversation that does not discount any viewpoint as politically incorrect if it has merit. Why are more and more people taking whatever weapons they can find and trying to kill people they don't know? Is it our culture? Is it mental health? Is it the media? What steps can we take that will stop people from doing these horrible things before they do them?
I’m pleased with flock’s call for a real conversation. The debate, on the Bored and elsewhere, has been dominated by name-calling and making cheap points. Slogans like “Anti-gun politicians want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate your guns” and “Pro-gun politicians care more about NRA contributions than kids’ safety” accomplish nothing.
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Illinois apparently has the some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gun control laws do not seem to work there.
But enough guns to fill an arsenal are bought (legally) in Indiana and taken (illegally) to Chicago. Neither the Democrats in Chicago nor the Republicans in Indiana have found a way to stop the flow. If a solution can be found, let’s use it on the Mexican border too. As Bored Buddies know from the “Operation Fast and Furious” topic, American guns are smuggled into Mexico, and even a huge wall won’t stop them.
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Machine guns have been banned since 1986. Somehow the law didn't stop this asshole from getting several or converting several semi automatics.
The S.O.B. also had ammonium nitrate. If he couldn’t assemble his arsenal, he was smart enough to build a car bomb.

No law is going to stop determined evil people. I’d be satisfied with some common sense changes that respect the rights of gun owners and reduce accidents, suicides and so on.

Existing laws should be enforced and not weakened. Loopholes should be closed. With today’s technology, it’s easy to do background checks at a gun show. Machine guns are illegal; a “bump stock” like the Vegas shooter used should be illegal too.

Every gun sold should come with a childproof lock. Not everyone will use it, but responsible people with kids around will. Even better would be reliable technology that prevents anyone but the gun’s owner from shooting it.

Background checks ought to cover domestic abusers with restraining orders, radical Islamic terrorists, and suicidal people. But you have to avoid going overboard. Last year a proposed regulation would have stopped SSI recipients who have a responsible payee from buying guns. A responsible payee is a convenience for people who aren’t good with finances, but why should you forfeit a constitutional right if you have one?
Only machine guns manufactured after 1986 are illegal. Bump stocks are illegal in many states.

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:56 pm
by silverscreenselect
If Paddock had been a naturalized citizen from, say, Syria, and he had smuggled a bomb into the concert that killed the same number of people, would Ted Cruz simply have said, "Sadly, violence will always be part of our lives"? And would every single Republican in Congress simply shrugged their shoulders and claim that nothing can be done to stop incidents like that?

I'm also wondering what Paddock did for a living. Apparently he had a good bit of money, owned several houses, and was a frequent high roller at Vegas casinos (which may explain why they didn't question him too carefully about what he was bringing up to his room). But there's no record of any employment for the last 30 years. So what was he doing during that time and how did he accumulate what appears to be a fair amount of money.

Not trying to raise any political points with this second questions. It's just curious.

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:12 pm
by BackInTex
silverscreenselect wrote:I'm also wondering what Paddock did for a living. Apparently he had a good bit of money, owned several houses, and was a frequent high roller at Vegas casinos (which may explain why they didn't question him too carefully about what he was bringing up to his room). But there's no record of any employment for the last 30 years. So what was he doing during that time and how did he accumulate what appears to be a fair amount of money.

Not trying to raise any political points with this second questions. It's just curious.
Apparently a real estate investor. He had several rental homes. He started as an accountant/internal auditor from sources I've read.

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:24 pm
by Bob Juch
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:I'm also wondering what Paddock did for a living. Apparently he had a good bit of money, owned several houses, and was a frequent high roller at Vegas casinos (which may explain why they didn't question him too carefully about what he was bringing up to his room). But there's no record of any employment for the last 30 years. So what was he doing during that time and how did he accumulate what appears to be a fair amount of money.

Not trying to raise any political points with this second questions. It's just curious.
Apparently a real estate investor. He had several rental homes. He started as an accountant/internal auditor from sources I've read.
You are correct.

I'm not sure if Paddock was a frequent high-roller, but he was last week.

Re: Las Vegas Shootings

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:05 am
by flockofseagulls104
If Paddock had been a naturalized citizen from, say, Syria, and he had smuggled a bomb into the concert that killed the same number of people, would Ted Cruz simply have said, "Sadly, violence will always be part of our lives"? And would every single Republican in Congress simply shrugged their shoulders and claim that nothing can be done to stop incidents like that?
Very helpful observation , there, SSS. Your pointing finger must be very muscular.
The real question is: What would you and the democrats do? I can imagine all the fingers pointing in different directions.