Farmington Police officers went to the wrong house and killed the man who came to the door with a gun

[Mikey 16,781]

13 hours ago, arein0 said:

Also, why does it seem that most of the mass shootings happen in the south? Is the south just more mentally unstable or do the lax gun laws allow the mentally unstable to easily obtain a weapon?

Connecticut, Las Vegas and Colorado are in the south? Who knew?

[arein0 1,106]

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Connecticut, Las Vegas and Colorado are in the south? Who knew?

No, but of the top 10 deadliest shootings in the last 8 years, the majority have come from the south, used an assault rifle, and it didn't really matter if there were armed guards or not.

https://everytownresearch.org/mass-shootings-in-america/

This link shows a map of the US with mass shootings (4 or more dead) in 2023 (through March 9). You can clearly see the southeast have a much higher cluster compared to the rest of the US

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

[arein0 1,106]

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

You need to define mass shootings. I do not believe that the above map indicates mass shootings as the public understands mass shootings. There simply haven't been that many in the past 3 months.

I did and the website did as well. 4 or more injured or killed in an incident excluding the perp.

Edited April 14, 2023 by arein0
Used the wrong definition for mass shootings

[Mikey 16,781]

Just now, arein0 said:

I did and the website did as well. 4 or more deaths in an incident excluding the perp.

Bank robberies and all sorts of gang violence included? Gang warfare? There's some explanation other than crazies gunning people down for no good reason. Either that or, apparently the left-leaning media has been missing a lot of opportunities to whine and moan about "assault weapons".

Your "everytownresearch" site is a notorious anti-gun outfit, I wouldn't put any stock in what they claim.

[arein0 1,106]

12 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Bank robberies and all sorts of gang violence included? Gang warfare? There's some explanation other than crazies gunning people down for no good reason. Either that or, apparently the left-leaning media has been missing a lot of opportunities to whine and moan about "assault weapons".

Your "everytownresearch" site is a notorious anti-gun outfit, I wouldn't put any stock in what they claim.

I think you are getting confused. The map that shows the mass shootings is not from everytownresearch. It is from the other link and defines mass shootings as 4 or more injured or killed not including the perp. This site does not show whether an assault rifle was used or not. It is strictly to show the locations of mass shooting incidents for the year.

The everytownresearch site showed the top 10 deadliest incidents in the last 8 years and broke it down to if an assault rifle was used or not and the gun restrictions at that location.

I believe you don't like these sites because they are showing data to prove that what you believe, less restrictions on guns and the need for more armed guards, is wrong.

[Mikey 16,781]

9 hours ago, arein0 said:

I believe you don't like these sites because they are showing data to prove that what you believe, less restrictions on guns and the need for more armed guards, is wrong.

These numbers have nothing to do with the effectiveness of armed guards or guns in the hands of honest people.

For example, the criteria conveniently leaves out Chicago, which has multiple gun killings every week in lock-step with severe gun limitation laws. These sites come under the heading "Figures don't lie but liars figure".

[arein0 1,106]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

These numbers have nothing to do with the effectiveness of armed guards or guns in the hands of honest people.

For example, the criteria conveniently leaves out Chicago, which has multiple gun killings every week in lock-step with severe gun limitation laws. These sites come under the heading "Figures don't lie but liars figure".

If that were the case, then you wouldn't see 7 of the top 10 shootings happen in states with lowered gun restrictions. You wouldn't see 8 of the top 10 allow firearms / have armed guards.

Since are saying this is wrong, would you prefer to see a map of deaths in the US? Fair warning, it still shows an increase in places with lowered gun restrictions. 

[Mikey 16,781]

So far, 125 people have been killed in Chicago this year. At four per mass incident, it would take over 30 of your mass shootings to equal Chicago's total.  Gun control doesn't work.

Also, are you including the fact that over 50% of U.S. deaths by firearm are suicides? How will you stop suicides with gun control laws? Pull driver's licenses too?

[arein0 1,106]

17 minutes ago, Mikey said:

So far, 125 people have been killed in Chicago this year. At four per mass incident, it would take over 30 of your mass shootings to equal Chicago's total.  Gun control doesn't work.

Also, are you including the fact that over 50% of U.S. deaths by firearm are suicides? How will you stop suicides with gun control laws? Pull driver's licenses too?

Gun control laws will literally help reduce this number because guns will not be as easily accessible. Currently you can walk into a gun shop and buy a gun in about an hour and depending on the state will do a background check.

Like I've been saying for days now making it more difficult to buy guns will only help keep guns out of bad guys hands. You keep mentioning that bad guys will find ways to get there hands on guns, but right now guns are so accessible that they are legally buying guns. When buying guns, good guys are not buying them with the intent or need to use them in an hour. Bad guys do. Having these lowered gun restrictions are only putting more guns in bad guys hands.

You keep mentioning Chicago as your reason why we shouldn't restrict guns, but they have a different problem and it wouldn't matter if they had restricted or unrestricted guns. Also Chicago is only one city in all of the places with gun restrictions that are having issues. Look across the south to see what happens when you have lowered gun restrictions, more mass shootings over an extremely wide area to where it is almost random on where they take place.

[arein0 1,106]

44 minutes ago, Mikey said:

So far, 125 people have been killed in Chicago this year. At four per mass incident, it would take over 30 of your mass shootings to equal Chicago's total.  Gun control doesn't work.

There have been 146 mass shootings in the US this year...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

There have been at least 146 mass shootings across the US so far this year, including the attack at a school in Nashville, where three children and three adults were killed, and the mass shooting in Kentucky on Monday, which left four victims dead.

[Mikey 16,781]

21 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Also Chicago is only one city in all of the places with gun restrictions that are having issues.

California isn't having gun issues? Who knew?

Look across the South? We have a different culture here. Hindering 99% of our population in the misguided hope that that will somehow affect the remaining 1% is not a satisfactory solution.

[Mikey 16,781]

11 minutes ago, arein0 said:

There have been at least 146 mass shootings across the US so far this year,

146? The liberal media is certainly dropping the ball in reporting. They should be gloating over this. Instead, I can recall maybe a half-dozen. I'd like to know more about these 146 but predictably, getting at the bottom of this is obscured.

[I_M4_AU 8,988]

23 hours ago, arein0 said:

If that were the case, then you wouldn't see 7 of the top 10 shootings happen in states with lowered gun restrictions. You wouldn't see 8 of the top 10 allow firearms / have armed guards.

Since are saying this is wrong, would you prefer to see a map of deaths in the US? Fair warning, it still shows an increase in places with lowered gun restrictions. 

So, what does each red dot represent?  It can’t be just one death.  No context here.  The issue of states with less gun restrictions isn’t what we should be looking at, it’s where these shootings are occurring.  Looking at this map, I can pick out LA, Seattle, San Fran/Oakland, Memphis, Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, NY, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, so on and so on.

Big cities, no matter what state they are in or the gun laws governing those cities, are more likely to have violence, whether it is from guns or not.  You can see that LA, Chicago, NY have restrictive gun laws and has little to do with restricting deaths.  People bent on evil and disruptive behavior, just like people who commit suicide, will find a way to accomplish their goal.  Restricting self defense on law abiding citizens will not change the amount of deaths in these cities.  Restricting the options of defense (AR-15) for law abiding citizens will not solve the problem either.

[arein0 1,106]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Big cities, no matter what state they are in or the gun laws governing those cities, are more likely to have violence, whether it is from guns or not.  

Exactly my point with the map. You can clearly see the major cities having issues whether they have gun restrictions or not. The point of the map was to show the disparity between the non major cities based on location. In the south the red dots are much more prevelant than just the major cities. In comparison California really only has incidents in the greater LA and SF area, Washington around Seattle, New York around NYC, Michigan around Detroit and Grand Rapids.

[I_M4_AU 8,988]

4 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Exactly my point with the map. You can clearly see the major cities having issues whether they have gun restrictions or not. The point of the map was to show the disparity between the non major cities based on location. In the south the red dots are much more prevelant than just the major cities. In comparison California really only has incidents in the greater LA and SF area, Washington around Seattle, New York around NYC, Michigan around Detroit and Grand Rapids.

And you’re blaming this on gun restriction laws?  Do you think the more dense population East of the Mississippi might have something to do with it?

[arein0 1,106]

 

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

And you’re blaming this on gun restriction laws?  Do you think the more dense population East of the Mississippi might have something to do with it?

The south is not more densely populated than the northeast

Edited April 15, 2023 by arein0

[arein0 1,106]

31 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Hindering 99% of our population in the misguided hope that that will somehow affect the remaining 1% is not a satisfactory solution.

That is the whole reason any restrictions are created. To protect the 99% from the 1%. 

[I_M4_AU 8,988]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

The south is not more densely populated than the northeast

I didn’t say it was, but Conn, Vermont and Maine are not as densely populated as other NE states.  Look at the I-85 corridor from Raleigh, NC to Atlanta where you have Greensboro, Charlotte, Greenville/Spartanburg and then Atlanta.  That’s a lot of population concentrated in a relative small space.

[Mikey 16,781]

3 minutes ago, arein0 said:

That is the whole reason any restrictions are created. To protect the 99% from the 1%. 

We don't need the ineffective government to do this. We must do it ourselves.

"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim." Colonel Jeff Cooper

19 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Exactly my point with the map. You can clearly see the major cities having issues whether they have gun restrictions or not.

So, according to your own post, Democrat controlled big cities with severe gun control laws are major shooting points. I think you've just proven that gun control laws are ineffective.

[arein0 1,106]

9 minutes ago, Mikey said:

We don't need the ineffective government to do this. We must do it ourselves.

"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim." Colonel Jeff Cooper

You could also prevent the felon from legally buying his desired gun. Again putting restrictions in place does not prevent good law abiding citizens from purchasing guns. It only prevents bad guys from legally buying them.

I'm guessing based on your stance, that we should allow guns on planes. This restriction was put in place to protect the 99% from the 1%. @I_M4_AU you are a former commercial pilot. Would you feel comfortable flying a plane knowing that you potentially could have a bad guy with a gun on your plane or more comfortable with the restrictions put in place with airport security?

[I_M4_AU 8,988]

43 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I'm guessing based on your stance, that we should allow guns on planes. This restriction was put in place to protect the 99% from the 1%. @I_M4_AU you are a former commercial pilot. Would you feel comfortable flying a plane knowing that you potentially could have a bad guy with a gun on your plane or more comfortable with the restrictions put in place with airport security?

Interestingly enough, when I first started my career in ‘81 about half of the Captains brought their own guns with them on the flight.  Never had an incident.  Then came security and they were no longer able to carry them onboard.  A lot of b!tching and moaning, but they acquiesced.  Now we have Air Marshalls (not of all flights) that are good guys with a gun and some pilots are trained and are certified to carry on an airplane.  Its amazing how we have come full circle.

The good guys with a gun are a deterrent to those that would do harm to others.  Security catches most of the things brought on an airplane, but not all.

The guys flying today are aware that you could possibly be have a bad guy with a gun on board and after 9-11 they are well aware what the vulnerabilities are and have techniques that will help mitigate the threat.

It’s a dangerous world out there.

[arein0 1,106]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, what does each red dot represent?  It can’t be just one death.  No context here.  The issue of states with less gun restrictions isn’t what we should be looking at, it’s where these shootings are occurring.  Looking at this map, I can pick out LA, Seattle, San Fran/Oakland, Memphis, Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, NY, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, so on and so on.

Big cities, no matter what state they are in or the gun laws governing those cities, are more likely to have violence, whether it is from guns or not.  You can see that LA, Chicago, NY have restrictive gun laws and has little to do with restricting deaths.  People bent on evil and disruptive behavior, just like people who commit suicide, will find a way to accomplish their goal.  Restricting self defense on law abiding citizens will not change the amount of deaths in these cities.  Restricting the options of defense (AR-15) for law abiding citizens will not solve the problem either.

You are right, this map doesn't do a good job on taking into account of population. Would this map showing deaths per capita by state make a difference to you? It tells the same story that states with less gun restrictions have more deaths per capita than states with gun restrictions. 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

[I_M4_AU 8,988]

9 minutes ago, arein0 said:

You are right, this map doesn't do a good job on taking into account of population. Would this map showing deaths per capita by state make a difference to you? It tells the same story that states with less gun restrictions have more deaths per capita than states with gun restrictions. 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Do you really think implementing restrictive gun laws like California and Illinois will put a dent in the death rates in the south?

[arein0 1,106]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you really think implementing restrictive gun laws like California and Illinois will put a dent in the death rates in the south?

Absolutely. It will make it harder for bad guys to legally get guns. And I say legally because right now it appears to be easier to obtain guns legally than illegally based on the recent cases with legally purchased guns. Illegally obtained guns are a different issue. Whether it is requiring something as simple as attending a proper gun storage and handling class to the more extreme passing a 3rd party mental health exam, this will prevent people from walking in and buying a gun with the intent to immediately use it. 

I do agree that it is the people that are the problem, but I still haven't seen anything Conservatives have proposed or even talked about implementing to improve mental health issues. All I've heard is they want more guns and guards. Well the bad guys don't care if there are guards or armed civilians. Their main goal is to take out as many people as they can before getting shot. Having low to no gun restrictions is only giving them the easy access to very deadly weapons.

[I_M4_AU 8,988]

3 hours ago, arein0 said:

I do agree that it is the people that are the problem, but I still haven't seen anything Conservatives have proposed or even talked about implementing to improve mental health issues. All I've heard is they want more guns and guards. Well the bad guys don't care if there are guards or armed civilians. Their main goal is to take out as many people as they can before getting shot. Having low to no gun restrictions is only giving them the easy access to very deadly weapons.

Mental health issues are rampant in the homeless communities.  The 1% of mass shootings (schools, banks, shopping centers, etc.) are comprised of mental health issues.  The rest are crime.  You can’t really conflate the two IMO.

Taking out as many as they can before getting shot is associated with the above category (the 1%).  The criminal wants to survive to rob another day.  Whether it be for drugs, money or other motives they want the easiest targets, you know, the gun free zones.  The gangs just shoot indiscriminately and hope they hit their target.  There is no morals on display with those people.  Will the police investigate to see where they get their guns?

How long do you think a psych eval lasts?  If you get an evaluation when you’re 18 are you good for life?  If you think you were born in the wrong body are you mentally fit to own a gun?  How about a racist?  The guy in Austin Texas was found guilty of murder and in the prosecution's case they leaned heavily on his racist background even though both the shooter and victim were white.

Laws may be written to protect the 99%, but the law doesn’t take affect until it is broken.  As has been said many times, criminals don’t care about laws.  

Gun shops offer classes in gun safety and concealed carry.  If you are serious about owning a gun you take advantage.  Would you require a safety class if you already own a gun and purchase another or is this just for new owners?

I can see you’re passionate about restricting guns and that’s fine, I just don’t agree that restrictions will prevent evil people from doing evil things.