Pagourtzis' social media pages showed multiple images of guns. He recently posted a photo wearing a T-shirt reading "Born to Kill" and there were also photos of a long dark jacket with Nazi symbols.
The suspect had a shotgun and a .38-caliber revolver, Abbott said. The suspect's father owned the weapons legally, Abbott said, adding that he didn't know whether the father was aware his son had obtained the weapons.
How much of the blame falls on the father here?
posted by friendfromlowryHow much of the blame falls on the father here?
All of it. I hope he can be punished. Kid also had socialism buttons and bisexual ones too. Who knows what went through his fucked up head.
posted by iclfan2Kid also had socialism buttons and bisexual ones too.
Has anyone proposed taking guns from just the liberals and Democrats?
posted by BoatShoesLike Clockwork:
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1826142891
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Meanwhile, there have been no mass shootings with Sub-Machine Guns since they were banned by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and as amended by Ronald Reagan in 1986.
Many of us have sincere and valid reasons for being skeptical of firearm regulations and the proponents of the same. but the notion that there are "no laws that could have prevented this" belies the evidence. Plenty of laws could make a difference but we choose not to.
The correct argument is that while mass shootings occur in the United States with tremendous frequency, it is nevertheless a greater country than the scores of countries where this does not happen because we have the freedom to defend our lives with firearms.
While I disagree with this overall, I can appreciate the sober and thoughtful response.
The problem with trying to say that it belies the evidence is that the evidence used is usually selectively chosen. The act itself is usually resultant from several laws already having been broken. What's more, you'll get a mixed bag when it comes to jurisdictions with strict gun laws and ones with relaxed gun laws. Some of each will have low gun violence and higher gun violence.
One thing that still seems to line up nationwide is the correlation between gun violence as a whole (not just school shootings, to be fair) and population density. Rural areas as a whole, nationwide, have the lowest rate of gun violence per capita [SIDE NOTE: Rural America has a higher rate of gun ownership per capita than suburban areas and urban areas.], and that tends to hold fairly consistently. On the flip side, urban areas as a whole, nationwide, have the highest rate of gun violence per capita [though there is a higher rate of gun ownership per capita than suburban areas, making mere gun presence in an area not a good indicator].
Despite the notion that violence is a huge problem in the US (and I'm certainly not saying it isn't), we aren't as murderous as might be portrayed. The city with the highest murder rates in the US (St. Louis) is only 13th on the list among global cities when reviewing murders per capita. St. Louis sees 65.8 murders per 100K citizens per year. There are six Mexican cities, four Brazilian cities, and two Venezuelan cities ahead of St. Louis.
Mexican gun laws:
"Mexico possesses strict gun laws, where most types and calibers are reserved to military and law enforcement [...]"
Brazilian gun laws:
"Gun laws in Brazil. In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25. It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers."
Venezuelan gun laws:
"The Chávez government banned private gun ownership in 2012." [Venezuelan crime rates have risen on the same trajectory as before the ban ... not better or worse.]
It just seems that the notion that laws could have prevented this is what belies the evidence.
You're smart enough to realize O-Trap that Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela are not comparable to the United States.
Canada is comparable to the United States and any public policy maker would prefer nut jobs resort trying to use vans to kill pe9ple than firearms as they are much less efficient and environmental design can better prevent such attacks.
Compare Hawaii to Alaska - two isolated U.S. states one has the most fun regulation - without prohibition mind you! In the other it costs you $500 to get a license to hunt a bear but you can purchase all the guns you want without any kind of licensure. One of these states has the lowest rate of gun violence, the other state has the most deaths by gun in the country.
Guess which one is which?
posted by BoatShoesYou're smart enough to realize O-Trap that Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela are not comparable to the United States.
Canada is comparable to the United States and any public policy maker would prefer nut jobs resort trying to use vans to kill pe9ple than firearms as they are much less efficient and environmental design can better prevent such attacks.
Compare Hawaii to Alaska - two isolated U.S. states one has the most fun regulation - without prohibition mind you! In the other it costs you $500 to get a license to hunt a bear but you can purchase all the guns you want without any kind of licensure. One of these states has the lowest rate of gun violence, the other state has the most deaths by gun in the country.
Guess which one is which?
Obviously Alaska is the highest. However, 80% are suicide.
posted by BoatShoesYou're smart enough to realize O-Trap that Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela are not comparable to the United States.
Canada is comparable to the United States and any public policy maker would prefer nut jobs resort trying to use vans to kill pe9ple than firearms as they are much less efficient and environmental design can better prevent such attacks.
Compare Hawaii to Alaska - two isolated U.S. states one has the most fun regulation - without prohibition mind you! In the other it costs you $500 to get a license to hunt a bear but you can purchase all the guns you want without any kind of licensure. One of these states has the lowest rate of gun violence, the other state has the most deaths by gun in the country.
Guess which one is which?
My goal wasn't necessarily to indicate that those three countries are equitable to the US in every regard. I was merely illustrating the point that the position supported by the facts depends entirely on what facts you bring to the table.
However, since you bring it up, it actually illustrates the point I was attempting to make overall, which is that the presence of guns (or the absence, with or without legal statute) isn't an adequate indicator of gun violence. It would seem that those differences you allude to when you say that those nations are not adequate comparisons correlate more accurately with gun violence than the mere presence of guns themselves.
As for the states you mention, I would argue that Hawaii is absent of the other indicators as well, making the gun laws there potentially superfluous in regard to the rate of gun-related murders. On the topic of Alaska, as mentioned above, most are suicides. When you adjust to specifically key in on gun-related murders, the District of Columbia has the highest firearm murder rate at 16.5 per 100,000 inhabitants (2010 stats), and Alaska drops to 27th, just behind Ohio, at 2.7 per 100,000.
Now, lest one argue that DC's rate is so high because of the availability of firearms from surrounding areas (as is often the argument used for cities like Chicago), it would seem that the availability of those same firearms within the surrounding areas would make those surrounding areas even more dangerous. The statistics don't indicate that, though.
There are states with heavier regulation that are plenty far down that list and states with similar regulation that are higher up. There are states with little regulation that are plenty far down the same list and states that are higher up.
My point isn't, and hasn't been, to illustrate that gun laws cause more gun violence (as some might). My point is that if we actually take all the data at our disposal, it doesn't give us any indication that gun laws are either better or worse when it comes to gun violence. There are other things (population density being a big and under-discussed one) that seem to have actual correlations that don't need to be corroborated by omitting information.
Looking at the sum total of information on the effectiveness of gun laws makes it seem as though we're spinning our wheels focusing on them at all.
posted by BoatShoesYou're smart enough to realize O-Trap that Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela are not comparable to the United States.
...
Compare Hawaii to Alaska - two isolated U.S. states...
Hawaii and Alaska are about as comparable. Just because they're both states doesn't mean they are in any way the same. One is a tropical paradise, the other a remote wilderness that's rotates between 100% daylight and 100% darkness. And, as superman mentioned, most gun deaths in Alaska are suicides. Not exactly shocking that Alaska's climate and daylight patterns lead to a lot of people wanting off this planet.
posted by BoatShoesYou're smart enough to realize O-Trap that Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela are not comparable to the United States.
Canada is comparable to the United States and any public policy maker would prefer nut jobs resort trying to use vans to kill pe9ple than firearms as they are much less efficient and environmental design can better prevent such attacks.
Compare Hawaii to Alaska - two isolated U.S. states one has the most fun regulation - without prohibition mind you! In the other it costs you $500 to get a license to hunt a bear but you can purchase all the guns you want without any kind of licensure. One of these states has the lowest rate of gun violence, the other state has the most deaths by gun in the country.
Guess which one is which?
You say OTrap is smart enough to understand...but you linked an Onion article and then agreed with it...think about that.
posted by O-TrapVenezuelan gun laws:
"The Chávez government banned private gun ownership in 2012." [Venezuelan crime rates have risen on the same trajectory as before the ban ... not better or worse.]
It just seems that the notion that laws could have prevented this is what belies the evidence.
I would also like to add that Venezuela's fearless leader recently armed his supporters with guns, but hey that type of stuff NEVER happens in this day and age.
1. Hawaii and its statistics reside in a vacuum. 1000 miles from nowhere. Not a good comparison
2. Chicago and DC have gun violence problems because you can go next door and get them. Jesus that is a fucking stupid argument.. I live by a grocery store.....i should weigh 500 pounds.
3. People that shoot people don't care about the laws. More laws arent doing shit.
4. These shootings are about mental health and the access to devient cultural behaviors that kids have access to. Their social media is more to blame then the gun they use.
5. Look at the locations of these shootings. Actaully adding guns will reduce this problems in schools, malls and movie theatres. Dont forget the2 churches.
posted by SpockActaully adding guns will reduce this problems in schools, malls and movie theatres.
posted by Spock5. Look at the locations of these shootings. Actaully adding guns will reduce this problems in schools, malls and movie theatres. Dont forget the2 churches.
No, it won't. Also, good work on putting the number 2 in there even though it was in the complete opposite direction of the space bar.
posted by O-Trap
You dont get it. You dont understand the psychology behind this stuff. Most of these shooters are cowards and young. The shootings occur at soft targets. The idea that someone may shoot back would deter some of this. To argue against this idea just shows how much you dont understand.
posted by SpockYou dont get it. You dont understand the psychology behind this stuff. Most of these shooters are cowards and young. The shootings occur at soft targets. The idea that someone may shoot back would deter some of this. To argue against this idea just shows how much you dont understand.
I think the last few school shootings were at schools that had on duty police officers assigned to these schools. I would think the shooters were aware these officers were at the schools when they made their attacks. It didn't seem to deter them.
posted by ppaw1999I think the last few school shootings were at schools that had on duty police officers assigned to these schools. I would think the shooters were aware these officers were at the schools when they made their attacks. It didn't seem to deter them.
First off, these campuses are huge. Reaction times are longer than we may think.
Also Parkland officer was a coward. He never went in. The recent one the other gun showed up and the shooting stopped. Also I guess you dont remember that a resource officer just stopped a shooter.
posted by SpockFirst off, these campuses are huge. Reaction times are longer than we may think.
Also Parkland officer was a coward. He never went in. The recent one the other gun showed up and the shooting stopped. Also I guess you dont remember that a resource officer just stopped a shooter.
Wasn't that before the Texas shooting? Still didn't stop him. I will agree that maybe actually knowing the resource officers at their schools may not create too much fear in these kids. The one at our high school sure wouldn't.
posted by ppaw1999Wasn't that before the Texas shooting? Still didn't stop him. I will agree that maybe actually knowing the resource officers at their schools may not create too much fear in these kids. The one at our high school sure wouldn't.
The one thing thAt is pretty much the same with every school shooting is that it ends when another gun arrives. And if it doesnt end....at least the gun isnt being pointed at the kids anymore.
posted by SpockFirst off, these campuses are huge. Reaction times are longer than we may think.
Also Parkland officer was a coward. He never went in. The recent one the other gun showed up and the shooting stopped. Also I guess you dont remember that a resource officer just stopped a shooter.
Lol.
Spock: You guys don't understand this like I do. We need more guns at the schools!
Ppaw: What about these recent examples where that didn't help...
Spock: Well, the campus was too big. Also the cop was a coward. Those won't possibly happen again!
