I think the motivation for the media ignoring it would be more likely that no children were killed, no masses of minorities were killed and/or shot, and that there have been multiple incidents as of late.(Uvalde, Tulsa) This one didn't stand out from the other multiple incidents. I have a feeling if it had been the first, not the third or fourth mass shooting, it would receive more attention.
Tulsa shooting
- Thread starter TULSARISING
- Start date
Agree. Not sure to what degree it matters. A dead child is a dead child regardless of whether they were the intended victim.
276 kids 16 and younger were shot in Chicago last year alone for those keeping track. Yet the media and politicians are largely silent for the reasons previously discussed.
My comment was not focused on that, but yes a dead child is a dead child.
Edit: an additional reason this may not receive as much attention: ... There were no major law enforcement failures.
I’ve wondered about that. I would argue there is a failure somewhere when 800 people are murdered in one city in one year. Police, social services, political, etc…. ? Likely all of the above.
The reason I think that philadelphia, baltimore, chicago shootings are not given as much attention as other shootings is because the Democrats cannot find an answer to resolve this. While other mass shootings (for them), have a resolution, in gun control. Not saying gun control will resolve this, just saying the Democrats think it will. Gangs will be motivated as a network, to find ways to work around gun control, and be better able to do so. But lone wolf gunmen will have less resources to do the same. That is some of the motivation for more media attention on these types of shootings.
Guns are quite a bit more difficult to ship and distribute than drugs. You can’t hide an AR in a baggie in your center console. They weigh proportionally more, can’t be smuggled as easily through customs (no hiding condoms full of handguns up your bum).
Im not saying they wouldn’t be smuggled, but the logistics would make them much more difficult to come by for your low level gang banger. The real problem is that we have so many existing already in the country already and they aren’t really consumable.
400M guns was the last figure I saw. You are correct, that is and would be a major obstacle .
I wouldn’t expect the Cartel to be going through customs if and when they get into the arms business. They will use boats, planes and tunnels. One thing you can bank on….if there’s big money to be made the organized criminal element will be into that business.
Boats, planes, and tunnels are the easier things to crack down on. It’s a flood of transmittals across the border through normal ports of entry that become hard.
The cartels are already in the firearms smuggling business. Mostly from the USA to Mexico, but their reach is worldwide. It’s a foregone conclusion that they would smuggle weapons into the USA if we were to ban them. And people on both sides of the aisle interested in more than a political win know this.
I seem to remember that the Obama administration was neck deep in smuggling arms to the cartels...
We all know it. But doing it at volumes necessary to replace / maintain the current firearm + ammunition availability to common criminals, into the US, becomes difficult and is more police-able than drugs which are easier to smuggle.
Last edited:
Maybe if the common criminals have less ammo to shoot, they will become better shots and hit fewer bystanders.
Last edited:
We should have free criminal training lessons at shooting ranges around the country.
Last edited:
isnt aiding any one to entry illegally, or harbering them once they are here a violation of immigration law. so why is no one facing charges; starting withe the wh.
If it will help the criminals with their gun control.. then put that into the current bipartisan legislative package. I'm sure we can get their instructional time subsidized with student loans and later have those loans forgiven to help them stimulate the economy with ammo purchases.
Just more sitting around coming up with reasons for doing nothing. At least after Sandy Hook, the NRA had a solution: put more guns in the hands of people to protect themselves. Unfortunately several states did just that. 10 years later the results are in and published in the Justice Quarterly.
".... higher rates of household gun ownership correlated with a striking 53.5 percent increase in the rate of mass shootings, according to the report.
In fact, the study said, “gun ownership was the only significant macro-level predictor of mass shootings.”
IOW in states where gun ownership went up, so did mass shootings...the increase was 53.5% over other states.
There were lots of guns outside Uvalde high school within minutes of the entrance, but still 10 year kids were so badly shot up that they were unrecognizable and had to be identified by DNA sampling.
Ted Cruz whines that he is tired of mass shootings "constantly being politicized". Most Americans are tired of the mass shootings...which Cruz obstructs doing anything about. So far this year there have been more than 246 mass shootings--more than one a day.
".... higher rates of household gun ownership correlated with a striking 53.5 percent increase in the rate of mass shootings, according to the report.
In fact, the study said, “gun ownership was the only significant macro-level predictor of mass shootings.”
IOW in states where gun ownership went up, so did mass shootings...the increase was 53.5% over other states.
There were lots of guns outside Uvalde high school within minutes of the entrance, but still 10 year kids were so badly shot up that they were unrecognizable and had to be identified by DNA sampling.
Ted Cruz whines that he is tired of mass shootings "constantly being politicized". Most Americans are tired of the mass shootings...which Cruz obstructs doing anything about. So far this year there have been more than 246 mass shootings--more than one a day.
Last edited:
Just asking….then would the same gun ownership data also be the only significant macro-level predictor we’ve seen in the decrease of gun related murders over that same time period ?
Gun related murders have been distinctly on the rise as of late. Their decline really coincided with gang crime prevention as well as gun legislation in the 90’s.
Dems always used to say it was abortion that reduced crime in the 90s. Fewer kids from the undesirable classes being born and such
The ladies on The View seem to have a firm grasp on the gun issue
Beyond lame. The worst part is this excuse will make sense of a lot of people. Is that KoolAid on your lips?
"As Senate negotiations continue on a possible deal to address gun violence, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) was asked why Americans would need an AR-15. His argument to CNN on Tuesday: The semiautomatic rifle can be helpful in shooting prairie dogs in his home state.
“They are a sporting rifle. It’s something that a lot of people [use] for purposes of going out target shooting — in my state, they use them to shoot prairie dogs and, you know, other types of varmints,” Thune said."
Tell it to the parents.
"As Senate negotiations continue on a possible deal to address gun violence, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) was asked why Americans would need an AR-15. His argument to CNN on Tuesday: The semiautomatic rifle can be helpful in shooting prairie dogs in his home state.
“They are a sporting rifle. It’s something that a lot of people [use] for purposes of going out target shooting — in my state, they use them to shoot prairie dogs and, you know, other types of varmints,” Thune said."
Tell it to the parents.
When good guys have a gun
This will move us in the right direction…
'good guys' had a gun in Uvalde. Didn't help.When good guys have a gun
I take exception to your characterization of those guys.
This is not about fault.
This is about the broader question of "how can we reduce the number of mass shootings in the USA substantially?"
I would put my own money down that these steps would address the question I posed.
Ban on assault rifles
Licensing requirements for firearms
Universal background checks
Universal red flag laws
Age 21 to purchase firearms
Again I would put my own money down these steps would substantially reduce mass shootings. Won't eliminate but greatly reduce.
You are welcome in advance for my excellent advice.
Background checks should not be immediate. If you can't plan to wait 5 days then something is not right. If a guy realizes he needs a gun for a hunting trip at the last minute, that's sad, but not the end of the world.
I think they should consider the type of gun when allowing the purchase at age 18 or 21.
Last edited:
That is another possibility - limitations until age 21. Less likely to be effective but a possible compromise position.
I just don't think you are going to kill many people with a shotgun, for instance.
I actually think restricting until 21 is the only one of the possible laws you mentioned that might have any effect on mass shootings, and even that probably not
I would have zero issues with any of these. Need some common sense here.
Definitely think the age should be raised to 21 as well , imo a highschool kid should not be able to buy one , too much bullying goes on in schools and all it takes is for one kid to “ have enough “
Aston - would not consider those “ good guys” that failed to protect children , they dropped the ball big time and I don’t think anybody disagrees with that.
Good article about 99% of the gun violence which gets 5% of the media coverage.
www.nytimes.com
Harlem Shooting Kills 1 and Wounds 8 Amid Violent Weekend Across the Country
While massacres like those in Buffalo and Uvalde are much publicized, lower-profile attacks exact a dreadful toll.
Pay wall.
Regardless I suspect the ideas I rattled off would also help curb gang violence as well over time.
Similar threads
