NYC Subway Shooting

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is not a constructive discussion at all.  Every time something terrible like this happens the general narrative is one side states "we have to do something about this and guns" while the other side apparently believes guns and gun violence aren't a problem and the government will take away your rights.  Neither are true and the conversation serves no purpose..  And the fact is we're not getting rid of the 2nd amendment nor should we. 

So, what should be discussed is how can we calibrate laws to get guns out of the hands of murderers and criminals and how is it so easy to acquire a weapon either illegally or legally. It's also worth noting that women owns guns as well and their numbers are increasing.  Yet, it's very rare that a mass shooting or horrific violence is committed by a woman.

As for the policy prescriptions it seems to me we should be able to come up with common sense solutions without politicizing every incident and villifying responsible gun owners.

What's the difference between saying we should do something about guns and discussing how to calibrate laws to, well, do something about guns?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

This is not a constructive discussion at all.  Every time something terrible like this happens the general narrative is one side states "we have to do something about this and guns" while the other side apparently believes guns and gun violence aren't a problem and the government will take away your rights.  Neither are true and the conversation serves no purpose..  And the fact is we're not getting rid of the 2nd amendment nor should we. 

So, what should be discussed is how can we calibrate laws to get guns out of the hands of murderers and criminals and how is it so easy to acquire a weapon either illegally or legally.  It's also worth noting that women owns guns as well and their numbers are increasing.  Yet, it's very rare that a mass shooting or horrific violence is committed by a woman.

As for the policy prescriptions it seems to me we should be able to come up with common sense solutions without politicizing every incident and villifying responsible gun owners.

While you are not wrong Muggsy, we've had that discussion many times both in real life and here on Scoop. Numerous common sense guns laws have been suggested, none of which "gets rid of the 2nd Amendment". Unfortunately all such suggestions are met with silence, or the Buffons screeching about "bad guys", "criminals don't care about laws", or other stupidity.

It really doesn't matter how many victims there are or what their ages are, one side simply has ZERO interest in changing the status quo.

[rocket surgeon]

What's your solution, rocket?

And I, for one, am glad that mass shootings never occur in places like Texas and Florida.
Wait, what? Six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in American history took place in Texas and Florida? NM

  studies show that most incarcerated criminals don't re-offend and/or cease to be safety risks to general population

btw, who said anything about texas and florida? 

[JWags85]

While you are not wrong Muggsy, we've had that discussion many times both in real life and here on Scoop. Numerous common sense guns laws have been suggested, none of which "gets rid of the 2nd Amendment". Unfortunately all such suggestions are met with silence, or the Buffons screeching about "bad guys", "criminals don't care about laws", or other stupidity.

It really doesn't matter how many victims there are or what their ages are, one side simply has ZERO interest in changing the status quo.

Is it truly "one side has zero interest" or like myriad other politicized issues is it enough posturing and screeching from certain factions that kill legislation dead?  Whether it be the absurdly powerful gun lobby and the SECOND AMENDMENT TO STOP GOVERNMENT TYRANNY faction or the "there is no reason for anyone to have guns" faction?

I mean, the bump stock ban after Vegas shows some sensible clawing back can be done.

In a perfect, mildly realistic world, I'm all in favor of moving towards something more in line with the UK's gun laws.  But people will lose their minds without handguns

[Pakuni]

  studies show that most incarcerated criminals don't re-offend and/or cease to be safety risks to general population

btw, who said anything about texas and florida?

So, I ask again, what's your solution? Be specific. Now's your big chance to show us you're a serious, intelligent person, not some automaton who regurgitates the latest Fox News talking points, only with poor punctuation and grammar.

As for Texas and Florida, you wrote "it's california, new york, what's the difference" in regards to mass shootings, implying that particuar brand of criminality was somehow endemic to those kinds of states. It's not.

[MuggsyB]

While you are not wrong Muggsy, we've had that discussion many times both in real life and here on Scoop. Numerous common sense guns laws have been suggested, none of which "gets rid of the 2nd Amendment". Unfortunately all such suggestions are met with silence, or the Buffons screeching about "bad guys", "criminals don't care about laws", or other stupidity.

It really doesn't matter how many victims there are or what their ages are, one side simply has ZERO interest in changing the status quo.

We have the most stringent gun laws in the nation here in California.  There are probably 100+ laws in the books.  We also seemingly have far more gun ownership than ever and horrific shootings like Sacramento.   The laws here are not the status quo are they?   

[Pakuni]

In a perfect, mildly realistic world, I'm all in favor of moving towards something more in line with the UK's gun laws.  But people will lose their minds without handguns

Seems a preferable outcome to "thousands of people will lose their lives every year to them."

[Pakuni]

We have the most stringent gun laws in the nation here in California.  There are probably 100+ laws in the books.  We also seemingly have far more gun ownership than ever and horrific shootings like Sacramento.   The laws here are not the status quo are they?   

California has one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation - 7th to be exact - pretty extraordinary when you consider the number of large, urban areas. Among the states with even lower rates? New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Highest rates?
Alaska, Alabama, Missouri, Wyoming, Louisiana, Mississippi.
Anyone who says stringent gun laws don't make a difference is lying to you.


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

[MuggsyB]

California has one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation - 7th to be exact - pretty extraordinary when you consider the number of large, urban areas. Among the states with even lower rates? New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Highest rates?
Alaska, Alabama, Missouri, Wyoming, Louisiana, Mississippi.
Anyone who says stringent gun laws don't make a difference is lying to you.


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

Yes, but we've also had more gun ownership , mass shootings, and violent crime in recent years. 

[MuggsyB]

Is it truly "one side has zero interest" or like myriad other politicized issues is it enough posturing and screeching from certain factions that kill legislation dead?  Whether it be the absurdly powerful gun lobby and the SECOND AMENDMENT TO STOP GOVERNMENT TYRANNY faction or the "there is no reason for anyone to have guns" faction?

I mean, the bump stock ban after Vegas shows some sensible clawing back can be done.

In a perfect, mildly realistic world, I'm all in favor of moving towards something more in line with the UK's gun laws.  But people will lose their minds without handguns

UK self-defense laws wouldn't exactly go over well here.  I think it's illegal to carry pepper-spray.

[Pakuni]

Yes, but we've also had more gun ownership , mass shootings, and violent crime in recent years.

I'm not sure what your point is.
First, I'm not sure about mass shootings. What's your source on that?
Second, gun ownership and crime have risen across the country. California isn't unique or an outlier.
Third, nothing you just said contradicts the fact that states with tougher gun laws tend to see fewer people killed by guns.
So, what's your point?

[MuggsyB]

I'm not sure what you're point is.
First, I'm not sure about mass shootings. What's your source on that?
Second, gun ownership and crime have risen across the country. California isn't unique or an outlier.
Third, nothing you just said contradicts the fact that states with tougher gun laws tend to see fewer people killed by guns.
So, what's your point?

Look at homicide rates.  I never stated I was against fewer people owning guns.  I assume suicide rates are way up as well.  All I'm saying is illegal gun purchases are part of this equation (like Sacramento).  Also, fewer people per capita are being killed by guns here and other places, not fewer people. 

[tower912]

The person of interest is in custody.

[MuggsyB]

They apparently got the guy. 

[Skatastrophy]

So this is Wisconsin's fault, again.

> A 62-year-old man, Frank R. James, was captured in connection with the mass shooting on a subway train in Brooklyn, in which at least 23 people were injured.

> addresses in Philadelphia and Wisconsin

-NYTimes

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/13/nyregion/brooklyn-subway-shooting

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Very fortunate this didn’t turn out much, much worse. As someone who took the el consistently in Chicago pre-pandemic, something like yesterday was always in the back of my mind and I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred more often (closed space with a lot of people that have nowhere to go).

[Uncle Rico]

So this is Wisconsin's fault, again.

> A 62-year-old man, Frank R. James, was captured in connection with the mass shooting on a subway train in Brooklyn, in which at least 23 people were injured.

> addresses in Philadelphia and Wisconsin

-NYTimes

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/13/nyregion/brooklyn-subway-shooting

Go Badgers!

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Is it truly "one side has zero interest" or like myriad other politicized issues is it enough posturing and screeching from certain factions that kill legislation dead?  Whether it be the absurdly powerful gun lobby and the SECOND AMENDMENT TO STOP GOVERNMENT TYRANNY faction or the "there is no reason for anyone to have guns" faction?

I mean, the bump stock ban after Vegas shows some sensible clawing back can be done.

In a perfect, mildly realistic world, I'm all in favor of moving towards something more in line with the UK's gun laws.  But people will lose their minds without handguns

I don't know if you meant it this way, but your post smacks of massive "bothsiderism".

Which side, would you say, blocks any and all gun control proposals?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Look at homicide rates.  I never stated I was against fewer people owning guns.  I assume suicide rates are way up as well.  All I'm saying is illegal gun purchases are part of this equation (like Sacramento).  Also, fewer people per capita are being killed by guns here and other places, not fewer people.

Ummmmmm, yes. So you are saying the more stringent laws work then, right?

[JWags85]

Seems a preferable outcome to "thousands of people will lose their lives every year to them."

You don't have to sell me.  Just stating facts.  I know a surprising number of people with a handgun, many of them not "gun nuts", and not rootin tootin mega conservative, that would oppose it.  There is a cultural undertone of gun ownership that is an issue, across demos.

UK self-defense laws wouldn't exactly go over well here.  I think it's illegal to carry pepper-spray.

I didn't say we adopt their whole set of laws.  Just their "need/justification" based model for gun ownership.  Their police/VIPs wear stab vests instead of kevlar and body armor.  Thats not a terrible trade off.

I don't know if you meant it this way, but your post smacks of massive "bothsiderism".

Which side, would you say, blocks any and all gun control proposals?

Bothsiderism is used bat away any criticism of the current US political climate to continue to solely vilify the party that one doesn't favor.  There is basically zero bipartisanship anymore.  Both sides have thoroughly F-d that up, so everyone sticks to party lines and that often lets unproductive crap happen.  I don't see any sort of sea change by either party sticking without complete ownership of both House and Senate.

Believe me, I'm not fan/supporter/whatnot of the mid to far right, but I also think screeching that they are evil and cruel etc... is just cover for a complete unproductive lack of political acumen by the left as an attempt to curry favor in a different way.  They are politicians, bought and paid for, like all of them, regardless of letter next to their name.  I can't stand the NRA, but if there was an anti-gun lobby with the sway and money that they have, the whole discussion would be different.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Bothsiderism is used bat away any criticism of the current US political climate to continue to solely vilify the party that one doesn't favor.  There is basically zero bipartisanship anymore.  Both sides have thoroughly F-d that up, so everyone sticks to party lines and that often lets unproductive crap happen.  I don't see any sort of sea change by either party sticking without complete ownership of both House and Senate.

No, it's pointing out false equivalency. You're engaging pretending that both sides are equally at fault for the incredible gun carnage in the U.S. and the failure to do anything about it legislatively.

I noticed you didn't answer: which side opposes any and every bit of gun legislation?

[tower912]

Keep your eyes on Grand Rapids today.

The whole area is prepared for violent protests which so far haven't come.   The preparation and briefings are fascinating.  Let's hope the peaceful protests and patience for the process continue.   Videos of the shooting and the events leading up to it were released today.   

Almost glad for the rainy weather.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Can't believe Lizzo was the subway shooter.

[JWags85]

No, it's pointing out false equivalency. You're engaging pretending that both sides are equally at fault for the incredible gun carnage in the U.S. and the failure to do anything about it legislatively.

I noticed you didn't answer: which side opposes any and every bit of gun legislation?

I assumed it was a rhetorical question.  I'm not an idiot and you were clearly implying something that didn't need to be said.  REPUBLICANS OPPOSE FURTHER GUN LEGISLATION.  Better?

There are many MANY factors and groups at fault for the gun problem in America and further stalemates at provoking meaningful change, laying it at the feet of opposing party politicians to further the "our guys good, those guys bad" mentality which exemplifies politics in the 21st century is reductive and tribal.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I assumed it was a rhetorical question.  I'm not an idiot and you were clearly implying something that didn't need to be said.  REPUBLICANS OPPOSE FURTHER GUN LEGISLATION.  Better?

There are many MANY factors and groups at fault for the gun problem in America and further stalemates at provoking meaningful change, laying it at the feet of opposing party politicians to further the "our guys good, those guys bad" mentality which exemplifies politics in the 21st century is reductive and tribal.

No, it's accountability. You can play the "both sides" (or "many groups") all you want, but it simply isn't true or accurate. Only one side is accountable for the gun problem in America.