Low crime rate? Really? Um, no. Maybe compared to Latin America, but compared to Idaho? I really doubt it.

And as for run by criminal organizations? Look up Mr. Ethical and Dilyana Gaytandzhieva. King and Queens and banks are criminal. Just very good ones.

And how exactly are you going to carry a car around?

Sorry, are you serious? Do you really think that it's that easy to contain the flame, especially in tight quarters. Yes, a ricosheting bullet can injure some bystander or even you, but with some flame-creating defvice (flamethrower in your pocket?) you can easily burn the whole building if you are not careful.

Yup. Ignore factors like population density. Alaska probably has an incredibly low crime rate too. We're talking about in populous areas, not in the middle of no where where 8 people constitutes a town. Compare places like Rome, London, Bern, Marseilles, etc to rural areas like Podunk Idaho wherein the WHOLE STATE is less populous than some metropolitan areas. That is a very accurate depiction. May as well compare NBA to Master Chef while we're at relevant comparisons.

EDIT: Why are you hung up on Idaho anyhow? You must live there if that's the best defense you can think of that "gun violence isn't related to gun laws (a really silly position for anyone to take as it stands anyhow)". Cherry pick what you like, but Europe is probably the closes to America in relative size, population density in metropolitan areas, and general economic class. Central and South America and Russia don't meet those criteria, and certainly fucking IDAHO doesn't meet any specific criteria there. The overall crime rate in major metropolitan areas in Europe is lower than major metropolitan areas in the US. The biggest difference? The availability of weapons on a large scale with very few obstruction to obtaining them. I own 3 guns myself, and I wish it was harder for me to buy them. I didn't have to undergo a full background check for one because I bought it at a gun show in Richmond. ANYONE can do that.

I thought of another point to raise in the gun control discussion:

The rate of deaths from suicide is significantly higher in areas with less strict gun laws, and in areas where gun ownership is higher.

That's probably what the shooter thought when he tried to get into the tournament building. "Damn it, but but but... it's the most effective murder weapon! Awwww DAMMIT I ALSO FORGOT MY KNIFE. At least I have half a gallon of gasoline in this big ol' Mountain Dew bottle... oh fuck, that's actually soda. How am I going to get all that killing done with just this stupid gun? It's only good for self defense and whatnot! It can't be used for evil."

Your citizens can "defend themselves", and you have the murder rate of third world countries. Smack dab between Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

You have lax gun laws and the gun violence of active war zones, so I don't see why the odd data spike collected from statistically irrelevant population samples could ever help you to deny the basic fact that only authors stuck deep in the NRA's ass would try to dispute:

More guns = more gun victims.

Statistics show this by comparing US states against each other and they show it by comparing the US to other developed countries. This is literally indisputable.

Some other guy was desperate enough to indirectly unpack the Nazi Gun Control Theory in this thread already, i.e. insinuate that fascism would start with gun control, and you probably both know that it's hogwash. It's brought up like a prayer: If only the Jews had more guns. As a matter of fact, the Nazis would have loved it. The Reichskristallnacht would have been so much more effective in radicalizing the German people had the Jews only fought back, while their organized cremation could have been handled with so much less secrecy. Heck, the Nazis would have been able to kill tens of millions had their declared enemy shown this level of violence readiness.

At the same time, your well armed citizenry is doing jack shit against the actually increasingly fascist government on the verge of introducing actually fascist propaganda laws. The well armed citizens are on the hunt for fictional governments in various pizza parlours instead.

Maybe there's a threshold gun per capita level above which the gun becomes less a mode of self defense and more of a religious totem people are obsessed with, a freedom that becomes the only freedom worth having, a right that in itself is the only thing that makes the demand of other civil rights feasible to citizens indoctrinated by the totem. It feels like the ultimate right, and of course it does. Such a thing in your hand, it's pure power over others, it has not just the ability, it has the right to take lives baked into it.

If such a threshold exists, you're way over it.

So the the shooter was on meds i believe had a very troubling family situation divorce between parents, was twice hospitalized in an mental hospital which was probably heavily medicated.
And now fox news said that they want to regulate video games and smartphone games to prevent future tragedies
Copy paste:
They go on to state that neurologists have discovered that extended exposure to graphic video games “rewires” a person’s brain and makes it more difficult to control their emotions – which must go doubly for EA Sports titles – leading to “outbursts” such as mass shootings.

The pundits concluded in their usual evidence-free fashion, in regards to extended gaming and smartphone use, that: “this is not supposed to be how kids should be raised”.

No it's not. Japan has strict gun laws, and a much higher suicide rate.
And why exactly would increased population density lead to more murder? We are looking at rates. And Idaho does have cities like Boise.
Yeah, and he could have killed, what was it, 2 people, with a butcher knife just as easily. if the base of the problem is violence inducing meds and a bad life, then maybe we should fix those problems instead. Getting rid of the gun would only change the weapon used, and could make it worse. What if he had used a bottle full of gas and some matches?

Should we ban bottles, gas, and matches? Or make them harder to purchase?
Um, you only need one hand for the bars much of the time.

And bullets will cause less collateral damage than massive grass fires.

And are you saying you would rather someone use fire instead of a gun just to satisfy your anti gun ideology?

Does this apply to watching football or boxing or action movies? I am curious on this.

With only one hand on the handlebar, it's going to be hard to stay balanced.

And if you're off-balance, trying to shoot a gun is *not* a good idea.

Thing is, it is a lot harder to go on a killing spree with a knife than with a gun. If the attacker only had a knife and not a gun, there would have been fewer deaths.

To Flatiron
Another claimed that the “breakdown of morality in society” due to violent video games and movies is what led to these such shootings happening, all because there are “connections” between violent media and school shooters. Something i forgot to copy paste in between.

I believe it's been shown that difficulty/frustration factor in games contributes to IRL violence. (Actual in-game violence does not.)

From what I gather of the facts in this case, the assailant was probably frustrated because he had just lost a game.

No. not really. And he could just use arson too. Or combine methods.

And as for shooting a gun on a bicycle. No, it isn't hard. You're just making that one up.

Take a sociology class and come back when you actually understand what we're talking about. I don't have time to educate you on why a higher population density leads to more crime. At its base though, increased density leads to higher crime rates due to lower resources per capita, as well as more interaction between people increases chances for people to piss each other off or present themselves as potential victims due to status or possessions. That's the basics why population density leads to more crime.

It is certainly a part of the equation. I just get sick of the anti gunners not looking at the core issue. And while the video games themselves may or may not be a source of the problem, the division, financial difficulties and increasing stupidity and psychopathic and vain values of our current world are certainly not helping. And I think are most likely adding to the problem.

If we could focus on those issues, the violence inducing drug issues, the disarmed victims issue, and the likely false flag issue, we could likely reduce much of this violence.

But the anti gunners always focus on the gun without looking at the core of the problem. And thus the debate is focused on this distraction of pro gun vs anti gun.
That is just beyond belief. Shooting folks over a lost game? Really. No wonder people think these things are false flags. I can see a fist fight or something, but this? It's just beyond believable. The whole "corporations want to take our guns to enslave us" theme makes much more sense.
Then why don't you focus on creating a more equitable distribution of resources than on whether or not people have guns?

It still sounds like BS to me. Some rural areas are very poor, and thus there is a great lack of resources, yet the people are less likely to assault each other. I do know that psychopaths tend to prefer cities. Perhaps that is a source of the problem.


As for the more interaction with each other, how are you measuring interaction? How do you know rural people interact less with each other?

That alone is propaganda bullshit.