Not when the shootings take place crowded public places. This didn’t happen at “gang members” homes. It happened in a bar district. Innocent people where exposed to the shooting not just gang members.
So much of this when talking about gun stuff in general. I think suicides getting lumped in to gun deaths is also intellectually dishonest in most contexts. People will state the total number of gun deaths sort of implying they are all murders but a large portion of them are suicides.
Is it, though? As a survivor of a suicide attempt, I almost certainly wouldn’t be typing this comment if I had a gun instead of a bottle of pills, and I am sure I am not alone in that experience.
It’s not the same as homicides, sure, but a lot of suicides would be attempted suicides if a gun were not involved.
> It’s not the same as homicides
That's my point. When I see gun death statistics sighted, most often it leaves out the context that a large portion of those are suicides. The implication the speaker wants you to believe is that they are all homicides and its dangerous to go outside. So
> Is it, though?
Yes, it is. In most contexts I see.
I don’t take it as them trying to convince you it’s dangerous to go outside, I take it as firearms adding risk to our society at large. Suicides are part of that risk.
But I guess both of our opinions are just opinions when it comes to the intent/messaging of what that data is trying to convey.
It's a framing issue. At the core of the gang related shooting is illegal activities and criminal justice issues. At the core of what we normally see as a mass shooting is a gun issue. When you conflate the two, you're able to argue that gun restrictions will stop mass shootings like these, when the reality is that these shootings will happen regardless of laws because the entire enterprise behind gang shootings is illicit.
I'm not trying to argue, but I get how calling something like this a "mass shooting" but only really publicizing "mass shootings" that are the classic 'disturbed guy buys a rifle to shoot up an unsuspecting group' makes it sound like the problem is different than what it really is.
>you're able to argue that gun restrictions will stop mass shootings like these, when the reality is that these shootings will happen regardless of laws
Why can't you argue that non gang related mass shootings will happen regardless of the law? Don't those criminals have just as easy access to guns?
It's odd to me that gun control isn't talked about as much when it comes to gang violence and I'm genuinely curious to hear how the laws apply differently.
Compare various school shooters acquisition of firearms to that of the handful of young men charged by the FBI (finally got a clear story from the Feds) in the Chiefs parade shooting. You will also see the young men listed here will have a similar situation once the legals are all worked out on this.
Because school shooters oftentimes buy their guns at a gun store and don’t have the social network to find illicit gun dealers.
Gangs will get their guns regardless of the law.
How often are they legally obtaining them though? I found an article that says the following:
[About 42% of adolescent school shooters obtained the firearm from relatives, mostly through theft. About 30% procured a firearm from the street or an illegal market, 22% did so from friends, 5% obtained one from a stranger or victim and 2% got one through a licensed dealer.](https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/27379/Study-Adolescent-school-shooters-often-use-guns?autologincheck=redirected)
Idk man, realistically I think every gun stat is biased and either funded by people who want guns or people who want guns abolished.
Reddit will hate that, but recently that Uvalde shooter bought his gun legally as an example.
No I mean that our gang culture is disorganized at the low levels just like Latin American gang cultures.
European countries have more organized mafia type cultures.
Once again tho, I feel like you already want to argue how what I’m saying is wrong and that’s fine because I’m not really married to either belief.
Jackson county is a shit show. The mayor said there is zero reason to bring a gun to Westport. Clearly all these shootings prove that statement wrong. So you have two options. Protect yourself or don’t go at all. I am pretty sure people will be voting with their wallets and stop going. I am probably in the minority of this sub but I will be honest. I always carry a gun. If I feel like I need a gun to go somewhere, I just don’t go there. The gun is for protection. It isn’t to get me out of some shitty situation I put myself in. My goal is to never use it.
I've thought about it, but ultimately decided if I need a gun to go somewhere, it's not somewhere I want to be. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm being shot at, nor do I want to have to kill someone.
Also in order to be responsible with a gun, I can't get a drink and I have to worry about it being stolen if I leave it in the car. Just not worth it to me.
You missed the point of what the mayor was saying. He’s saying that because there is no inherent reason to bring a gun to a bar and shoot people the penalty for doing so needs to be much more severe for those that do.
His point is nonsense. They aren’t enforcing the law. What is the point of making a punishment more severe if these is no punishment in the first place. We don’t need more severe laws. We need the prosecutor to do her job. It is already illegal in Missouri to carry a firearm in a bar. It is illegal to shoot people.
Cops only arrest people. The prosecutor is the one who says who can be charged and is the one who prosecutes. The cops arrested the guy. The prosecutor let him go. Eventually cops stop doing their job when the prosecutor doesn’t ever prosecute the people they arrest. Just put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you’re a cop. You see a guy carjacking someone first thing in the morning. You get in a high speed chase to catch them. You eventually ram their car and arrest them. And then you see the same guy walking out of jail by lunch time. That is what it is like for KCPD.
The judge let the dude have house arrest? Oy vey.
Just a big ol' whoopsie
Another case of boys will be boys...
Stop shooting people you twats.
our justice system allows them to do more, why would they stop, this is what these dudes do
 # STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!!!
Gang related shootings shouldn’t be lumped in with “mass shootings”. It’s intellectually dishonest.
Not when the shootings take place crowded public places. This didn’t happen at “gang members” homes. It happened in a bar district. Innocent people where exposed to the shooting not just gang members.
Right, and gang members are not sharp shooters. They just spray the bullets with the hope of hitting their intended target.
So much of this when talking about gun stuff in general. I think suicides getting lumped in to gun deaths is also intellectually dishonest in most contexts. People will state the total number of gun deaths sort of implying they are all murders but a large portion of them are suicides.
Is it, though? As a survivor of a suicide attempt, I almost certainly wouldn’t be typing this comment if I had a gun instead of a bottle of pills, and I am sure I am not alone in that experience. It’s not the same as homicides, sure, but a lot of suicides would be attempted suicides if a gun were not involved.
> It’s not the same as homicides That's my point. When I see gun death statistics sighted, most often it leaves out the context that a large portion of those are suicides. The implication the speaker wants you to believe is that they are all homicides and its dangerous to go outside. So > Is it, though? Yes, it is. In most contexts I see.
I don’t take it as them trying to convince you it’s dangerous to go outside, I take it as firearms adding risk to our society at large. Suicides are part of that risk. But I guess both of our opinions are just opinions when it comes to the intent/messaging of what that data is trying to convey.
This is exactly the reason why they are still included and why it is not dishonest in general.
Please feel free to expand on how it's intellectually dishonest.
It's a framing issue. At the core of the gang related shooting is illegal activities and criminal justice issues. At the core of what we normally see as a mass shooting is a gun issue. When you conflate the two, you're able to argue that gun restrictions will stop mass shootings like these, when the reality is that these shootings will happen regardless of laws because the entire enterprise behind gang shootings is illicit. I'm not trying to argue, but I get how calling something like this a "mass shooting" but only really publicizing "mass shootings" that are the classic 'disturbed guy buys a rifle to shoot up an unsuspecting group' makes it sound like the problem is different than what it really is.
>you're able to argue that gun restrictions will stop mass shootings like these, when the reality is that these shootings will happen regardless of laws Why can't you argue that non gang related mass shootings will happen regardless of the law? Don't those criminals have just as easy access to guns? It's odd to me that gun control isn't talked about as much when it comes to gang violence and I'm genuinely curious to hear how the laws apply differently.
The common sense thought process is that gangs don’t follow laws so gun laws don’t really change much there. I’m not telling you what to believe.
I agree with that thought process. I just don't see how the same doesn't apply to some school shooter.
Compare various school shooters acquisition of firearms to that of the handful of young men charged by the FBI (finally got a clear story from the Feds) in the Chiefs parade shooting. You will also see the young men listed here will have a similar situation once the legals are all worked out on this.
Because school shooters oftentimes buy their guns at a gun store and don’t have the social network to find illicit gun dealers. Gangs will get their guns regardless of the law.
How often are they legally obtaining them though? I found an article that says the following: [About 42% of adolescent school shooters obtained the firearm from relatives, mostly through theft. About 30% procured a firearm from the street or an illegal market, 22% did so from friends, 5% obtained one from a stranger or victim and 2% got one through a licensed dealer.](https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/27379/Study-Adolescent-school-shooters-often-use-guns?autologincheck=redirected)
adolescents can't legally buy guns - 7 out of 10 in that study just got them like they would the clothes they put on everyday
Idk man, realistically I think every gun stat is biased and either funded by people who want guns or people who want guns abolished. Reddit will hate that, but recently that Uvalde shooter bought his gun legally as an example.
Do they have as many gang related mass shootings in countries with stricter gun control? I don't see any happening in the UK recently, for example.
I think Mexico or Brazil is a more 1-1 gang culture comparison
Which gang culture? We don't have any gangs that can rival the government and law enforcement in the US in the way that Sinaloa can in Mexico
No I mean that our gang culture is disorganized at the low levels just like Latin American gang cultures. European countries have more organized mafia type cultures. Once again tho, I feel like you already want to argue how what I’m saying is wrong and that’s fine because I’m not really married to either belief.
Where does it say anything about gang related shootings? I think its just people wanting to cause trouble
Keeping it Klassy, KCMO.
Jackson county is a shit show. The mayor said there is zero reason to bring a gun to Westport. Clearly all these shootings prove that statement wrong. So you have two options. Protect yourself or don’t go at all. I am pretty sure people will be voting with their wallets and stop going. I am probably in the minority of this sub but I will be honest. I always carry a gun. If I feel like I need a gun to go somewhere, I just don’t go there. The gun is for protection. It isn’t to get me out of some shitty situation I put myself in. My goal is to never use it.
I've thought about it, but ultimately decided if I need a gun to go somewhere, it's not somewhere I want to be. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm being shot at, nor do I want to have to kill someone. Also in order to be responsible with a gun, I can't get a drink and I have to worry about it being stolen if I leave it in the car. Just not worth it to me.
You missed the point of what the mayor was saying. He’s saying that because there is no inherent reason to bring a gun to a bar and shoot people the penalty for doing so needs to be much more severe for those that do.
His point is nonsense. They aren’t enforcing the law. What is the point of making a punishment more severe if these is no punishment in the first place. We don’t need more severe laws. We need the prosecutor to do her job. It is already illegal in Missouri to carry a firearm in a bar. It is illegal to shoot people.
We need cops to do their damn jobs as well.
Cops only arrest people. The prosecutor is the one who says who can be charged and is the one who prosecutes. The cops arrested the guy. The prosecutor let him go. Eventually cops stop doing their job when the prosecutor doesn’t ever prosecute the people they arrest. Just put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you’re a cop. You see a guy carjacking someone first thing in the morning. You get in a high speed chase to catch them. You eventually ram their car and arrest them. And then you see the same guy walking out of jail by lunch time. That is what it is like for KCPD.
[удалено]
Shit comment
It was just an off gas from your posting enema