Mass shooting at California Garlic Fest

[Setton]

On 29/07/2019 at 4:33 AM, and then said:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/gilroy-garlic-festival-california-shooting-reported 

If we only had stricter gun control, these things couldn't happen.  Except this is proof that they do.

Probably worth noting that the gun was bought legally in Nevada. 

So, yeah, if you had stricter gun control, these things wouldn't happen so often. 

[DarkHunter]

56 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Do you have a source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia?wprov=sfla1

It's all pretty easy stuff to find, some have been done with guns, cars, knives, blunt objects, seems one or two by starting a fire purposefully, but wikipedia has them in a nice list that makes it easy to look up further information.

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, DarkHunter said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia?wprov=sfla1

It's all pretty easy stuff to find, some have been done with guns, cars, knives, blunt objects, seems one or two by starting a fire purposefully, but wikipedia has them in a nice list that makes it easy to look up further information.

So why are you including cars, knives, arson and blunt objects?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Golden Duck

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

So why are you including cars, knives, and blunt objects?

Cause in the post BRD mentioned crime levels and just homicides done by guns along with going with general mass murders instead of just mass shootings.  Even then of those 28 mass casualty events a decent number were still committed with guns.

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, DarkHunter said:

Cause in the post BRD mentioned crime levels and just homicides done by guns along with going with general mass murders instead of just mass shootings.  Even then of those 28 mass casualty events a decent number were still committed with guns.

Australia was first mentioned in this thread by Americans.

Then the lie was told Australia didn't have a problem with mass shootings prior to 1996.  In fact, there were eleven in the decade before Port Arthur.

The mass shooting problem is what the 1996 laws were designed to mitigate. Monash occured in 2005, and as result more laws surrounding Category H firearms were introduced.  The laws were introduced to reduce public mass shootings.  To start quoting incidents that laws weren't intended for is dishonest.

By the way, bikie laws have been introduced to reduce the activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

 

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Australia was first mentioned in this thread by Americans.

Then the lie was told Australia didn't have a problem with mass shootings prior to 1996.  In fact, there were eleven in the decade before Port Arthur.

The mass shooting problem is what the 1996 laws were designed to mitigate. Monash occured in 2005, and as result more laws surrounding Category H firearms were introduced.  The laws were introduced to reduce public mass shootings.  To start quoting incidents that laws weren't intended for is dishonest.

By the way, bikie laws have been introduced to reduce the activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

 

I dont care who mentioned Australia first, the simple fact remains that BRD was unequivocally wrong with that statement.

Despite what you are trying to argue it is not dishonest at all.  BRD had generalized his argument in that post to violent crime and mass murder so all mass murder became fair to point out instead of just those committed by guns.  Even then Australia has had multiple mass shootings post 1996 with over half occuring after 2005.

[Gunn]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

Probably worth noting that the gun was bought legally in Nevada. 

So, yeah, if you had stricter gun control, these things wouldn't happen so often. 

5. Mass killers often find ways to kill even without firearms.

• Some of the worst mass killings in the United States have occurred without firearms:
  • Before the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the deadliest attack on the LGBT community in America occurred in 1973 when an arsonist killed 32 and injured 15 at the Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans.
  • In 1987, a disgruntled former airline employee killed 43 people after he hijacked and intentionally crashed a passenger plane.
  • In 1990, an angry ex-lover burned down the Happy Land social club where his former girlfriend worked, killing 87 others in the process.
  • In 1995, 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured by a truck bomb parked outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
  • In 2017, a man in New York City killed eight and injured 11 by renting a truck and plowing down pedestrians on a Manhattan bike path.
• In other countries, bombings, mass stabbings, and car attacks frequently kill more people than even the deadliest mass shootings in the United States. Consider the following:
  • Spain (2004) — Bombing: 192 deaths, 2,050 injuries;
  • Great Britain (2005) — Bombing: 52 deaths, 784 injuries;
  • Japan (2008) — Car ramming and stabbing: seven deaths, 10 injuries;
  • China (2010) — Shovel-loader: 11 deaths, 30 injuries;
  • China (2014) — Car ramming: six deaths, 13 injuries;
  • China (2014) — Mass stabbing: 31 deaths, 143 injuries;
  • Germany (2015) — Plane crash: 150 deaths;
  • Belgium (2016) — Bombing: 21 deaths, 180 injuries;
  • France (2016) — Car ramming: 86 deaths, 434 injuries;
  • Germany (2016) — Car ramming: 11 deaths, 56 injuries;
  • Japan (2016) — Mass stabbing: 19 deaths, 45 injuries; and
  • Great Britain (2017) — Bombing: 22 deaths, 250 injuries.

 

https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/6-reasons-gun-control-will-not-solve-mass-killings

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Gunn said:

frequently

I think you need to look this word up. 

How many mass shootings are you on so far for 2019? 

And how many of these attacks have there been in other countries so far in 2019?

[Black Red Devil]

8 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

That whole 0 in Australia is just factually wrong.  Post 1996 Australia has had 28 mass casualty events in which a decent number had involved guns.

Technically there is also the problem with how mass murders is being defined as the definition is extremely lose and varies among organizations.

So that would also raise the mass murder figures in America? 

[Black Red Devil]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I dont care who mentioned Australia first, the simple fact remains that BRD was unequivocally wrong with that statement.

Despite what you are trying to argue it is not dishonest at all.  BRD had generalized his argument in that post to violent crime and mass murder so all mass murder became fair to point out instead of just those committed by guns.  Even then Australia has had multiple mass shootings post 1996 with over half occuring after 2005.

So are you claiming that the way mass shootings are defined is different between Australia and the US because my claim was in the last couple of years we've had none.  Here's a link showing what they define as mass shootings from 2000 in the world.  Not one from Australia while the US is all over the report.  So, the bottom line is if your definition of mass shootings include a robbery where two people die for example it goes for both countries.  Who do you think is going to look even worse when you have 4 times the amount of violent crime casualties?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[DarkHunter]

1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

So that would also raise the mass murder figures in America? 

Its impossible to say without looking at each source.  On average most require 3 or 4 killed at minimum but some go as low as 2 and some go as high as 5 then there are issues with the time span which is a whole other set of problems as those are vague, normally its defined as no cool down period between killings but even that is extremely lose and hard to precisely define.  Then some require actually killed for the minimum and some combine injured and killed for the minimum.

Ultimately there is no universal standard to define any of this stuff so making comparisons between different sources is extremely difficult.

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I dont care who mentioned Australia first, the simple fact remains that BRD was unequivocally wrong with that statement.

Despite what you are trying to argue it is not dishonest at all.  BRD had generalized his argument in that post to violent crime and mass murder so all mass murder became fair to point out instead of just those committed by guns.  Even then Australia has had multiple mass shootings post 1996 with over half occuring after 2005.

Multiple is a good word, huh?

These multiple events do they include OLMG or familicide?  How does it compare to the decade before Port Arthur?

[DarkHunter]

2 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

So are you claiming that the way mass shootings are defined is different between Australia and the US because my claim was in the last couple of years we've had none.  Here's a link showing what they define as mass shootings from 2000 in the world.  Not one from Australia while the US is ll over the report.  So, the bottom line is if your definition of mass shootings include a robbery where two people die for example it goes for both countries.  Who do you think is going to look even worse when you have 4 times the amount of violent crime casualties?

I'm claiming your source is wrong.

June 2019, Darwin shooting, 4 dead 1 injured

May 2018, Osmington shooting, 7 dead

December 2014, Sydney hostage crisis, 3 dead 1 injured

October 2014, Weddernburn shooting, 3 dead

September 2014, Hunt family murders, 5 dead

March 2005, Oakhampton Heights shooting, 4 dead

October 2002, Monash University shooting, 2 dead 5 injured

[Black Red Devil]

3 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

I'm claiming your source is wrong.

June 2019, Darwin shooting, 4 dead 1 injured

May 2018, Osmington shooting, 7 dead

December 2014, Sydney hostage crisis, 3 dead 1 injured

October 2014, Weddernburn shooting, 3 dead

September 2014, Hunt family murders, 5 dead

March 2005, Oakhampton Heights shooting, 4 dead

October 2002, Monash University shooting, 2 dead 5 injured

Well they aren't classified as mass murders and as I said if you're going to claim these as mass murders you need to do the same for America.  The Osmington case was a suicide murder by family members.  Even if there was one in Australia, is that enough to compare with the US or do you want to try to micro analyse every word I say and forget about the variance in shooting and crime numbers between the two countries?  C'mon mate, America has far more crimes, gun crimes than every other western countries where gun laws are strictly enforced.  Every statistical table will show America is many times higher than Australia, UK, Canada, Germany etc...That's the bottom line.

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Black Red Devil said:

Well they aren't classified as mass murders and as I said if you're going to claim these as mass murders you need to do the same for America.  The Osmington case was a suicide murder by family members.  Even if there was one in Australia, is that enough to compare with the US or do you want to try to micro analyse every word I say and forget about the variance in shooting and crime numbers between the two countries?  C'mon mate, America has far more crimes, gun crimes than every other western countries where gun laws are strictly enforced.  Every statistical table will show America is many times higher than Australia, UK, Canada, Germany etc...That's the bottom line.

They arent classified as mass murders cause your junk source doesnt list mass murders, it list notable mass shootings with notable not being defined so it's really just mass shootings the author found worth mentioning.  

Also I do do the same for America and you really got to stop inter changing mass shooting and mass murder as the two are not the same, all mass shootings are mass murder but not all mass murder are mass shootings.

Lastly I'm a bit busy currently but later on I'll prove you wrong in crime tables later tonight

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

I think you need to look this word up. 

How many mass shootings are you on so far for 2019? 

And how many of these attacks have there been in other countries so far in 2019?

The US has 12.21 gun casualties per 100k, the UK 0.23 (!!), Australia 1.04, most other western nations between 1-2 but he wants everyone to see individual cases of non gun related murders.  You can't make the **** up. link

[Black Red Devil]

4 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

They arent classified as mass murders cause your junk source doesnt list mass murders, it list notable mass shootings with notable not being defined so it's really just mass shootings the author found worth mentioning.  

Also I do do the same for America and you really got to stop inter changing mass shooting and mass murder as the two are not the same, all mass shootings are mass murder but not all mass murder are mass shootings.

Lastly I'm a bit busy currently but later on I'll prove you wrong in crime tables later tonight

I'm not mixing anything up.  I'll be awaiting your 'proof'.  I'm assuming your proof is going to show us two things, that crime in general is higher in Australia and that gun related incidents are as well (by %).

[Gunn]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

I think you need to look this word up. 

How many mass shootings are you on so far for 2019? 

And how many of these attacks have there been in other countries so far in 2019?

I should have gave a reason as to why I posted that. I'm not concerned with dates and numbers. My point was, here in the U.S., the lunatics will find different ways to commit mass murder and can kill just as many without a gun.

4 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

The US has 12.21 gun casualties per 100k, the UK 0.23 (!!), Australia 1.04, most other western nations between 1-2 but he wants everyone to see individual cases of non gun related murders.  You can't make the **** up. link

Point is, the lunatics don't need guns to commit mass murders here in the U.S.

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, Gunn said:

I should have gave a reason as to why I posted that. I'm not concerned with dates and numbers. My point was, here in the U.S., the lunatics will find different ways to commit mass murder and can kill just as many without a gun. 

So why don't they in other countries? 

The point isn't that gun control will prevent every death, its reducing the number of attacks by making it more difficult for the attacker. 

[Black Red Devil]

12 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

They arent classified as mass murders cause your junk source doesnt list mass murders, it list notable mass shootings with notable not being defined so it's really just mass shootings the author found worth mentioning.  

Also I do do the same for America and you really got to stop inter changing mass shooting and mass murder as the two are not the same, all mass shootings are mass murder but not all mass murder are mass shootings.

Lastly I'm a bit busy currently but later on I'll prove you wrong in crime tables later tonight

link

At least 19 dead in mass shooting at Walmart in El Paso — suspect in custody

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/329456-multiple-fatalities-in-texas-mall-shooting/

Edited August 4, 2019 by Still Waters
Added link to the other thread to avoid duplicate discussion.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Gunn said:

...

Point is, the lunatics don't need guns to commit mass murders here in the U.S.

The Port Arthur massacre was a record at the time.  A semi-automatic was a weapon of choice.  In subsequent shooting of this magnitude semi-automatic rifles are used.

When an automobile has been used to for the same devastaion bollards have been installed to prevent repeat incidents.  Bollards don't stop shootings however.

This 'other methods are just as effective' argument is a lie.

[aztek]

of course us has more crime, gun or no gun, for multitude of reasons,  that is exactly why people need means to protect themselves more than in other countries, high crime rate is the reason to own a gun ,not give it up

[Gunn]

14 hours ago, Setton said:

So why don't they in other countries?

There have been and they do. Here is an article with a historical list.

https://ijr.com/13-mass-killings-where-no-guns-were-involved/

Heck. These two just happened recently this year. Did you not hear about these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/world/asia/japan-fire-animation-studio.html
 

Quote

 

The point isn't that gun control will prevent every death, its reducing the number of attacks by making it more difficult for the attacker. 

 

Stricter gun control is still a half-ass solution though, and puts some poor unlucky person in a crap shoot. Meaning someone is still liable to get killed, even if it's just a few, even a child.  A better solution would to have control over the mentally ill, which could reduce the number of any kind of attack closer to 0; as in guns, knives, swords, bombs, fires, vehicles, and whatever else a maniac could think of using to kill in great numbers.

 

[Gunn]

13 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The Port Arthur massacre was a record at the time.  A semi-automatic was a weapon of choice.  In subsequent shooting of this magnitude semi-automatic rifles are used.

When an automobile has been used to for the same devastaion bollards have been installed to prevent repeat incidents.

While it may work in inner cities of small island continents,  you'll have a hard time convincing our government to put bollards on millions of square miles in rural areas where people sometimes gather for events. The cost would be astronomical. And all these lunatics would have to do is rent a box truck and find soft targets like fairgrounds or festivals outside the main cities in rural areas where there is very little protection from vehicles. So just because it may work in the country where you live, it doesn't mean it could work everywhere in the U.S.

Quote

Bollards don't stop shootings however.

Bollards don't stop bombs, knives/swords, and fires either. They'll find other ways, Timothy McVeigh demonstrated proof of that.

Quote

This 'other methods are just as effective' argument is a lie.

Look at the article list of other effective methods mass killers used that I posted for @Setton That is a lot of lives lost in each horrific event. I'd say those methods those lunatics used were quite effective or equivalent to mass shootings. Those historical examples are not a lie unless you want believe they are a lie.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Gunn

[Setton]

5 hours ago, Gunn said:

There have been and they do. Here is an article with a historical list.

https://ijr.com/13-mass-killings-where-no-guns-were-involved/

Heck. These two just happened recently this year. Did you not hear about these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/world/asia/japan-fire-animation-studio.html

So that's 2 across the entire rest of the planet. 

You're on 253 this year alone. 253.