General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Of course. Big school shooting and everybody immediately uses it as fuel for whatever political agenda they like best.

What a shame.

Welcome to a Reality that Cannot be Avoided.



Face it. It is the politics that allows these things to happen.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

First off to the hoplophobes.
No new gun control can fix what happened today so stop calling for the punishment of the law abiding for what these mentally disturbed people do.

You still don't get it, do you? The laws obviously can't directly hinder those who are determined to break them (the shooter). They can however change the environment so that the shooter can't easily execute his plan on impulse.

I can say that if for some reason I decided that I just HAD to kill someone, I wouldn't even know where/how to acquire a firearm in the first place, so I'd have to think of different, less simple means.

Second, the guns were REGISTERED to this 20 year old's mother.
He could not legally own, carry, or even possess a pistol since he was under 21 years of age.
That is FEDERAL LAW!

Here, the suggestion I made before might have helped. If her mother wouldn't have owned the pistols in the first place or had them safely stored AWAY from his son, maybe the victims would still be alive today.

It is exactly because nutcases like him can go on tilt and IMMEDIATELY obtain the means of murdering people and then killing yourself that these tragedies happen. The more preparation the murderers need to put into things, the higher the chance that they return to their senses.

Sorry man, this isn't exactly rocket science. The difference between the US and other western civilizations isn't the amount of people who go on tilt (at least I don't assume you want to make that claim), the difference is that in the US they can easily obtain tools to do lethal damage and do their killings. Pulling a trigger is MUCH easier to do than bludgeoning or stabbing a victim.

And Israel already has shown how to do that.
As I said earlier in this thread (months ago) about the Aurora shooting, it's not the guns that are allowing this to happen, it is the gun free zones like that theater, a shopping mall, and schools.

Madness. I'm so sick of the "it's not guns killing people, it's people killing people" BS. You remember 9/11? For some reason the US has tried their best to make it harder to abduct planes and use them as weapons. With your logic, they should rather hand out anti-aircraft missiles to everyone?

I wonder how many people in the US would want to live like Israel does. What a lovely idea.

[ChainLegacy]

I largely agree with your point and enjoyed your invocation of the Dark Ages (being a history nerd who has used similar lines of argument in the past). Problem is, it does seem school shootings/mass shootings are on the rise - I admit I have not done any major studying on the issue, so perhaps I am wrong, but I certainly get the impression (someone can corroborate/disagree if they have the stats). Not that these incidents in and of themselves make the modern world so much worse than the past, but that they as an isolated facet of the modern landscape are a bad thing and people want to understand why their frequency is increasing. Truthfully, I do not know how to tie this constructively into gun control or whether increased control would help matters.

Also on the subject of history, and this line of thinking just came to me as I was reading your post: sometimes, people's misconceptions of some prior 'golden age' can actually be a good thing. If people think they're fighting to regain some lost knowledge or cultural enlightenment it can make the leap more imaginable and the drive stronger. We see this in European (Enlightenment) and Chinese (Warring States period) history. There may have been bad elements in the past, but rose-tinted nostalgia goggles might actually serve a purpose in allowing people to highlight only the good in their desire to achieve some preconceived ideal, whether or not it actually reflects the reality. Of course, this methodology can also be invoked for nefarious purposes (the "Third Reich").

[Kyuu]

Now, the call is going to be made. Or at least, I sure hope something will be done this time around.

[Daniel E.]

Please try to calm some before posting again folks.

Several posts will now be deleted/edited and infractions will be given to those that continue insulting others.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

But that's not a proof since the death toll there is not over 18. (there were "only" 8)

And your point is?
Does the total matter if the idea is to stop or at least lessen the damage of these types of incidents entirely?

Originally Posted by monir

That's a relief though still you haven't got the full point. A knife is much more accessible than a gun even in a country like US and yet the weapon of choice is a gun for these mass killing incident. I want to know why? Yes, these fuckers are insane even to consider killing in mass, but they are doing it with a gun in the US. They aren't using bombs, or knives, or chainsaws, or baseball bats, or poison gas...

Image.
Eric Harris and Dylan Kleebold proved that in their "basement tapes."
Dr. Park Dietz analyzed the Columbine masscre and put forward the hypothesis of the "glamour suicide mass killer" who kills on this level for the media coverage he will receive.
He also put forward the concept that these shooters create an image of themselves that mirrors what they see on TV, video games, and movies of the gun wielding bass ass that solves everything with the end of a gun.
Like it or not, our culture is a prime factor in these shootings.
That's why Switzerland doesn't have these problems even though every household there is required to have a machinegun/real assault rifle.
Culture plays a big role here.

I should also add that a lack of proper mental health services and facilities is another big problem.
We can thank Ronald Reagan for that, he's the one who defunded mental hospitals in the 1980s and that may be a contributing factor in some of this.

I couldn't care less about the politics. All I want to know is how we can make it harder for one of these people who snap for whatever reason, and then go into a killing spree. The first police car responded in two minutes of the first 911 call for the incident at Connecticut and it was still too late. If he was killing those kids with a knife, would that have made a difference? It's a horrible situation. I for one at a complete loss for how to interject in any meaningful way to curve this trend of mass killing we are seeing in US every other week. People are inherently and innately violent. Most of us can reign in and have full control of ourselves even at the height of those certain extreme emotions. At the same time, it's not true for everyone. I just want to see it is made tougher for those handful of people to have access to anything that makes killing in large number so easy.

You know how the world is supposed to end in Dec 21? Well, for those parents their world has ended already.

In these situations it literally is a matter of seconds that count.
Unless there are cops in the building, armed, and ready, your only hope of stopping this at the door is going to be the teacher, store clerk, or theater patrons.
There is no other practical or viable solution at the present.
I'm sick of the gun-control fairy tale, because in the US it doesn't and will not work.

Originally Posted by maplehurry

it's no question that if gun is perceived to be inferior to knife, then the whole gun control debate would not even exist (or much more limited). Or why this Adam dude even bothered to steal a gun when he has kitchen knife already accessible. Or why even pro-gun group argue that people could better defend themselves with gun, rather than knife.

Well, one can always argue perception =/= reality.

It has to do with image, looking "cool" (yes these people are that sick) as you do your dark deed.
It's playing the part of the villian, like James Holmes pretending to be bain in the theater and using bombs in addition to the shotgun an pistols.
If swords or knives were considered cool by these people that would be the weapon used and the killing pattern would be different.
They'd be serial killers (many of whom do kill more people over the course of their crimes with a variety of weapons).

Originally Posted by Mentar

You still don't get it, do you? The laws obviously can't directly hinder those who are determined to break them (the shooter). They can however change the environment so that the shooter can't easily execute his plan on impulse.

I can say that if for some reason I decided that I just HAD to kill someone, I wouldn't even know where/how to acquire a firearm in the first place, so I'd have to think of different, less simple means.

No YOU DON"T GET IT.
It is unjust to punish those who have nothing to do with these crimes.
There are over 80 million gun owners in the US.
Depriving them of their rights due to the actions of very few in comparison is not acceptable in a free Republic.
A collectivist tyranny perhaps would do what you suggest, but not a country that claims to cherish freedom.
You don't have the right to be "free from violence" but you do have the right to defend yourself against that possibility. The problem is that in a gun free zone that right is being infringed.

Here, the suggestion I made before might have helped. If her mother wouldn't have owned the pistols in the first place or had them safely stored AWAY from his son, maybe the victims would still be alive today.

If...if...if, and IF we had the Israeli policy in our schools this guy may have be neutralized the minute he entered the school and started shooting.

It is exactly because nutcases like him can go on tilt and IMMEDIATELY obtain the means of murdering people and then killing yourself that these tragedies happen. The more preparation the murderers need to put into things, the higher the chance that they return to their senses.

NO, it is because we no longer have the right to meet these nut cases with equal force at the places they choose to do their crimes.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Guns in the hands of the law abiding are useless if the law prohibits them from using them to defend themselves.
The Lubby's shooting in Texas proved that, which is why Texas was one of the first states to institute concealed carry and a castle doctrine.
It's not perfect (nothing is) but it at least gives people a fighting chance.

Sorry man, this isn't exactly rocket science. The difference between the US and other western civilizations isn't the amount of people who go on tilt (at least I don't assume you want to make that claim), the difference is that in the US they can easily obtain tools to do lethal damage and do their killings. Pulling a trigger is MUCH easier to do than bludgeoning or stabbing a victim.

WRONG.
The difference is we in the US have become selfish assholes and this is one of the symptoms of such a society.
The culture in the US glorifies violence and hyper-competition.
This really is a symptom of "I've got mine, you get yours."
I realize that emotions are running high with some of you and you're not thinking rationally as a result, but all this "easy access" talk falls flat when you consider how many laws we already have and how much gun-control we've passed since the Texas Tower shooting of the 1960s.
The fact is, the more gun control laws that have been passed which restrict access, the more frequent and violent these attacks are becoming.

Madness. I'm so sick of the "it's not guns killing people, it's people killing people" BS. You remember 9/11? For some reason the US has tried their best to make it harder to abduct planes and use them as weapons. With your logic, they should rather hand out anti-aircraft missiles to everyone?

I wonder how many people in the US would want to live like Israel does. What a lovely idea.

Then you are a hoplophobe with no rational means of discussing this issue.
All you want is to blame the tool not the person using it.
It's like blaming the car for the actions of the drunk driver, it's ridiculous.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No new gun control can fix what happened today so stop calling for the punishment of the law abiding for what these mentally disturbed people do.

I love this part of the argument -- because it is said so many freaking times. It's as if you are all trained to say this message.

It fails to address one sheer fact and reality: it is impossible to stop these mentally disturbed people from committing these shootings, because by the time anyone is aware, the shooting had already occurred. In most cases, the shooter commits suicide.

I will issue a challenge: determine the NEXT person who will commit a mass shooting. And where.

No one wants to punish the right to own a gun. Instead, gun ownership needs to be REGULATED. Owning a gun is a right. Many people get that. However, to PREVENT these kinds of incidents, various kinds of regulations need to be implemented to ensure SAFETY.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

No one wants to punish the right to own a gun. Instead, gun ownership needs to be REGULATED. Owning a gun is a right. Many people get that. However, to PREVENT these kinds of incidents, various kinds of regulations need to be implemented to ensure SAFETY.

Many (many) regulations are already in place, and in this instance the gun wasn't even the kids, but rather his mother's gun.

That is not to say that more precise and effective regulations shouldn't be enacted (I detest most concealed weapons laws, especially ones that allow weapons to be carried in schools and other similar public areas), but this is a case in which any amount of sane regulation wouldn't have mattered. (This crazed individual could have just as easily killed some other sane and responsible gun owner, taken their gun, and then gone on a killing spree.)

This is a tragic event, plain and simple. But I do not really see it as a gun control issue.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

And your point is?
Does the total matter if the idea is to stop or at least lessen the damage of these types of incidents entirely?



Image.
Eric Harris and Dylan Kleebold proved that in their "basement tapes."
Dr. Park Dietz analyzed the Columbine masscre and put forward the hypothesis of the "glamour suicide mass killer" who kills on this level for the media coverage he will receive.
He also put forward the concept that these shooters create an image of themselves that mirrors what they see on TV, video games, and movies of the gun wielding bass ass that solves everything with the end of a gun.
Like it or not, our culture is a prime factor in these shootings.
That's why Switzerland doesn't have these problems even though every household there is required to have a machinegun/real assault rifle.
Culture plays a big role here.

I should also add that a lack of proper mental health services and facilities is another big problem.
We can thank Ronald Reagan for that, he's the one who defunded mental hospitals in the 1980s and that may be a contributing factor in some of this.



In these situations it literally is a matter of seconds that count.
Unless there are cops in the building, armed, and ready, your only hope of stopping this at the door is going to be the teacher, store clerk, or theater patrons.
There is no other practical or viable solution at the present.
I'm sick of the gun-control fairy tale, because in the US it doesn't and will not work.



It has to do with image, looking "cool" (yes these people are that sick) as you do your dark deed.
It's playing the part of the villian, like James Holmes pretending to be bain in the theater and using bombs in addition to the shotgun an pistols.
If swords or knives were considered cool by these people that would be the weapon used and the killing pattern would be different.
They'd be serial killers (many of whom do kill more people over the course of their crimes with a variety of weapons).




No YOU DON"T GET IT.
It is unjust to punish those who have nothing to do with these crimes.
There are over 80 million gun owners in the US.
Depriving them of their rights due to the actions of very few in comparison is not acceptable in a free Republic.
A collectivist tyranny perhaps would do what you suggest, but not a country that claims to cherish freedom.
You don't have the right to be "free from violence" but you do have the right to defend yourself against that possibility. The problem is that in a gun free zone that right is being infringed.



If...if...if, and IF we had the Israeli policy in our schools this guy may have be neutralized the minute he entered the school and started shooting.



NO, it is because we no longer have the right to meet these nut cases with equal force at the places they choose to do their crimes.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Guns in the hands of the law abiding are useless if the law prohibits them from using them to defend themselves.
The Lubby's shooting in Texas proved that, which is why Texas was one of the first states to institute concealed carry and a castle doctrine.
It's not perfect (nothing is) but it at least gives people a fighting chance.



WRONG.
The difference is we in the US have become selfish assholes and this is one of the symptoms of such a society.
The culture in the US glorifies violence and hyper-competition.
This really is a symptom of "I've got mine, you get yours."
I realize that emotions are running high with some of you and you're not thinking rationally as a result, but all this "easy access" talk falls flat when you consider how many laws we already have and how much gun-control we've passed since the Texas Tower shooting of the 1960s.
The fact is, the more gun control laws that have been passed which restrict access, the more frequent and violent these attacks are becoming.



Then you are a hoplophobe with no rational means of discussing this issue.
All you want is to blame the tool not the person using it.
It's like blaming the car for the actions of the drunk driver, it's ridiculous.

You want to claim that if the gun control will get more restricted then there will be more of these schootings? Ok, based on what?

If you compare to the the ammount of similar shootings in the USA to the rest of the world, then you clearly see that the USA is leading on the ammount of school shootings and the number of victims. I am not someone who is very knowledgable about the statistics on this subject, but i suspect this is related to how much easier it is to get fire arms in the USA than in those countries.

[Mentar]

It's quite telling that you accuse me of "not thinking rationally" while it's very obviously you who has no control of his emotions.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No YOU DON"T GET IT.
It is unjust to punish those who have nothing to do with these crimes.
There are over 80 million gun owners in the US.
Depriving them of their rights due to the actions of very few in comparison is not acceptable in a free Republic.

Take a chill pill, kiddo, and rather read what I was actually suggesting. I don't want to deprive the gun crazies of their items of worship. What I want is to make sure that people have to take responsibility for their arms. You have to register ALL your firearms, and you are held responsible if crimes are used with your own weapons, because this usually indicates that you failed to properly handle them (you're free to prove that you did NOT behave irresponsibly, but that's up to you). I want everyone found in possession of an unlicenced gun is fined and the gun confiscated and destroyed.

Now tell me how this "punishes" the gun owners and "deprives them of their right". It only makes them responsible for their potential lack of oversight.

If...if...if, and IF we had the Israeli policy in our schools this guy may have be neutralized the minute he entered the school and started shooting.

Only in the wet dreams of the gun crazies. How would a murderer who is obviously intent on killing as many people as possible and then himself be discouraged from his attack? He would simply kill the armed teacher first and then the other kids. But maybe you'd rather have western-style shootouts in schools instead of teachers trying to evacuate kids ASAP?

If your theory that guns protect from gun violence was remotely true, then the US would be one of the safest places in the world. It isn't. Just the opposite.

NO, it is because we no longer have the right to meet these nut cases with equal force at the places they choose to do their crimes. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

The problem is the Americans' ready availability of firearms for everyone going on tilt, and the insistence of the gun crazies that their constitution-given right to bear and use firearms supersedes the interest of those who disagree. With it. What you're saying below is the best illustration:

WRONG.
The difference is we in the US have become selfish assholes and this is one of the symptoms of such a society.

Made me speechless at first, until I realized that the selfish assholes are supposed to be the ones who are sick of the massacres and want to reign in gun use.

The culture in the US glorifies violence and hyper-competition.
This really is a symptom of "I've got mine, you get yours."

Right. Screw the bereaved, I want my guns. I WANT MY GUNS!

You wrote "People have no right to a life without violence, but I have a right to my guns". What more needs to be said?

I realize that emotions are running high with some of you and you're not thinking rationally as a result, but all this "easy access" talk falls flat when you consider how many laws we already have and how much gun-control we've passed since the Texas Tower shooting of the 1960s.

Non sequitur. As long as it's harder for a teen to buy a sixpack of beer than a gun on the corner, there is no such thing as gun control, however you call it.

Then you are a hoplophobe with no rational means of discussing this issue.
All you want is to blame the tool not the person using it.
It's like blaming the car for the actions of the drunk driver, it's ridiculous.

No. I want to restrict gun possession to those who are ALLOWED to possess one, and to enforce the responsibility you have to show if you own one. I actually wonder why YOU would be opposed to that. In fact, you should be supporting my suggestion wholeheartedly. Why aren't you?

[Mr. DJ]

Just putting this out there.

I think, far more valuable than some bullshit desire for cathartic vengeance or "pithy" comments about how one side or the other will use this event as a political tool would be a genuine and honest desire to so want something like this to not happen again that you would be willing to talk about actual steps to make that happen, regardless of your political stripe and regardless of where that discussion ends up.

I mean, sure, some of you wanna shoot someone, but that's about you and your feelings. That might make you feel a little better. If you really want this to get better, what are you willing to sacrifice? Not what are you prepared to do, but what are you prepared to give?

Are you willing to talk about mental health getting better funding, even if it means giving more in taxes? Are you willing to limit access to certain types of guns for recreational use? Are you willing to deal with the notion that our culture celebrates and idealizes violence in general and guns in particular? Are you willing to really listen to what each other are saying and put aside yourself if it means fewer events like this occurring?

[synaesthetic]

Not that I'm disagreeing with anything you say here, Mentar, but... this doesn't necessarily follow.

If by "gun control" you mean "controlling the flow of illegal black market weapons" then I wholeheartedly agree. Hitting the black arms market hard will do more to protect people from gun crimes than anything else.

But if by "gun control" you mean "making it harder to legally buy a weapon from a licensed dealer" I don't think this is going to help anything, since as you already mentioned, most of these weapons are not being obtained legally. They're bought from black-market sellers on the street corners or stolen from people.

My take of the situation (and I am talking about gun control this time) is something that most pro-gun people will not like, since they are mostly Republicans: we need to stop defunding public mental health services. People who are clearly insane need to be cared for, not left to fend for themselves, where they are capable of hurting others or themselves.

[Nightbat®]

Syn

How many criminals make a living shooting up schools?

it's snapped mental cases that grab a gun and start increasing personal ventilation

remove the chance of THOSE to get a gun and the chance of them running rampant will diminish
whereas 'professional' criminals will never be prevented from obtaining them

Sure a nutcase planning to go out in a hail of bullets and victims could plan his act well before
and will then by illegal means obtain a firearm, but there will be a larger window to pick up if something is wrong

Defend the right to bear arms till you turn blue, but only after your explanation why you ignore the right to live
27 people are dead, where are their rights now?

B'sides
It's actually a better idea to controlling the flow of LEGAL weapons since with those the most accidents occur

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Syn

How many criminals make a living shooting up schools?

it's snapped mental cases that grab a gun and start increasing personal ventilation

remove the chance of THOSE to get a gun and the chance of them running rampant will diminish
whereas 'professional' criminals will never be prevented from obtaining them

Of course, people who are really, really determined can get guns. The yakuza in Japan have guns, and Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

I'm well aware that making gun control laws more strict won't actually hurt anyone except Joe Redneck who wants to go duck hunting.

But again, this guy got a gun through illegal means. Gun control laws will not stop that, unless gun control laws stop focusing on making legal purchases more difficult. They need to focus on getting rid of black market weapons and making sure stolen weapons are properly accounted for, and that gun owners are required to make sure that their guns don't grow legs and walk off.

[RRW]

probably related

YouTube

https://youtu.be/mCmzJzTQv6Q

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

http://globalgrind.com/news/police-o...-graphic-video

[Ithekro]

No. I am quite certain you don't understand, Mentar. Most of what you are suggesting already exists in the United States and isn't working.

That is why I put the question up earlier about "who would be held responsible" in this incident, as the gun owner was murdered with her own gun by her own son, before he went to the school.

Gun cannot be picked up like sixpacks. At least not legally. You cannot own a gun until you are 21 years old in this country. Federal law has paperwork to fill out. States vary on what else you need on top of that.

Most states you cannot carry your gun outside of your house in city limits. Don't fantasize that every American is packing heat and that everyone got a six shooter ready to go. Conceal carry permits in most states are a pain in the ass to get, and most are denied even if one goes though the hoops in place. In many places, if you see someone pull a gun, it is probably a gang member with an illegal firearm.

Illegal firearms are conficated by the police when found. Though I do not know what they do with them if they are not kept as evidence of a crime.


And yes Americans like their guns. We grew up on tales of the Wild West and the Cowboys and Gunslingers. But most of us don't use firearms to gun down people in the streets since the Frontier closed in 1890. However most tales of the Old West we got from the 1950s and 1960s presented the concept of honorable gunfights. you don't shoot children or innocents. If you have a problem with someone, you face them alone. By the 1990s that all seemed to go away. Not just the westerns, but also any idea of honor, even if it was the western idea of it. More and more stories are of heartless bastards that kill to get the job done, or sometimes just for the thrill of it. The glory of the psycopath I guess you could call them. (These shows are not of my taste, as I tended towards Star Trek or Bonanza).

Something changed and it wasn't the number of guns nor the laws restricting them (and there are resticted).

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

But again, this guy got a gun through illegal means. Gun control laws will not stop that, unless gun control laws stop focusing on making legal purchases more difficult. They need to focus on getting rid of black market weapons and making sure stolen weapons are properly accounted for, and that gun owners are required to make sure that their guns don't grow legs and walk off.

I was still editting my post


But if gunowners didn't have a gun, it can't be stolen or grow legs and walk off

and again, when did black market weapons account for a school shooting?

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

I was still editting my post


But if gunowners didn't have a gun, it can't be stolen or grow legs and walk off

and again, when did black market weapons account for a school shooting?

It's too late to outright ban guns in America. The last time the US government attempted to take away something that was always our right, look what happened. Prohibition was a failed experiment, and it would arguably be worse if we were to ban civilian ownership of weapons--a lot of the people would fight back. When the government comes to take away someone's booze, the most they could do is maybe vomit? What about when some men-in-black come to take away Joe Redneck's guns?

I don't think I'm really stressing this enough but there are over eighty million gun owners in the United States and that's not counting the illegal weapons, either. The US government could not stop them if they revolted against the ban and refused to lay down their arms. Not without simply killing millions of people only perturbed that their Constitutional rights are being infringed upon.

I'm serious in that if you were to attempt to unilaterally ban weapons in the United States, you'd have a second Civil War on your hands.

[Ithekro]

Which is why I think the Europeans and others don't understand. If they go for an outright ban over the heads of the voters, they will have a serious problem trying to enforce it, because many of those 80 million will resist on the grounds that the Federal Government has overstepped their authority as defined by the Bill of Rights.

Essentally a Second Civil War. All that is missing is the second government to oppose Washington D.C.

Fortunately, most in Washington know better than to go over the voters heads when it comes to things like that.

[Ledgem]

Here's an interesting article from the Washington Post that covers a number of studies and linkages regarding firearms. Of interest, the United States is more violent than other countries (but good news: we're experiencing a downward trend in violence), the South is unusually more violent than other regions of the country (and according to a Gallup poll, the South has the highest amount of gun ownership - this point also correlates with point #8 in the Washington Post article that greater levels of guns are associated with greater amounts of murders), and most interesting of all, the levels of gun ownership in America are on the decline.

The Washington Post is often cited as being "liberally biased" so take their opinions with a grain of salt; however, the data - which covers more than just gun violence - is rather interesting.