Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
> Practice can be done at ranges, using borrowed equipment matching your own. Larger weapons permitted once a suitable use case is presented.
Eh? Nobody would ever swallow that. Even then it would be practically impossible to implement. There are too many types of guns and gun owners customise their own gun to themselves. You can never replicate that with rental guns. Then there is hunting, which is legal. Then you have always been allowed, even before concealed carried laws, to transport guns in your car with varying restrictions, usually unloaded and out of reach.
Eh? Nobody would ever swallow that. Even then it would be practically impossible to implement. There are too many types of guns and gun owners customise their own gun to themselves. You can never replicate that with rental guns. Then there is hunting, which is legal. Then you have always been allowed, even before concealed carried laws, to transport guns in your car with varying restrictions, usually unloaded and out of reach.
Matt Harper said:
Oh - only 10,000 or so then - mere chicken feed - and - what's race got to do with it - are you racist? Are you suggesting I'm racist? What relevance does black/white have in all this?
Presumably, the 65% who knew their attacks somehow don't count then - like it didn't happen, because they knew the identity of the people who'd forced their way in.
"So called murderers"? So called by who, apart from you?
Sorry, I thought you had edited TankRizzos post that you had quoted to change burglars to murderers, my apologies.Presumably, the 65% who knew their attacks somehow don't count then - like it didn't happen, because they knew the identity of the people who'd forced their way in.
"So called murderers"? So called by who, apart from you?
Edited by Matt Harper on Tuesday 6th October 20:15
The point is the protection excuse is somewhat weak when you're highly unlikely to be a victim of a violent home invasion, especially if you're a white married couple.
All these stats show is that the biggest threat to your family is most likely you, your spouse or someone else you know.
10,000 are victims of violent home invasion and apparently that matters, but what of the 12,000 victims murdered by firearms?
Corpulent Tosser said:
Background checks including mental health for anyone wanting to buy a gun would be a sensible idea, it wouldn't take guns out of circulation, nor would it prevent guns falling into the wrong hands, but it is certainly a sensible suggestion.
As far as I'm aware the existing mandatory background check does check for mental health problems but only if you've come to the attention of the authorities due to a current condition.Who does this assessment though? This issue was looked at here back in 1997 and the conclusion was that there is no current test or system to reliably identify people who are potential mass killers due to mental illness as it is so difficult to spot if someone has no history of weirdness.
What the Americans need is a system which allows people to come submit themselves for treatment if they feel that they are experiencing mental health issues. That needs some form of National Health System but seeing as many Americans see that as a thinly disguised communist plot to enslave the populous it ain't gonna happen.
mackie1 said:
In response to Sway: What about the hunters and sport shooters though? Or are you only talking about handguns? They seem to be by far responsible for the most deaths.
Hunters/Sports shooters - illegal 'zones' to carry a loaded weapon. Fine to transport to hunting ground, unloaded and locked in case. Otherwise confiscation/slammer.Why difficult to implement? The law is the law. Notified and implemented, with the typical MO of American police, I wouldn't want to 'try it on' because I believe my rights have been restricted.
As with many changes to inherent societal norms, there's a transition period. I remember seatbelt laws coming in - queue plenty of people saying that they'll never follow it. Reports that police feel it's impossible to police. Then, a few months down the line no-one thinks twice and it's become the new norm.
Ten percent of (pre presumed right to defend home) home invasions armed. Violence means many things, not just shooting. Being able to kill deer or shoot targets.
None of these things seem to balance the number of deaths.
Even if it's impossible to foresee a utopian scenario of a massive reduction of gun prevalence, that's no reason to do do nothing to get closer to that goal? Even a small step is one in the right direction. There'll always be reasons to knock any change - but isn't there a strong enough reason to try?
OpulentBob said:
Firstly on the point about telling another country what they should do, America are pretty experienced at it... Suggesting ways to stop kids being killed is also a pretty constructive thing to do. It's not giving orders or demands, more trying to help. That Americans see it as being demanded to does, really, point to a paranoid culture and a victim mentality - going on the defensive so quickly rather than seeing the problem for what it is.
Secondly, why would the gun lobby not allow it? Do they provide THAT much money to the US Government? Serious question, why are they so powerful?
The Americans, unfortunately, seem to be scared of everyone and everything, you just have to look at their border controls and the 'war' on terrorism to see that. The who place is utterly paranoid. Secondly, why would the gun lobby not allow it? Do they provide THAT much money to the US Government? Serious question, why are they so powerful?
The 'gun lobby' is not that powerful. It's a bit of a myth created by both sides of the debate. Yes, the NRA has quite a few members, 4 million or something, but that is a moderate number in the great scheme of things to considering the population of the USA is somethin like 300 million.
People seem to think that they are the equivalent of the Tobacco industry of years gone by with billions of dollars of lobbying money at their beck and call. They aren't as the firearm industry (and I mean the civilian industry not military contractors or the 'Arms Industry' in general) is actually very small. It's a cottage industry in comparison to Tobacco or even alcohol as far as revenue is concerned. Smith and Wesson, one of the major handgun producers in the USA had a net income in 2012 of $16.1 million bucks.
Sway said:
Why difficult to implement? The law is the law. Notified and implemented, with the typical MO of American police, I wouldn't want to 'try it on' because I believe my rights have been restricted.
As with many changes to inherent societal norms, there's a transition period. I remember seatbelt laws coming in - queue plenty of people saying that they'll never follow it. Reports that police feel it's impossible to police. Then, a few months down the line no-one thinks twice and it's become the new norm.
I'm no constitutional expert, but I'm 100% sure this would end up in the Supreme Court and I'm reasonably sure it would be found to be unconstitutional. You would be severely restricting the utility value of guns, which is a guaranteed right in the constition. Even the UK has no laws anywhere near this strict; it's a non-starter. As with many changes to inherent societal norms, there's a transition period. I remember seatbelt laws coming in - queue plenty of people saying that they'll never follow it. Reports that police feel it's impossible to police. Then, a few months down the line no-one thinks twice and it's become the new norm.
Seatbelts are pretty easy to put on and have an obvious safety value. Criminalising people who take their gun out of the has has no utility or safety value, severely limits what you can do with them and is a major PITA. Nobody would wear it.
The stuff would work is actually really simple:
- background checks for everybody: it is still possible to buy a gun with no background check
- every private gun sale needs to go through a federally licensed dealer
- encouraging doctors to discuss gun safety to their patients and encourage them to report people they think are at risk of throwing a wobbly
- waiting periods for gun purchased of a couple of weeks, to discourage impulse purchases
- guns in households with children need to be locked up
- compulsory firearms safety course: you can buy a gun without one most places
AJL308 said:
you just have to look at their border controls and the 'war' on terrorism to see that
You mean like the thousands of miles of unfenced border with Canada and the porus Mexian border which is so lax there are a million or two Mexican living illegally in the US, which nobody is doing anything about and the millions of immigrants and refugees they have taken over the last century?anonymous said:
[redacted]
Whe we talk in relation to normal well-adjusted a rational individuals with social lives, girlfriends and drinking buddies that's probably true.I think today though that it is easier than it' ever been for the marginalised and mentally mal-adjusted to hide from society and live on a constant diet of violence and unusual activities to t extent that they never see the 'real' word an how it and those in it function.
Something is causing young men (mostly) to go on killing rampages and it isn't simply that they had access to a gun. Guns have always bee been a part of American society but gun rampages are a relatively new phenomenon.
I don' know whether it's to do with this sort of thing, I really don't, but it's not an unreasonable proposition to investigate it, surely?
To the best of my knowledge, at this point in time, a medical practitioner may not ask a patient if they have access to firearms. That needs to change.
In another extreme, a colleague of my daughters - a Sheriffs Deputy with an impeccable record in the agency went through a particularly nasty divorce and custody battle, where his wife called his own agency and stated that he had told her that if she stopped him from seeing his kids, he would kill them and himself. He was arrested that same day, suspended from duty and had all of his weapons confiscated.
A medical professional may not question a mentally unstable patient's access to guns, but a spiteful ex-wife of a cop can get him disarmed and suspended in a matter of hours. It's fixing stuff like this that could begin to make some difference.
In another extreme, a colleague of my daughters - a Sheriffs Deputy with an impeccable record in the agency went through a particularly nasty divorce and custody battle, where his wife called his own agency and stated that he had told her that if she stopped him from seeing his kids, he would kill them and himself. He was arrested that same day, suspended from duty and had all of his weapons confiscated.
A medical professional may not question a mentally unstable patient's access to guns, but a spiteful ex-wife of a cop can get him disarmed and suspended in a matter of hours. It's fixing stuff like this that could begin to make some difference.
Fishtigua said:
Not the Govt, it's the Senate and Congressmen that are bought. The ones who make or even dilute any Gun Laws.
The whole wretched political system is hung upon cash donors, very little moves without money or the 'Will of God'.
I don't really buy that. Take Texas or Arizona, for instance. You don't get to be a serious politician in Texas without being pro-gun from the outset. If you aren't pro-gun then you are won't be a politician in Texas, by and large. If you sway from being pro-gun after having been elected then you won't have a very long political career thereafter. There is very little reason to pay politicians to be pro-gun.The whole wretched political system is hung upon cash donors, very little moves without money or the 'Will of God'.
On the other hand; if this is really true then why don't the anti-gun lobby do the same? We are told that roughly 50% of the US population want stricter gun controls, even if only a little bit stricter. So why not pay-off some politicians?
American gun laws, America's health care system and America's attitude as to how your treat others who are a bit different to what is considered 'normal' are the way they are because, on balance, that is the way the American people want it and their elected representatives do exactly what their electorate want them to do.
creampuff said:
Sway said:
Why difficult to implement? The law is the law. Notified and implemented, with the typical MO of American police, I wouldn't want to 'try it on' because I believe my rights have been restricted.
As with many changes to inherent societal norms, there's a transition period. I remember seatbelt laws coming in - queue plenty of people saying that they'll never follow it. Reports that police feel it's impossible to police. Then, a few months down the line no-one thinks twice and it's become the new norm.
I'm no constitutional expert, but I'm 100% sure this would end up in the Supreme Court and I'm reasonably sure it would be found to be unconstitutional. You would be severely restricting the utility value of guns, which is a guaranteed right in the constition. Even the UK has no laws anywhere near this strict; it's a non-starter. As with many changes to inherent societal norms, there's a transition period. I remember seatbelt laws coming in - queue plenty of people saying that they'll never follow it. Reports that police feel it's impossible to police. Then, a few months down the line no-one thinks twice and it's become the new norm.
Seatbelts are pretty easy to put on and have an obvious safety value. Criminalising people who take their gun out of the has has no utility or safety value, severely limits what you can do with them and is a major PITA. Nobody would wear it.
The stuff would work is actually really simple:
- background checks for everybody: it is still possible to buy a gun with no background check
- every private gun sale needs to go through a federally licensed dealer
- encouraging doctors to discuss gun safety to their patients and encourage them to report people they think are at risk of throwing a wobbly
- waiting periods for gun purchased of a couple of weeks, to discourage impulse purchases
- guns in households with children need to be locked up
- compulsory firearms safety course: you can buy a gun without one most places
How can you be this stupid and still use a keyboard?
petrolsniffer said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841
WTF?!
I know it would be a long hard battle and pro gunners will think its the beginning of the end but at least have some laws of how people are storing and securing their weapons.
I think that this was one of the things that Obama tried to get passed and it's something the firearms industry should have stood behind and could have done easily. Having said that I don't know that they actually opposed it.WTF?!
I know it would be a long hard battle and pro gunners will think its the beginning of the end but at least have some laws of how people are storing and securing their weapons.
Locking up a gun when it's not actually in use is a pretty basic precaution and doing so doesn't in any way negate your Second Amendment rights. Neither does it mean you can't still use a gun for whatever lawful purpose you choose.
Matt Harper said:
VX Foxy said:
Matt Harper said:
Sounds like you've got it all figured out and the rest of us are just to dumb to "get it". Please enlighten me with your solution.
- too
I notice you still haven't provided us with the magic practical and workable answer to the problem, so I'll ask again.......
Apparently, mass shootings are not caused by limited gun control, but by the loneliness of the teenage geek, cruelly shunned by the Chads and Staceys of High School, USA.
In the UK, we deal with estranged male adolescent loneliness by allowing people free access to The Smiths, The Cure (possibly even Joy Division in the most severe cases), Warhammer 40K, and the ability to write poetry as to "why the girls don't like them" in the privacy of their own rooms. OK, the poetry's abysmal, but no-one has died from it (yet).
In the UK, we deal with estranged male adolescent loneliness by allowing people free access to The Smiths, The Cure (possibly even Joy Division in the most severe cases), Warhammer 40K, and the ability to write poetry as to "why the girls don't like them" in the privacy of their own rooms. OK, the poetry's abysmal, but no-one has died from it (yet).
AJL308 said:
Whe we talk in relation to normal well-adjusted a rational individuals with social lives, girlfriends and drinking buddies that's probably true.
I think today though that it is easier than it' ever been for the marginalised and mentally mal-adjusted to hide from society and live on a constant diet of violence and unusual activities to t extent that they never see the 'real' word an how it and those in it function.
Something is causing young men (mostly) to go on killing rampages and it isn't simply that they had access to a gun. Guns have always bee been a part of American society but gun rampages are a relatively new phenomenon.
I don' know whether it's to do with this sort of thing, I really don't, but it's not an unreasonable proposition to investigate it, surely?
I actually think the frightening thing about America's obsession with guns is how long this has been going on...I think today though that it is easier than it' ever been for the marginalised and mentally mal-adjusted to hide from society and live on a constant diet of violence and unusual activities to t extent that they never see the 'real' word an how it and those in it function.
Something is causing young men (mostly) to go on killing rampages and it isn't simply that they had access to a gun. Guns have always bee been a part of American society but gun rampages are a relatively new phenomenon.
I don' know whether it's to do with this sort of thing, I really don't, but it's not an unreasonable proposition to investigate it, surely?
The list of school shootings makes chilling reading, the violence occurs as early as the late 1800s and just continues solidly to present day...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shoot...
WinstonWolf said:
No safety value aside from the 400,000 gun deaths since 2001?
How can you be this stupid and still use a keyboard?
So what you are saying is you like the proposal above to only allow guns in houses and prohibit them from being taken outside. Somebody who has lost the plot and got their gun to kill every single mofo, will now not do it because your new law which prohibits other ordinary people from taking their gun out of the house and down to the range in their car to shoot at some paper targets. The crazy dude who has now got their gun which is now illegal to possess out of the house, isn't afraid to shoot every single mofo stone dead , but they really don't want to break the new law about not taking your guns outside, so they will just stay home instead. And I'm the stupid one?How can you be this stupid and still use a keyboard?
Edited by creampuff on Tuesday 6th October 22:51
longblackcoat said:
Presumably the 11 year old was keeping America safe for American puppies.
The truly horrific thing is that people - mostly Americans - assert that they need to have handguns available for personal protection purposes, and that's why they're not always locked away. In that case, they should be with the owner at all times (a) because if there really is a threat they're going to need it (b) to stop 11 year old boys from getting their hands on them and shooting their neighbour over a puppy.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Sure. But people with guns tend to kill more than people without guns.
It wasn't a handgun according to the article. It was a shotgun.The truly horrific thing is that people - mostly Americans - assert that they need to have handguns available for personal protection purposes, and that's why they're not always locked away. In that case, they should be with the owner at all times (a) because if there really is a threat they're going to need it (b) to stop 11 year old boys from getting their hands on them and shooting their neighbour over a puppy.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Sure. But people with guns tend to kill more than people without guns.
Totally agree though that there is no excuse for not locking guns away when you aren't actually using them. It puzzles me why Obama never got that passed as I'm not aware that there was any huge objection to it. Then again, I'm sure there are all sorts of other crimes that the owner of the gun committed in allowing it to come into possession of an unsupervised 11 year-old and if that's the case then why would you assume that he would adhere to a safe storage law?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff