Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Rutuu]

It's their country and they can do anything they want to do. As a Canadian though you can do something...stop visiting till they make the change.

60+million people visit the US every year as tourists...18+million of those visits are by Canadians. Make up a hashtag about gun control/tourism bans till its changed, tweet it, and stop going. With the dollar the way it is you should be visiting Spain instead of California/Arizona anyway. Or just fly right over it to the Caribbean or Mexico.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

or you're sick of grandmas incessant crying so you push her head down in the tub and wait for the thrashing to stop.

I hate to be the Grammar Police, but I just had to point this out. It was the only weird part of this sentence.

[schooner]

Originally Posted by edslunch

What is a handgun or assault rifle a tool for?

This is what I struggle with. I am not a gun person in any way, shape or form. Even something like hunting has no interest to me. However, I can respect that some people like hunting, and have the fire arms to do so. Even using weapons at a gun range, which I also do not have interest in, can be justified as sport.

Handguns and assault rifles have no real purpose to the general public. They are designed to kill people with incredible power and efficiency. I just do not understand what purpose they serve outside of police/military application, where they are being used for that exact purpose of killing people with incredible power and efficiency.

I am not sure what anybody could say to change my opinion on that.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

There is undoubtedly a mess right now in the US. How you fix it, I honestly do not know. I'd love it if people would stop murdering one another at inexplicable rates. (even if those firearm related rates are at the lowest in 30 years) Regardless if its with firearms, knives, bats, fists, or your sick of grandmas incessant crying so you push her head down in the tub and wait for the thrashing to stop. How the murder happens doesn't matter.

Pretty much where your argument (and the general pro gun argument) falls apart. How the murder happens, DOES matter. Baseball bats are used for sports, knives are used to cut things (not people), fists are used to bump when the Flames score, and bathtubs are used to bathe. Guns have one explicit purpose, which is to kill (and target practice is just practicing killing). It is not a tool with any other useful primary purpose. Murderers are much more effective with a gun than anything else you mentioned.

So the first part of finding the solution is to acknowledge that a gun is NOT like any other tool, and must have a special set of rules around owning and operating it. Until Americans acknowledge this simple fact they will get nowhere with common sense gun controls.

[CaptainCrunch]

Guns aren't a tool and its dishonest to say they are. Guns don't help you build or fix anything unless your intention is to build a kill zone or fix your neighbours hash for looking at you funny.

They are a weapon, they are designed to propel a projectile at a lethal rate at a long distance to kill whatever they hit.

You can argue that the average fire arm is a sports accessory for target shooting. But that's not what they're designed for. They are designed to tear the life out of whatever you shoot at.

People might use them for target practice, but that's really training the user for its actual use.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I hate to be the Grammar Police, but I just had to point this out. It was the only weird part of this sentence.

You missed one.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

It's their country and they can do anything they want to do. As a Canadian though you can do something...stop visiting till they make the change.

60+million people visit the US every year as tourists...18+million of those visits are by Canadians. Make up a hashtag about gun control/tourism bans till its changed, tweet it, and stop going. With the dollar the way it is you should be visiting Spain instead of California/Arizona anyway. Or just fly right over it to the Caribbean or Mexico.

I've already told people that I don't want to travel to Florida, where someone can legally shoot me if I look at them wrong.

Extended in my personal travel ban to everywhere in the States might happen shortly. Not really because I think I'm necessarily unsafe, but I think I stand should be made. As a Canadian, it's about the only stand I can make - not spending tourist dollars.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm not a Yank, but here's the thing. And this has been argued ad nauseam in previous pages so I really don't want to go over it all again. And again.

The pandoras box has been opened. No one is going to close the lid on over 300 million firearms in civilians hands, most of which are derived from 200 year old tech. The US have many laws already in place, and they vary by state. The point is, like I said in a earlier post that it's illegal to move firearms from one state into another where they may be prohibited, restricted, or have legislation that dictates you must declare your firearm.

If people do not obey the law, it makes them a criminal. Well durr right?

It's also illegal to murder people.

So go ahead and make firearms illegal. Anyone wanna place bets on how many of those 300+ million show up for a date with the chop saw?

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to what legislation or laws can STOP gun crime, and how to effectively enforce such laws. No one has a solution.

There is undoubtedly a mess right now in the US. How you fix it, I honestly do not know. I'd love it if people would stop murdering one another at inexplicable rates. (even if those firearm related rates are at the lowest in 30 years) Regardless if its with firearms, knives, bats, fists, or your sick of grandmas incessant crying so you push her head down in the tub and wait for the thrashing to stop. How the murder happens doesn't matter.

As it pertains to firearms I wish we could see something happen with actual safety training that is ingrained from the first time a user picks up a firearm. Now this isn't dependent on the state in the US, it's up to the individual. So... how you enforce or make that happen, again I do not know.

The vast majority of firearm owners in the US are no different from anywhere else. The firearm is a tool, is treated with respect and used, stored and cared for with safety in mind.

Firearm safety was pounded into my head ever since I've been but a wee lad and was trusted to go out into the field and clean up gophers with the ol cooey .22.

My experience, I can guarantee was vastly different then say, someone who grew up in the hood. Or where having a loaded firearm laying around in a house with kids is acceptable. Or where "packing a heater" is considered tools for the trade if you are a criminal.

You cannot, and will not, ever legislate personal responsibility. And this is where the problem lies. If someone snaps and decides to go on a rampage, then where and how was the ball dropped? And even though these laws exist in Cali, no one will still face the fact that these people DO NOT GIVE A **** about your laws.

Elliot Rodger owned 2 registered handguns, had 7 police officers come to his house on a violent dispute call. They had every chance to run his name against the registry, collect his guns and leave him with a BMW as his only weapon. He still stabbed his roomates to death, and went on a rampage shooting and running people over with his car. So we need effectual legislation, and effectual enforcement. How we get it, and find that balance between useful controls and respecting individual rights, I really do not know.

It's also illegal to make and posses pipe bombs. Have yet to read any outrage over that.

The problem IMO, is a certain segment of the population that views firearms as something you use for an offensive. Not as a tool.

Not withstanding my arguement that the U.S. is welcome to do what they want the actual how to change things is easy, first you start with an outright ban of the sale and production of whichever class of weapons you want to see gone, I'd ban all handguns and all semi autos myself, if you want a gun learn to shoot a bolt action 3 odd 3 like your grandad did. couple this with regular amnesties for gun owners to hand their guns in and the slow steady, confiscation and general wear and tear on the guns in the population, it would take a few decades but slowly but surely you'd remove them from the population. It's pretty much what they did in the UK.

The only driver for gun production is the legal U.S. market without it there's no money in guns for the manufacturers, Berreta or colt arnt going to produce guns for the illegal market, it's to small, essentially most gun producers would close.

The vast majority of Americans, like Brits and Aussie's don't actually care about the guns themselves they care about the symbolic arguement, given time most will hand them over.

The main thing is it would take decades but the process is simple, I'd agree right now there's no appetite for it now but gun ownership in the U.S. is actually dropping massively, it's turning into a small number of people with a vast number of guns. There may come a time when the U.S. gets sick of the bull####.

[jayswin]

Sorry, been drinking, but it's pretty awful where we're at with mass shootings that 15 people are killed and not only is not in it's own thread, but within a couple hours we're not even discussing the actual event that killed 15 people, we're on to a general discussion about firearms. Incredible when you think about it.

15 years ago, this would be it's own thread and people would be expressing shock and disbelief and trying to piece together the story, Now we're just like "and jump into the standard CP gun debate that we've been through a thousand times!!!!".

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Sorry, been drinking, but it's pretty awful where we're at with mass shootings that 15 people are killed and not only is not in it's own thread, but within a couple hours we're not even discussing the actual event that killed 15 people, we're on to a general discussion about firearms. Incredible when you think about it.

15 years ago, this would be it's own thread and people would be expressing shock and disbelief and trying to piece together the story, Now we're just like "and jump into the standard CP gun debate that we've been through a thousand times!!!!".

It's never really actually real until it hits close to home, eh.

[edslunch]

The thing with gun control is that while it might stop a few impulse crimes it won't stop someone who really wants a gun - there are just too many of them. But I think that misses the real point of gun control, which is to change people's attitudes about guns. I look at cigarettes - they are still legal and only a bit harder to get but decades of increasing regulation and advertising have made them socially unacceptable. Drinking and driving - booze and cars are more available than ever but awareness is through the roof. Wearing seat belts, the list goes on.

A change in societal attitudes over several generations is what it's going to take to get the situation under control. It starts with people standing up and saying THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE and taking real steps, even if they have no immediate effect.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Whoever these people are, we see fit to keep them from even boarding airplanes, but we're fine with them obtaining actual killing machines?

I see that you are either unable or unwilling to answer my question.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

What does "well regulated militia" mean to you?

In and of itself?

Very little.

In the context of the Second Amendment?

I think that it means that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed" in order to create and maintain a "well regulated Militia" should one need to be established in quick order.

Thus, a person has the unfettered right to "keep and bear Arms" so that if the government (or, let's be honest, a group of individuals who wish to revolt against the government) believes that it is necessary to establish a "Militia" in order to maintain a "free State," the "Militia" is already prepared to go to battle. Sure, the "Militia" will be composed of a mismatched assortment of weapons, but, in times of immediate need, who can wait for procurement orders to come in?

Furthermore, and as I recall, when the Second Amendment was passed (and the Constitution in general was adopted), people who were not in any sort of militia certainly owned "Arms," and I am not aware of any legislative or judicial actions that were taken to remove or confiscate such "Arms" from said individuals. In other words, being in a "well regulated Militia" was not a condition precedent to being allowed to "keep and bear Arms."

And so it should remain today, barring any change to the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The Constitution is a living document, that's why amendments have been made to it.

Sure, through the Constitutionally-stated process. Good luck getting an amendment to the Second Amendment done through that same process.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

When the 2nd Amendment was penned, it was still legal to own other human beings. Guns back then took several minutes to load for a single shot.

This is not a "well regulated militia" and the arms they're carrying aren't muskets. The world has changed. The Constitution, and thus the 2nd Amendment, should also be changed.

Sure, and when the First Amendment (and the Constitution itself) was passed, it took days--if not weeks--to publish and widely disseminate information throughout the nation. Consequently, due to the creation of the Internet and the speed at which information can now travel, would you likewise support changes to the First Amendment?

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

What does "as part of a well regulated militia" mean to you?

See above, although I do not believe that the phrase "as part of" appears anywhere in the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

What does "well regulated militia" mean is the more important question.

See above.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm not a Yank, but here's the thing. And this has been argued ad nauseam in previous pages so I really don't want to go over it all again. And again.

The pandoras box has been opened. No one is going to close the lid on over 300 million firearms in civilians hands, most of which are derived from 200 year old tech. The US have many laws already in place, and they vary by state. The point is, like I said in a earlier post that it's illegal to move firearms from one state into another where they may be prohibited, restricted, or have legislation that dictates you must declare your firearm.

If people do not obey the law, it makes them a criminal. Well durr right?

It's also illegal to murder people.

So go ahead and make firearms illegal. Anyone wanna place bets on how many of those 300+ million show up for a date with the chop saw?

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to what legislation or laws can STOP gun crime, and how to effectively enforce such laws. No one has a solution.

There is undoubtedly a mess right now in the US. How you fix it, I honestly do not know. I'd love it if people would stop murdering one another at inexplicable rates. (even if those firearm related rates are at the lowest in 30 years) Regardless if its with firearms, knives, bats, fists, or your sick of grandmas incessant crying so you push her head down in the tub and wait for the thrashing to stop. How the murder happens doesn't matter.

As it pertains to firearms I wish we could see something happen with actual safety training that is ingrained from the first time a user picks up a firearm. Now this isn't dependent on the state in the US, it's up to the individual. So... how you enforce or make that happen, again I do not know.

The vast majority of firearm owners in the US are no different from anywhere else. The firearm is a tool, is treated with respect and used, stored and cared for with safety in mind.

Firearm safety was pounded into my head ever since I've been but a wee lad and was trusted to go out into the field and clean up gophers with the ol cooey .22.

My experience, I can guarantee was vastly different then say, someone who grew up in the hood. Or where having a loaded firearm laying around in a house with kids is acceptable. Or where "packing a heater" is considered tools for the trade if you are a criminal.

You cannot, and will not, ever legislate personal responsibility. And this is where the problem lies. If someone snaps and decides to go on a rampage, then where and how was the ball dropped? And even though these laws exist in Cali, no one will still face the fact that these people DO NOT GIVE A **** about your laws.

Elliot Rodger owned 2 registered handguns, had 7 police officers come to his house on a violent dispute call. They had every chance to run his name against the registry, collect his guns and leave him with a BMW as his only weapon. He still stabbed his roomates to death, and went on a rampage shooting and running people over with his car. So we need effectual legislation, and effectual enforcement. How we get it, and find that balance between useful controls and respecting individual rights, I really do not know.

It's also illegal to make and posses pipe bombs. Have yet to read any outrage over that.

The problem IMO, is a certain segment of the population that views firearms as something you use for an offensive. Not as a tool.

This is actually a very reasonable post, but I have to ask if guns are not the issue, what is? People? We have people in the UK, Canada, etc that don't go on murdering gun sprees to the rate that happens in the US.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm not a Yank, but here's the thing. And this has been argued ad nauseam in previous pages so I really don't want to go over it all again. And again.

Except you do want to go over it all again. And again. And again. It's why you repeatedly continue to aid and abet the mentality that causes things like what happened last night. They pulled the trigger, but people like you are what allows it to happen in the first place.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Sure, through the Constitutionally-stated process. Good luck getting an amendment to the Second Amendment done through that same process.

You are aware that millions of NRA dollars was spent to change the second amendment outside of any constitutional process, right? All they needed to do was buy off enough politicians and judges so that America's "leaders" could redefine the commonly held interpretation of said amendment.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except you do want to go over it all again. And again. And again. It's why you repeatedly continue to aid and abet the mentality that causes things like what happened last night. They pulled the trigger, but people like you are what allows it to happen in the first place.

Do you own a camera?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by schooner

This is what I struggle with. I am not a gun person in any way, shape or form. Even something like hunting has no interest to me. However, I can respect that some people like hunting, and have the fire arms to do so. Even using weapons at a gun range, which I also do not have interest in, can be justified as sport.

Handguns and assault rifles have no real purpose to the general public. They are designed to kill people with incredible power and efficiency. I just do not understand what purpose they serve outside of police/military application, where they are being used for that exact purpose of killing people with incredible power and efficiency.

I am not sure what anybody could say to change my opinion on that.

Addressing the “assault rifle” fallacy first. An assault rifle is not a semi-automatic rifle, which is what has been used by many criminals and subsequently lumped into that category. By definition, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon that fires an intermediate cartridge (Miriam-Webster and US DIA). In order to get an assault rifle in the US, extensive background checks, authorization from local LE, fingerprinting and fees are required. This doesn’t include the generally prohibitive cost and low supply, which can be traced to the 1986 NFA law which heavily regulates FA firearms in the US. In Canada, FA firearms are already classed as prohibited, with no new licenses being issued for possession only, use is already prohibited even for license holders.

Now for the “powerful cartridge” argument. The more common rifles fire a less powerful cartridge than many hunting rifles. AR or similar platform rifles generally fire a 5.56/.223 round, while many “hunting rifles” are chambered for cartridges such as .270, .300, .308. For example, a user of a Daniel Defense M4 (one of the better ARs available) will usually use a 55-62gr 5.56/.223 round; the hunter who is looking to bag an elk might select a 180gr .300 WSM round. There are AR platforms that will use .300 Blackout and .308, but are not as common. So we now have a whole slew of firearms that are more “socially acceptable” due to looks, but use a cartridge with a heavier bullet, higher powder load and deliver more force both at the muzzle and on target (many of which are also semi-auto). That being said, AR style rifles are used to hunt and are quite popular in the US for such uses mainly due to their affordability, light weight and reliability. If Canada did not have the inconsistent classification system that is in place (AR-15 and similar are restricted due to name only), many would be using them to hunt as well.

Handguns are frequently used in competition and for hunting as well. In addition, defending one’s life or the life of another using a firearm is an accepted and legal use in both the US and Canada. While the US has less restrictive carry laws for non-police users, it is possible to carry a handgun explicitly for self-protection in Canada. Again, the rounds fired are smaller, less powerful and have less energy than “hunting” rifle cartridges.

Originally Posted by Rathji

This is actually a very reasonable post, but I have to ask if guns are not the issue, what is? People? We have people in the UK, Canada, etc that don't go on murdering gun sprees to the rate that happens in the US.

Ease of access to mental health care, fewer societal issues and less crime overall. A part of that can be attributed to the licensing system in Canada as well.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are aware that millions of NRA dollars was spent to change the second amendment outside of any constitutional process, right? All they needed to do was buy off enough politicians and judges so that America's "leaders" could redefine the commonly held interpretation of said amendment.

1) Let me know how the NRA was able to "buy off" the judges on the Supreme Court.

2) "Redefin[ing]" the meaning and interpretation of Amendments has been going on ever since the Amendments were passed and adopted. That's part of the political process and speaks to the "living nature" of the Constitution as a whole.

3) Further to point #2, where is your outrage for the "millions" of dollars that have been spent by police unions and surveillance companies to "redefine" the "commonly held interpretation" of the Fourth Amendment?

[PsYcNeT]

Something something average penis size of gun owners something something mid-life crisis something truck nuts

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Do you own a camera?

Cameras have legitimate uses outside of nefarious ones. Guns have very few