Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[DuffMan]

26 % of Americans have some form of mental health issues.
So, 26% of how many people x the number of guns - no gun regulations = high chances innocent people are going to die

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

26 % of Americans have some form of mental health issues.
So, 26% of how many people x the number of guns - no gun regulations = high chances innocent people are going to die

Is 26% a corrected number, supported by sources and if so how does that compare to the rest of the "western" world

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is 26% a corrected number, supported by sources and if so how does that compare to the rest of the "western" world

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publi...ca/index.shtml

[ae118]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

26 % of Americans have some form of mental health issues.

So, 26% of how many people x the number of guns - no gun regulations = high chances innocent people are going to die

Let's be careful not to over generalize about people with mental illness though. I get that you're just trying to show risk, but I'm personally not big on the knee-jerk tendency to pin a generalized label of "mental illness" on perpetrators.

All the black and white reasons people tend to come up with after these incidents serve only to distance themselves from the crime and make them feel more comfortable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[undercoverbrother]

PIMking, I will give you this, you are honest, and that I respect.

That being said, you thoughts/beliefs on gun control are sad and frightening.

That little glimpse into you psyche is enough to thank my parents again for picking Canada.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by ae118

All the black and white reasons people tend to come up with after these incidents serve only to distance themselves from the crime and make them feel more comfortable.

Oh I know that, last 4 excuses from the gun nuts.

-video games
-psychotropic drugs(see PIMKing)
-inner city black on black shooting.
-NOT guns.

[Wood]

It all comes down to want vs. need

I never have, and never will need to own a gun. Nobody in North America does. Its a fact now that in the U.S. the bad far outwheighs the good when it comes to gun ownship. Until the mindset of Americans changes though, the senseless mass murders won't slow down

The safety of others > owning any sort of fire arm

[nik-]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Oh I know that, last 4 excuses from the gun nuts.

-video games
-psychotropic drugs(see PIMKing)
-inner city black on black shooting.
-NOT guns.

Well, to be fair, the guns are obviously a major problem, but there's also a serious culture/mentality problem too.

So many other countries have gun ownership at pretty high levels too, without the same issues. There's a lot of class and past policy issues that feed the American gun nightmare.

[Wood]

I should add im not against hunting or owning hunting weapons. Civilized countries have shown that its completely possible to safely distribute guns to people who can handle the responsibility

The U.S. and their culture is the issue. Having a gun shouldn't be a right

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well, to be fair, the guns are obviously a major problem, but there's also a serious culture/mentality problem too.

So many other countries have gun ownership at pretty high levels too, without the same issues. There's a lot of class and past policy issues that feed the American gun nightmare.

true.

If you were steering this towards Switzerland, they cannot take their guns outside their homes now unless they are in the army or in security.

don't forget the NRA when talking about feeding the American gun nightmare. They have been peddling paranoia of both crime, and the govt coming to take your guns for a long time now. Luckily for them they also get money for each gun and box of ammo sold.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

There is a flip side to the coin.

If the US banned guns they would be giving up, they would be giving up an enshrined right that has been upheld since 1791.

Imagine if the Canadian government took away out right to improper search and seizure, using the argument that innocent people have nothing to hide so only the guilty will suffer.

Would we stand for that? It would make the police's job easier and give them a created ability to control and curb crime.

How can a sane and logical society put such an impediment on law enforcement for the safety of the citizens?


I for one would not want to give up that right. I don't do anything wrong, yet I don't need the police to be going through my things if they desire.

Just like a US citizen feels like they shouldn't have to give up their gun because someone else abused their right.

You lose your rights by abusing them, not because others do.


As a Canadian who grew up only ever seeing a gun on the hip of a police officer, I can't say I'm against gun control as I believe in it.

But the more I think of it the more I think gun control is less about guns per say, and about an explicit right being removed because of a (assumingly) small percentage of the population abusing the right.

You wouldn't remove Free Speech because a fraction of the population abused it with hate speech, nor would you remove the right to improper search because getting a warrant is a hassle and could be time consuming.




For me the question is where does the line be drawn?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We need to define Militia, is the right to keep and bear arms dependant on being part of a militia? What people? The ones the drafters were referring to or who we consider people today? What was meant by arms? Could someone in 1791 own cannons? What is the intention of the meaning of arms?

Then again, does arms have to mean fire arms? Could it be a method of defence?

I'm no expert of the US constitution.

I honestly don't think repealing the second amendment is the answer.

I think there are major problems with the US constitution, but I don't know if removing rights is the way to go. Clarifying what a right to keep and bear arms actually means would go a long way.


Additionally if the US was to implement a registry I think the best way would be to grandfather it in.

Once manufactured they are registered. Then the gun is tracked (like a shipping label) to the retailer, who then tracks the owner. Any change of ownership happens the gun must be registered (just like land transactions).

When a gun is used in a crime, it would trigger the search of the residence of the gun owner (unless reported stolen) and the possessor. Any additional guns found in the home are registered.

Anyone convicted of a crime must register all guns.

Retailers would have to keep records of stock (not just quantity but series numbers) and keep the registry up to date.

[CaptainCrunch]

I disagree with your last point.

I think if your convicted of a crime you can't own a gun. Especially if its violent.

I think there can be some leeway in terms of something like shop lifting obviously.

If a gun is used in a crime it triggers a search of the residence of the gun owner, and all guns are seized. If it was stolen and proven that it was improperly stored, then they lose the right to own a fire arm.

I agree with the tracking of guns, that's a solid idea.

On the militia thing, I think all militia's and their members need to be registered, especially if they're gun owners.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think if your convicted of a crime you can't own a gun. Especially if its violent.

I think there can be some leeway in terms of something like shop lifting obviously.

Agree 100%.

And a violent crime while using a gun should also have a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 yrs and being banned from owning guns for life.

There needs to be teeth to gun related laws/punishment.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Until you castrate the ability of lobbyists to influence the Government reform isn't going to happen (unless you decide to play the game and out-lobby and out-fundraise the NRA).

Its crazy to think that financial donors are more important to elected officials than voters...and its getting more entrenched.

Gun reform is going nowhere until that dynamic changes...

[Coach]

I personally just can't get behind the infallibility of the Constitution. Written in 1791 under 1791 social norms and rules by a bunch of people who, while heroes to the American way, lived in ways much different from how we do now and much of the time flew directly in the face of what they claimed to stand for (slavery, treatment of women, treatment of minorities, etc..), not to mention most were barely literate by todays standards.

Coupled with the fact that there are so many hypocrisies between the Constitution and the founding fathers' ideals and what goes on in America today. The influence the financial and energy sectors as well as the media (one way or the other) have in Washington would completely appaul people like Benjamin Franklin. Because of things like this I just can't take the "but it's in the constitution!" argument seriously. So what? Shouldn't "freedom" include the ability to adapt laws and rights based on the changing of society? What is the difference between the US holding steadfast against all things deemed Constitutional, and Muslims refusing to veer from ideolgies laid out in the Quoran? In the end they're both just old pieces of paper.

I understand the need for extensive support and difficulty for constitutional changes, otherwise the rights laid out in it don't mean a whole lot, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that all things written in it aren't subject to change.

[CaptainCrunch]

Someone once said that for the constitution to survive it has to be a living breathing document that can adjust to the times.

Someone else also said that the constitution can't be a suicide pact.

[Street Pharmacist]

There's no such thing as basic human rights outside of what we have made up. The people that wrote the document were not guided by "God" and we're not brighter than policy makers today. Legend and myth have made the document infallible, and it's a shame as I'm sure that isn't what was intended

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I disagree with your last point.

I think if your convicted of a crime you can't own a gun. Especially if its violent.

I think there can be some leeway in terms of something like shop lifting obviously.

If a gun is used in a crime it triggers a search of the residence of the gun owner, and all guns are seized. If it was stolen and proven that it was improperly stored, then they lose the right to own a fire arm.

I agree with the tracking of guns, that's a solid idea.

On the militia thing, I think all militia's and their members need to be registered, especially if they're gun owners.

I kept getting sidetracked writing that post.

I think all sentences should be contextual, with a general range of punishment, renouncement and rehabilitation.

I don't mean if you rob a liquor store all you have to do is register your gun. But that triggers the guns registration not that you necessarily get to keep it. If you live with your parents, your parents guns get registered via your crime (due to the household trigger).

This was just a thought experiment I put no thought into other than when I typed it.

By l means pick it apart or expand I'm curious how the thought might play out.

[DuffMan]

Well, if it's one things Americans have taught me. They love to use guidelines that were written centuries and in some cases millenniums ago, where they are able to interpret the content to fit their needs.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Dion

How do you get criminals to register ther guns?

You don't. But if there are fewer guns available, if guns are properly stored and registered, a lot fewer guns are going to end up stolen/on the black market. Fewer guns=fewer criminals having guns.

People still drive drunk, but does that mean we should do away with DUI laws? You'll never stop ALL of the gun crime, but if you can save a few thousand lives a year, isn't that worth it?

Originally Posted by driveway

Or conversely he was a psychopathic monster who developed a convenient narrative for himself to explain his desire to murder.

This is what gets to me about these mass shootings. When the Boston Marathon bombings happened--all of a sudden anyone with brown skin who was in any crowd shots was assumed to be a terrorist. There was no "poor guy was probably mentally ill and no one paid attention." It was terrorism, period.

If a black man is involved in a driveby shooting, no one cares about his mental health. He's a drug addict/dealer and a thug and gets what he has coming to him.

But a wealthy white kid from the suburbs shoots up a school/movie theater/whatever, no no, he was disturbed, he had mental illness, this poor lonely kid.

He was an evil, spoiled brat who murdered people in cold blood and his actions were every bit as terroristic as the Boston bombings.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

There is a flip side to the coin.

If the US banned guns they would be giving up, they would be giving up an enshrined right that has been upheld since 1791.

Imagine if the Canadian government took away out right to improper search and seizure, using the argument that innocent people have nothing to hide so only the guilty will suffer.

Is improper search/seizure the cause of more than 10K deaths on an annual basis in Canada?

If not, then it's not a valid comparison.