Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Pretty much. All the crimes that are committed with gun are already illegal. The money that is spent on trying to restrict access by law abiding citizens would be better spent on mental health awareness/treatment and stopping root causes of crimes. The fact that someone makes the decision to commit a crime is the issue, not the means by which it is committed.

Also, someone will call that an assault rifle soon.

I wonder how much of a root cause lack of mental health care is though. I would think that poverty is probably the biggest factor and wealth redistribution will never happen short of an all out revolution, which of course will likely involve a lot of guns.

I think the only thing to do at this point is go all out on taking guns off the street and changing gun laws. Reallocate resources from the war on drugs, and focus more on guns. It's probably hopeless either way though.

[indes]

Originally Posted by MattyC

In doing so, they restricted the existing rights and freedoms of the slave owners.

I guess it depends on where you lie between freedom and security. I do see where you're coming from but we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by indes

I guess it depends on where you lie between freedom and security. I do see where you're coming from but we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yeah it's true. For me the issue ultimately comes down to (using 'you' in the general sense):

Does your right to have a gun on your person at all times (really regardless of the type) supersede my right to feel safe in a public place?

I would say no, not even close. Gun advocates would likely argue that them having a gun makes everyone else safer because they can take out the bad guys, but there are a block of swiss cheese's worth of holes in the line of logic.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I wonder how much of a root cause lack of mental health care is though. I would think that poverty is probably the biggest factor and wealth redistribution will never happen short of an all out revolution, which of course will likely involve a lot of guns.

I think the only thing to do at this point is go all out on taking guns off the street and changing gun laws. Reallocate resources from the war on drugs, and focus more on guns. It's probably hopeless either way though.

The root cause of suicides and most of the mass shootings is probably lack of diagnosis, treatment and support for people struggling with mental health issues.

I don't think anyone would have an issue with the police or government putting a program in place that takes guns out of the hands of criminals and off the streets. The problem is that you can't legislate guns away from criminals, who by definition would not follow a ban or restrictions place on firearms by a law.

If all the effort that goes into trying to restrict a magazine capacity or making something harder to get because it's black and has a pistol grip went into taking guns away from criminals, it would do a lot more good. Because at the end of the day, the only person who is impacted by a law requiring a mag to be pinned at 10 instead of 15 or 17 is the law abiding citizen, the criminal with the same gun doesn't care about that law and the fact that it is illegal won't affect his decision to use a "prohibited" magazine.

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah it's true. For me the issue ultimately comes down to (using 'you' in the general sense):

Does your right to have a gun on your person at all times (really regardless of the type) supersede my right to feel safe in a public place?

I would say no, not even close. Gun advocates would likely argue that them having a gun makes everyone else safer because they can take out the bad guys, but there are a block of swiss cheese's worth of holes in the line of logic.

The problem is that there is no right to "feel safe" in a public place. Imagine trying to legislate that, it would be impossible since you can't define "feeling safe" for 100% of the population.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The root cause of suicides and most of the mass shootings is probably lack of diagnosis, treatment and support for people struggling with mental health issues.

Suicides? Yes. Shootings? You're barking up the wrong tree. Big time

I don't think anyone would have an issue with the police or government putting a program in place that takes guns out of the hands of criminals and off the streets. The problem is that you can't legislate guns away from criminals, who by definition would not follow a ban or restrictions place on firearms by a law.

This argument is silly. If there's less guns, less guns get into the hands of criminals. Almost every "illegally obtained" guns were legally obtained first. This argument is such a cop out.

If all the effort that goes into trying to restrict a magazine capacity or making something harder to get because it's black and has a pistol grip went into taking guns away from criminals, it would do a lot more good. Because at the end of the day, the only person who is impacted by a law requiring a mag to be pinned at 10 instead of 15 or 17 is the law abiding citizen, the criminal with the same gun doesn't care about that law and the fact that it is illegal won't affect his decision to use a "prohibited" magazine.

Once again, most shootings are crimes of passion. I agree with you though that ours not enough, but stricter restrictions would solve more problems than ambiguously asking criminals for their guns.

The problem is that the right to bear arms in enshrined in the constitution. As far as I know, there is no amendment that guarantees everyone the right to "feel safe" in a public setting. Imagine the trainwreck that would ensue if you tried to have that kind of amendment, there would be constant issues since everyone's definition of feeling safe is different.

Prohibition was "enshrined" in the constitution but that was changed. Why is the constitution uneditable?????? What a silly thing to use in an argument.

"We need to change the laws"
"You can't, it's the law"
"Umm, OK. Let's change it"

[nik-]

I'll never cease to be amazed at the absolute refusal of some to even accept that less easy access to a tool that kills easily will result in less deaths.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If all the effort that goes into trying to restrict a magazine capacity or making something harder to get because it's black and has a pistol grip went into taking guns away from criminals, it would do a lot more good. Because at the end of the day, the only person who is impacted by a law requiring a mag to be pinned at 10 instead of 15 or 17 is the law abiding citizen, the criminal with the same gun doesn't care about that law and the fact that it is illegal won't affect his decision to use a "prohibited" magazine.

Maybe they should just restrict the import and/or manufacture of such weapons? You can't know who the criminals are, and who they aren't. And who's not a criminal but may become one after they snap and pull a gun on someone else. At a certain point you have to draw a hard line. And I really don't understand how people can't see that a hard line is needed after all the violence that has been happening. Everyone on the outside of the US is going "WTF are you people doing?"

To make a very tame analogy, the puck over the glass rule in the NHL. Some people like it. A lot of people hate it. But there was a problem with a select few people that were doing it on purpose, so now you have to punish everyone, even those who do it accidentally. Sorry, you've been given grace on the matter and it's been taken advantage of. We all have to follow speed limits because it's deemed too dangerous to drive faster. Does that mean that everyone driving fast is going to cause an accident? No, but we still have to follow the rules.

Now you've given up the right to regulate yourselves because you obviously can't. The world is absolutely littered with rules that are in place simply because a few idiots ruin it for everyone.

The problem is that there is no right to "feel safe" in a public place. Imagine trying to legislate that, it would be impossible since you can't define "feeling safe" for 100% of the population.

Yeah I dunno, I've never read through the whole constitution, but I'm sure acting in accordance and respect for public safety falls under some part of it. Is there some precedent for suing the government for not acting in the best interest of the population? Maybe that's the way this needs to go to force a new amendment. How can allowing unmarked people to carry weapons that can be used to kill multiple people in a matter of seconds be in the best interest of the vast majority of citizens? How is a non-gun nut supposed to know whether this person is just a law abiding citizen carrying their god-given right to shoot s*** or just a guy that's about to open fire in a public place? I really have a difficult time figuring out how ANYONE could think that is OK.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Pretty much. All the crimes that are committed with gun are already illegal. The money that is spent on trying to restrict access by law abiding citizens would be better spent on mental health awareness/treatment and stopping root causes of crimes. The fact that someone makes the decision to commit a crime is the issue, not the means by which it is committed.

Also, someone will call that an assault rifle soon.

Even if we separate the tool from the crime (which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because you can cause a far higher degree of crime with a gun than without one), we all know for a fact that the pro-gun camp is also usually the same group crying out against government spending on social programs. Your proposal just doesn't add up.

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by indes

I'm just not sure how they could change the law in an effective manner. I agree something should be done but have no idea what they could do short of banning non hunting specific rifles, which they wouldn't do because of the uproar it would cause. I'm just trying to point out that here in Canada I can go buy an AR-15 with my restricted license that is easily obtained. I can drive around with this in my truck;


I'm not sure changing the ease of getting these guns is going to stop the shootings. I think it will have to be done through education and awareness. Again just not sure how this is accomplished.

My understanding is they have to be in a locked container (hard to break into non see through container) separate from the ammo as well as trigger locked. So, yes, you can drive around with it in your truck if you are going to a certified gun range or smith but otherwise...

And all that sounds perfectly logical to me and should be like that everywhere.

[JJolg]

Originally Posted by indes

I'm just not sure how they could change the law in an effective manner. I agree something should be done but have no idea what they could do short of banning non hunting specific rifles, which they wouldn't do because of the uproar it would cause. I'm just trying to point out that here in Canada I can go buy an AR-15 with my restricted license that is easily obtained. I can drive around with this in my truck;


I'm not sure changing the ease of getting these guns is going to stop the shootings. I think it will have to be done through education and awareness. Again just not sure how this is accomplished.

While not difficult with a little studying the restricted exam is a bit more difficult than the non-restricted. However to own the Ar-15 your going to need to belong to a gun range, and you cannot transport it in your vehicle unless you are going to the said approved range and cannot use it anywhere but. And as noted the restricted if you are transporting needs to be encased and trigger locked unlike the non-restricted which just need to be unloaded.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Pretty much. All the crimes that are committed with gun are already illegal. The money that is spent on trying to restrict access by law abiding citizens would be better spent on mental health awareness/treatment and stopping root causes of crimes. The fact that someone makes the decision to commit a crime is the issue, not the means by which it is committed.

Also, someone will call that an assault rifle soon.

1) Not everyone who shoots another person is crazy. Some of them have a quick, hot temper, and in the heat of the moment they take another person's life. These are not always criminals, plenty of these people are "law abiding citizens."
2) What of the idea of a law requiring a mental health examination before obtaining access to a gun? That addresses the issue of mental health awareness while still allowing "law abiding citizens" to get firearms, they just have to jump through another hoop.

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The root cause of suicides and most of the mass shootings is probably lack of diagnosis, treatment and support for people struggling with mental health issues.

What about the root cause of accidental deaths from firearms? Or a man who thinks his wife is cheating and takes out her and the guy he thinks she's cheating with? Mental health diagnoses aren't going to stop Heat Of The Moment crimes, nor are they going to keep someone's 4 year old from finding a gun and killing themselves or a friend/sibling/cousin.

I don't think anyone would have an issue with the police or government putting a program in place that takes guns out of the hands of criminals and off the streets. The problem is that you can't legislate guns away from criminals, who by definition would not follow a ban or restrictions place on firearms by a law.

But if you require legal weapons to be annually registered to a specific owner--if that weapon goes missing, let's make a law that punishes the person if that weapon is later used in a crime. If you can't properly store and lock up your weapons and it ends up on the street--you're part of the problem, obviously, so you should face some sort of fine or penalty.

That helps keep guns with their legal owners, because if you're going to be fined for being careless with your weapon, far fewer weapons are going to end up on the streets with people who aren't legal owners.

If all the effort that goes into trying to restrict a magazine capacity or making something harder to get because it's black and has a pistol grip went into taking guns away from criminals, it would do a lot more good. Because at the end of the day, the only person who is impacted by a law requiring a mag to be pinned at 10 instead of 15 or 17 is the law abiding citizen, the criminal with the same gun doesn't care about that law and the fact that it is illegal won't affect his decision to use a "prohibited" magazine.

If all the effort that goes into whining about whether or not a semi-automatic weapon is an assault rifle or not went into instead concocting logical, sane, basic gun control laws, none of this would be an issue.

Registration, mental health checks, education on how to use/clean firearms, laws about storage, etc. None of these ideas are going to keep weapons away from law abiding citizens, but they'd all go a long way in preventing a whole lot of the gun crime that plagues the US in ways it doesn't plague other first world nations.

The problem is that there is no right to "feel safe" in a public place. Imagine trying to legislate that, it would be impossible since you can't define "feeling safe" for 100% of the population.

And yet there are "stand your ground" laws which basically give a citizen a license to kill if they feel their life is threatened in any way.

There is a "right to happiness" in the US, and I can safely say that stronger gun laws would make me feel a whole lot safer, and thus, happier.

[Street Pharmacist]

Mental health exams are a red herring here

[RyZ]

Looks like another movie theater shooting tonight. This time in Lousianna

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0PY04J20150724

[Resolute 14]

Buy more guns, America. That will make you safe!

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Honest & serious question:

If rifles are not problem (auto, semi-auto, assault, etc) then why are semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15 allowed (in most states), but a fully auto assault rifle like the M16 is completely banned (in all states)? Do you agree that the M16 should be banned, or is than an infringement on rights?

In my mind, a semi-auto AR-15 is just as dangerous to public safety as the M16, since only the rate of fire is different. Lo, some people would claim the AR-15 is MORE dangerous since there are claims that auto weapons with the "3 round burst" are harder to control/aim.

If banning an M16 is not an infringement on rights, why not ban the AR-15 as well?

Neither weapon is a significant danger to public safety. Handguns are the major public-safety issue.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by driveway

Neither weapon is a significant danger to public safety. Handguns are the major public-safety issue.

12 dead in Aurora where the majority rounds fired were from a rifle.

28 dead at Sandy Hook, majority of rounds fired from a rifle.

Just playing devil's advocate.

[GreenLantern2814]

I can't keep coming back to this thread, seeing new horrific tragedies that irrevocably ruin the lives of everyone who was lucky enough to not be senselessly murdered, and reading the same stupid arguments about why any preventative measure is worthless.

Good luck with this ####, America. If you ever get it sorted out, I'll come visit. In the meantime, try not to execute my whole hockey team next time they tour Mall of America. Jesus ####ing Christ.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I can't keep coming back to this thread, seeing new horrific tragedies that irrevocably ruin the lives of everyone who was lucky enough to not be senselessly murdered, and reading the same stupid arguments about why any preventative measure is worthless.

Good luck with this ####, America. If you ever get it sorted out, I'll come visit. In the meantime, try not to execute my whole hockey team next time they tour Mall of America. Jesus ####ing Christ.

America frustrates me beyond belief. And before American posters say Canadians being asnti-American is just as annoying, that's not where these comments come from.

It's because we like you that we get so pissed off, if we hated your people and country like a lot of you seem to think, then we'd just laugh and not really spend much time speaking to the issues.

We get upset and sarcastic because you're our best friends in the world and we want to see you get better and be an amazing country. You've got so much potential as a country, but as a whole you guys just simply refuse to work together and do what it takes to move into even the 21st century.

[Acey]

It's almost better for Americans when it's a race fueled crime or something else such, then they don't have to talk about the actual issue which is the absurd number of gun crimes. They can say "he would have killed a bunch of black people by some other means, his heart was full of hate" (Charleston) or "his mental illness would have eventually led to some other catastrophe" (Virginia Tech) or "he was a troubled child and there was no saving him" (Sandy Hook)

[jayswin]

It's truly unbelievable. And to be honest as much as moderate Americans point to the crazy Americans and go "well don't look at us, they're the problem". Well great, but as moderate Americans you have a duty to take it to the next level to create the changes you want.

If you're a moderate American, how about try being more Canadian in your hatred of guns. When you say you hate gun crimes and then turn around and defend guns because that's just the way it's always been then don't go crying when these tragedies continue to mount at an astonishing rate in a so called first world country.

Moderate Americans remind me of that Russell Peters joke about white parents and his astonishment at going to his white friends house, hearing his buddy tell his mom to **** off then his mom putting on a scrunchy, smily face and saying "what am I going to do with him?".