ongoing mass shootings thread

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by anitram

I am having a difficult time understanding your position, so I'd like to clarify rather than misunderstand.

Are you in favour of NO restrictions on guns as things are now and only in favour of "preventing/stopping/discouraging" people from using them? I'm not sure what that even amounts to, it's such squishy language. Cognitive/behavioural therapy?

Surely there are reasonably restrictions that can be placed on gun ownership, but if even that is a point that you are not willing to concede on, then I'm not sure what else is left.

Like I said, I don't want to misstate what you've said.

Thank you for your questions.

I think we’ve got to step back and realize the United States has a crime problem, not just a gun crime problem. Compare the United States with India. India has 4X the population, much more severe income inequality, yet a crime rate that is significantly less that the United States. Culturally, we perpetuate or tolerate a way of life that does not strongly oppose crime.

We also have to deal with the cultural difference between the US and the rest of the world when it comes to the origins of our gun culture. Between the sound political basis for the Second Amendment and the expansion across a continent, the idea of a gun in the hands of an individual (as opposed to only government) is deeply rooted in our culture. The culture of the US has changed over time – more so in some areas than other – so I understand why some may not be interested or inclined to ever own a gun or see the need for one.

I’ve never advocated NO gun restrictions. There are gun control laws of various levels throughout the US, many of which make perfect sense. Criminal background checks, requirements for proper storage, reasonable waiting periods all have benefits. A gun control law that promotes sound behavior (like proper storage of a gun, basics of gun handling, etc.) helps anyone who buys a gun properly.

Unfortunately, none of these laws will impact those who do not follow the law. In California, it is illegal to own an automatic or semi-automatic gun. Yet, within a 50 mile radius of where I live, I would bet a year’s salary that you would find plenty of these weapons in the hands of various gangs. Gun laws don’t mean much to the criminal. Enforcement is lax and the deterrent for conviction must be too remote to be effective.

If we are going to impose pain on the citizens of the United States through laws addressing gun crime, I would prefer laws that impose significant pain on those who would misuse guns over laws that impose a lesser degree of pain to everyone in the hopes that it will deter the criminal.

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think considering limiting/banning guns available to the mentally ill falls well short of where we need to be. Lots of reasons, but some being:

1. Does that apply to those who are diagnosed with a mental illness? What about those who haven't sought help or aren't in the system? What's the definition of mental illness that we'll apply to the gun scenario?

2. What about people who don't have a history of mental illness but "snap" in the heat of the moment or are clinically depressed but situationally so, etc?

3. What about those who have no documented history of mental illness but do have a long, documented history of aggression or unstable behaviour?

And even if you take the position that ALL the people who commit mass shootings are mentally ill, those deaths only comprise a small number of the total gun-related fatalities in the USA. The vast majority are committed by criminals, mentally healthy people with no records, domestic abusers, dumb teenagers, etc. and not by a paranoid schizophrenic who finally loses it.

TBH, I don't think you have any hope of any sort of reform. Whoever said that this is just how things are in the US is probably right. Sad, but true.

There are too many guns, too many special interest groups, too many people repeating the "2nd amendment is clear" like lemmings, too many people who seem to be professional contrarians and so on.

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

If you removed 90% of the guns in the US, you would not see a 90% drop in gun crime. The individuals who want to commit a crime using a gun will find a gun.

"(Proposed solution) won't solve the whole of the problem, so it's not worth attempting" is the single worst argument that can be made against that proposed solution.

"It's going to cost a lot of money!" is a close second.

I'm not saying that either of you are, in general, passive towards gun reform (I haven't observed that in this thread), merely that these individual posts have an either/or mentality when I personally believe taking several angles at this problem is more likely to increase safety than settling on one.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

There was, I think two(?) MP's that were armed at the scene, one of which he immediately killed and took his weapon. That's not "many." It's actually "next to none."

So where is the line drawn then? Now there just weren't enough guns? All the arguments after Newton seemed to be, "If only the teachers had had guns, they could have prevented this." Now you're saying that they might as well not have had guns because they were taken unawares and easily disarmed. Should all of the first graders have had guns too? If we all have guns, then and only then can we truly be safe.

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Yet, areas outside of Chicago and DC are not plagued with shootings.

That's a joke...right? Have you been to NW Indiana? I live here, buddy.

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Here is an editorial or list of children’s names (will their pictures be next?)

Yes. Their pictures should be posted all day, every day until something...anything happens to make this stop. I don't ever want to see another child die at the end of a gun. That's not going to happen, but until I actually see someone do something to make it better, keep posting their names, their pictures, the family they've left behind.

It makes me sick to my stomach, really, that you would even be so passe at the posting of their names as though it was just a bit of fluff journalism. It's reality. Those are dead children. Kids who had Christmas presents waiting for them at home. It's never going to go away, it's never going to be ok for those parents and family and friends. It just absolutely kills me that people can look at that list of names and basically say, "So?"

[Headache in a Suitcase]

What I don't get from those who argue against gun control is why there is an issue with a national database, real background checks, registrations, etc. etc.

Most "illegal" guns are legal somewhere in the US. We aren't taking about guys going around with bazookas here. If it wasn't so easy to buy guns in some of these states, there would be less illegal guns on the streets of our cities.

Will any real gun control legislation fully stop gun violence? No, of course not. Especially not at first; there are just too many guns on the street as it is. But in time the numbers will go down as old guns are taken off the streets and new guns become harder to come by.

[Galeongirl]

Why is it even an argument that because not EVERY gun can be confiscated, it shouldn't even be tried to get stricter gun laws?

When a kid can easily get a gun, something's WRONG with your country. If you make it harder for people to get a gun, less gun related crimes will occur. Simple as that. Sure, the big bad guys will still be able to get a gun, but they already can do that now? So if you can prevent a lot of gun related crimes, murders and mass shootings by starting to regulate guns, why the fuck wouldn't you want it?



It's like saying in sports, "oh we can't possibly beat all our opponnents, maybe we should just drop out of the competition"...

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Why is it even an argument that because not EVERY gun can be confiscated, it shouldn't even be tried to get stricter gun laws?

When a kid can easily get a gun, something's WRONG with your country. If you make it harder for people to get a gun, less gun related crimes will occur. Simple as that. Sure, the big bad guys will still be able to get a gun, but they already can do that now? So if you can prevent a lot of gun related crimes, murders and mass shootings by starting to regulate guns, why the fuck wouldn't you want it?



It's like saying in sports, "oh we can't possibly beat all our opponnents, maybe we should just drop out of the competition"...

Exactly. Gun regulation discussion gets really defeatist sometimes.

[LJT]

As I understand it, the right to arms in the States is derived from the wanting to defend against some tyrannical government. Which is daft now because your local armed militia has no hope against the army with the advent drones, guided missiles and the like.

Though I gather that argument is generally at the fringe of things today.

The only thing that greatly makes sense to me, why the US seems to have such a major issue with guns, is the growing income inequality and poverty. If part of your society are falling further into poverty and increasing in number, crime becomes a more attractive lifestyle, gangs provide the security and benefits that any form of government or employment are not currently supporting them with. Guns become your protection when you can't trust the police to provide that. Mental health also gets worse the poorer you are, add in guns, well its a nice wee powder keg you got going there. The more well off then cling to there guns in fear of the poor. I think this is something that may get worse in the future. Violent crime in general is on a downward trend across the US and the rest of the world though, so I could be wrong.

It doesn't necessarily explain the massacres, I'm aware the likes of Adam Lanza came from a relatively well off background. The massacres to me come across more as outliers to a more general problem.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

I'm not saying that either of you are, in general, passive towards gun reform (I haven't observed that in this thread), merely that these individual posts have an either/or mentality when I personally believe taking several angles at this problem is more likely to increase safety than settling on one.

I have no idea how you got that from my post. I didn't make any proposal or suggestion, I just pointed out that mental illness is complicated, as is the diagnosis, so the idea that we can use it as a parameter in gun control is something that has to be thought through very thoroughly. This is a very personal issue to me, because I had a close family member who was a violent paranoid schizophrenic (violent towards herself and others) and she is dead now, successful after many unsuccessful suicide attempts. So I intimately understand what mental illness can do and just how hard it is to draw the line over who is mentally ill, when they are mentally ill and what their rights are as patients when it comes to consent, disclosure of medical information and so on. Nothing either/or about it, in fact, the whole post was precisely about the shades of grey in between.

I have never said either/or - frankly I've given up and flat out stated that I don't think anything will change.

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by anitram

I have no idea how you got that from my post. I didn't make any proposal or suggestion, I just pointed out that mental illness is complicated, as is the diagnosis, so the idea that we can use it as a parameter in gun control is something that has to be thought through very thoroughly.

This is where I lost you, evidently. I took the hesitance as a "don't bother" rather than a "think carefully."

I'm very sorry to hear about your family member, Martina. Part of me feels like I knew that, maybe it came up during one of the countless other mental illness/gun control discussions we've had since last year.

[anitram]

No worries, things get lost in this medium.

My point would be that my aunt was a very clear cut case - a person who, once she was diagnosed, should never have access to guns. Even when she was medicated, she was never stable and you could never count on her to be medically compliant for long.

On the other hand, my husband has a friend who attempted suicide and was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility thereafter. It happened in the immediate aftermath of his wife leaving him. But he received treatment, followed by psychotherapy, some time spent on anti-depressants, etc. It's been almost 5 years and he's a successful professional with a pretty high profile job, etc. So the question would be, when formulating gun control laws around mental illness, what do we do with people like him? He'd have a history of mental illness and even involuntary admission, but is he a threat to himself or to others today? No. Nor was he at any point before that one incident.

These are just hard questions.

[LemonMelon]

My guess is that, if this were to be implemented, the APA would have to leaf through the DSM-5 and cherry pick a handful of mental disorders that could be particularly inclined towards harmful behavior, either suicidal or homicidal (bipolar II, antisocial personality disorder) and, if the person applying for a firearm had a history with that disorder (difficult to do for personality disorders, as many people with them see nothing wrong and never get diagnosed) they would essentially be blacklisted.

The problem with this is that many mental disorders can be treated successfully, and it isn't exactly fair to deprive someone for a disease that is no longer relevant to them.

[Irvine511]

Which is why the issue can only be solved via the regulation of guns. Every gun registered and insured, just like cars. Every owner licensed, just like cars. Mandatory safety features.

I'm about as concerned with inconveniencing gun owners as we have been with smokers. They'll deal with it, and we'll all be a whole lot healthier.

[PhilsFan]

If we regulated cars like we do guns Adam Lanza would have driven a tank through that elementary school.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

If we regulated cars like we do guns Adam Lanza would have driven a tank through that elementary school.

The only thing that stops a bad man with a tank is a good man with a tank.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

The only thing that stops a bad man with a tank is a good man with a tank.

This cracked me up - thanks

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by bono_212

It makes me sick to my stomach, really, that you would even be so passe at the posting of their names as though it was just a bit of fluff journalism. It's reality. Those are dead children. Kids who had Christmas presents waiting for them at home. It's never going to go away, it's never going to be ok for those parents and family and friends. It just absolutely kills me that people can look at that list of names and basically say, "So?"

If you get ill so easily, perhaps you shouldn’t read this discussion. As a parent, and close friend of those who’ve lost their children, I fully understand the tragedy and how it affects the parents and community. And I shouldn’t have to explain that to you to participate in a rational debate on gun control.

As for my prior comment, posting the names of children becomes the emotional putty to fill in the logical gaps in one’s argument. Passing laws that wouldn’t prevent a tragedy and won’t prevent one in the future just to feel better or make a symbolic statement is bad policy. Propose a law that will have clear, direct results and we can have a discussion.

[Irvine511]

if Adam Lanza's mother hadn't been able to purchase a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, those children would be alive today.

this applies to the regulation of ammo as well. in Sandy Hook, Tucson, and VA Tech, people were able to escape (or stop the shooter) when he had to pause to reload.

these are real, clear, actual laws that can be passed. to say nothing has been offered, or that everything that is offered, is a feel-good measure, is to either not read very carefully or to refuse to countenance what is our indirect participation (via supporting of the NRA or the GOP) in these massacres.

As for my prior comment, posting the names of children becomes the emotional putty to fill in the logical gaps in one’s argument.

you mean like bringing up abortion?

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

If you get ill so easily, perhaps you shouldn’t read this discussion. As a parent, and close friend of those who’ve lost their children, I fully understand the tragedy and how it affects the parents and community. And I shouldn’t have to explain that to you to participate in a rational debate on gun control.

As for my prior comment, posting the names of children becomes the emotional putty to fill in the logical gaps in one’s argument. Passing laws that wouldn’t prevent a tragedy and won’t prevent one in the future just to feel better or make a symbolic statement is bad policy. Propose a law that will have clear, direct results and we can have a discussion.

oh bless my little heart, this little lady is just too emotional to continue this conversation. Lord have mercy on her easily upset by death soul.

[Pearl]

Not a mass shooting, but still a shooting:

One Dead in Shooting Near Long Island Mall - WSJ.com

Sang Ho Kim, 64 years old, allegedly walked into Sav Energy at 645 South St., around 10:11 am and shot two employees, police said. The company is located in a single-story commercial building in East Garden City, a half-mile from the mall.
At a news conference, police said they believe Mr. Kim has been working as a vendor to the company, and alleged that he specifically targeted it.

Mr. Kim is from Queens and allegedly has a history with police, a law-enforcement official said.

A law firm that works with mine called about this because their firm is in this building and had to re-scheduled a few meetings.

This is bullshit and is getting more ridiculous by the day. What kind of country are we where we just sit back and let shootings happen because we can't agree on how to solve this problem? And why is defending some amendment more important than defending peoples' lives, and what kind of people are we where we get all condescending and rude to someone who is upset by this epidemic?

Seriously? This is America? Land of freedom? How can anybody say that now?

[Irvine511]

apparently the pain we might cause to gun owners is more important than the pain suffered by people who lose a family member to gun violence.