I'm not saying that gun control will stop gun violence, what I'm saying is that it might stop these extreme shooting sprees.I severely doubt it, because no matter how tightly you control guns in this country there will be very easy access do to the fact that we have a massive supply of them, and a huge portion of the legal supply and almost all of the illegal supply will remain available even if made illegal. As I said before, a ton of Americans would feel justified in not turning in their guns when ordered and would get away with it, resulting in a black market that is saturated and accessable.Kelsey, you have a vague idea of how many guns were available in Italy at the end of WWII?
We had 3 years of civil war, looting of the army depots when the Meussolini government fell, weapons air drops for the partisans, Fascist soldiers deserting at the end of the war with their weapons, the NATO giving weapons to the Stay behind groups.
The last campaign of: "Give the war weapons to the police, there will be no repercussion" was when I was in the primary school, in 1968 or 69.
In my little village someone dropped a Vickers MG and a few BRENs plus other assorted weapons in a cave and make a anonymous call to the police to avoid any trouble.
It not a question of how many weapons are available, but of the willingness to turn them in and limit their accessibility.
If you never start limiting them you never get to remove most of them.In Italy there are stills criminals that kill people with firearms (too many of them), people that kill friends or family and firearms accidents but killing sprees of this kind are extremely rare.
You had the political will. We don't. We have the exact opposite of the political will. We'd chuck out any politician who tried it.
Over time maybe things could change to where it would work, yes. Right now it's not only suicide, it would fail to work if somehow passed, because a lot of people would feel justified in keeping their guns illegally.
What about in that 20 year period? What then? In fact, will it be 20 years? We have more guns than people here, after all.
But who makes the decision? Who decides who should and should and shouldn't have them. What gives them the right to decide for others who don't trust them with the right to govern others in the first place? You talk of a few making decisions for the many. That's why there is a problem in the first place.
We already have a few people making decisions for the many. That's how laws are written. It's irrelevant if it's a gun law, a car law, or a tax law or any other law. In fact, we already do that with current gun laws. Washington state has laws about people who have been in mental hospitals and their right to carry a weapon. There is also a way to have your right reinstated.
There is a problem in the first place because people take extreme positions and then our elected officials don't think before passing a law. For example, take this current shooting. Let's assume that there was a ban on fully automatic weapons. What would have prevented him from using the other weapons he had with him? Would the tragedy have been any different? The same questions can be asked of the shooting in Colorado at the Batman premiere. The answer is that the laws would not have changed the outcome. So even if there is a legitimate reason to ban fully automatic weapons, using these events shouldn't be used as an argument.
What these events do show us is that there are some people intent on doing harm to others and when they come armed with multiple weapons, they plan on it being a massacre. If we could prevent them from having the weapon in the first place, we would be one step closer to where we need to be. Obviously a law preventing the ownership of a firearm if you are autistic would not have stopped him from stealing his mother's weapons. If we had a better mental health system, we may have been able to prevent him from even wanting to do such a thing.
We all have a different line in the sand as to what we think should be allowed. I'm pretty sure that most people don't think that a rocket launcher should be allowed to civilians just because it's hand-held and therefore you can "bear" it (Justice Scalia has given that as his definition of bearing arms, it must be something you can carry).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that gun control will stop gun violence, what I'm saying is that it might stop these extreme shooting sprees.I severely doubt it, because no matter how tightly you control guns in this country there will be very easy access do to the fact that we have a massive supply of them, and a huge portion of the legal supply and almost all of the illegal supply will remain available even if made illegal. As I said before, a ton of Americans would feel justified in not turning in their guns when ordered and would get away with it, resulting in a black market that is saturated and accessable.
I disagree. If we forced people to obtain licenses to own firearms, brought back waiting periods on purchases, created special licenses to obtain firearms designed for killing people that required psychiatric evaluation of the licensee and the people living under their roofs, I think we would see a dramatic drop in the number of mass shootings and the number of people killed in mass shootings. Almost every time one of these mass shootings occur the gunman gets their guns legally or from family members.
If I snapped and began to plan a mass shooting, I wouldn't know where to begin to obtain a gun illegally. It would still take time for me to figure it out. Maybe if enough time had passed I would change my mind, inadvertently alert a friend or family member who would report me, or get back on my meds. But since I can walk 1 mile to the gun store and purchase whichever firearms I want and be at the nearest school in under 30 minutes I wouldn't have the time to change my mind, reveal my plans to a friend or family member, or to get back on my meds.
I have 1 firearm. I would be quite happy to obtain a license to own it and have a psychiatric evaluation. I wouldn't mind waiting periods. I don't need to carry a concealed weapon away from my home. My firearm is locked away in my bedroom. My wife and I are the only ones that can gain access to it. My family knows that if someone breaks into my house that everyone should come to our bedroom where we will barricade ourselves in and call the police. The only time I would attempt to use the weapon is if the perpetrator begins busting down our bedroom door. I would guess that my dogs would be a bigger deterrent.
I think a complete ban of firearms would be ideal but impossible to implement in the USA because of the number of guns that are already here. My family plans on moving to a country where it is illegal to own firearms as soon as I finish grad school. When that happens I will sell my weapon legally.
|
WOuld you support making it extremely difficult to get a car to cut down one of the biggest causes of injury and death in america? Banning dangerous substances like alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy foods?I think we covered this one already Andrew R
While car accidents do claim a lot of lives you'd expect that simply because of how potentially dangerous they are and how prevalent they are in our society. Cars aren't designed to kill though, that's usually something that occurs through misuse, but guns are designed to kill and while we can't stop people from using them for their intended use we may be able to restrict access to the kinds of firearms people can buy.
It has not been "covered" it has been brushed aside, you have NO desire to make things safer at a cost you might feel, only to take from others what you personally dislike.
|
|
WOuld you support making it extremely difficult to get a car to cut down one of the biggest causes of injury and death in america? Banning dangerous substances like alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy foods?I just read an article by Nicholas Kristof in the NY times which said In Australia in 1996 we had a mass shooting which resulted in political courage to impose some restrictions on gun ownership, mostly automatic weapons etc. there was a buy back scheme so they could be handed in. It reduced the number of guns by 20% ( so 80% still out there) but it restricted the type of guns. In the 18 years prior we had 13 mass killings but none in the 14 years since. In addition firearm murder rate down 50% and firearm suicide down 40%.
Worth a try?
We have to have licenses to drive cars, we have to register cars, and we have police monitoring how we use our cars. We have laws that come with severe punishments for driving our cars while under the influence (though they could be more severe) and we have convictions like "manslaughter" for drunk drivers who kill someone with their vehicle.
I would love it if we had that kind of regulation when it came to firearms.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you might get better results by wiping out the first amendment, set up a state church and control all info thus changing the culture. then since we already have the gov interfering in health care we can just make the unstable elements go away after they fail the mandatory tests and because the official morality is not to question we can have a safe, controlled society.
I mean no harm in taking freedoms and all.
Yeah or we could jump to absurd conclusions while ignoring the plethora of examples of countries that do just fine with strict gun control and universal health care.
I disagree. If we forced people to obtain licenses to own firearms, brought back waiting periods on purchases, created special licenses to obtain firearms designed for killing people that required psychiatric evaluation of the licensee and the people living under their roofs, I think we would see a dramatic drop in the number of mass shootings and the number of people killed in mass shootings.I'm not saying that gun control will stop gun violence, what I'm saying is that it might stop these extreme shooting sprees.I severely doubt it, because no matter how tightly you control guns in this country there will be very easy access do to the fact that we have a massive supply of them, and a huge portion of the legal supply and almost all of the illegal supply will remain available even if made illegal. As I said before, a ton of Americans would feel justified in not turning in their guns when ordered and would get away with it, resulting in a black market that is saturated and accessable.
We aren't disagreeing here.
What about in that 20 year period? What then? In fact, will it be 20 years? We have more guns than people here, after all.Who knows? Depends on so many things. And it'll be years before any political movement can overcome the NRA's stranglehold anyway.
So what? It might take awhile. Does that mean we shouldn't get started?
I don't understand the objection.
Let's stop for a second. What exactly are you advocating? I may well have it wrong.
|
|
It has not been "covered" it has been brushed aside, you have NO desire to make things safer at a cost you might feel, only to take from others what you personally dislike.WOuld you support making it extremely difficult to get a car to cut down one of the biggest causes of injury and death in america? Banning dangerous substances like alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy foods?I think we covered this one already Andrew R
While car accidents do claim a lot of lives you'd expect that simply because of how potentially dangerous they are and how prevalent they are in our society. Cars aren't designed to kill though, that's usually something that occurs through misuse, but guns are designed to kill and while we can't stop people from using them for their intended use we may be able to restrict access to the kinds of firearms people can buy.
I have plenty of desire to make everything safer. I seldom drink, I don't smoke, and I drive carefully. In Canada we regulate alcohol and tobacco quite a bit. Motor vehicle deaths are quite high but we've adopted a graduated license program which limits young people's access to when they're allowed to be driving and ensuring that they have an experienced driver with them at all times.
But here's the thing Andrew R: Smokes, booze, cars, not even cheeseburgers killed these poor kids. They were killed by guns at the hands of a mentally deranged individual. Attempting to switch the subject doesn't change these facts. If you want to talk about how we can make everything safe I'd be happy to participate in that conversation.
True.
Ban aircraft then.The weapon of 9-11
|
|
or he would pick another tool
Any other tool would not be as convenient. Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died? A bomb takes planning and forethought and even then there are indicators that someone might be trying to do so - we have government agents who monitor those types of things. A gun can be purchased in under 15 minutes.
|
|
It has not been "covered" it has been brushed aside, you have NO desire to make things safer at a cost you might feel, only to take from others what you personally dislike.WOuld you support making it extremely difficult to get a car to cut down one of the biggest causes of injury and death in america? Banning dangerous substances like alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy foods?I think we covered this one already Andrew R
While car accidents do claim a lot of lives you'd expect that simply because of how potentially dangerous they are and how prevalent they are in our society. Cars aren't designed to kill though, that's usually something that occurs through misuse, but guns are designed to kill and while we can't stop people from using them for their intended use we may be able to restrict access to the kinds of firearms people can buy.
I have plenty of desire to make everything safer. I seldom drink, I don't smoke, and I drive carefully. In Canada we regulate alcohol and tobacco quite a bit. Motor vehicle deaths are quite high but we've adopted a graduated license program which limits young people's access to when they're allowed to be driving and ensuring that they have an experienced driver with them at all times.
But here's the thing Andrew R: Smokes, booze, cars, not even cheeseburgers killed these poor kids. They were killed by guns at the hands of a mentally deranged individual. Attempting to switch the subject doesn't change these facts. If you want to talk about how we can make everything safe I'd be happy to participate in that conversation.
True.
Ban aircraft then.
The weapon of 9-11
Reductio ad absurdum.
We do however have extremely tight regulation when it comes to flying. I have to walk through a scanner that shows an animation of my body and would expose any potential weapons. In order to fly I am forced to give up some of my rights. If I want to get on a plane I am forced to submit to a body search. I can't take certain, seemingly harmless, items on a plane. I always have the choice not to fly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to ban people with serious mental illness from buying or flying planes I'd be down, Andrew.
or he would pick another toolAny other tool would not be as convenient. Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died? A bomb takes planning and forethought and even then there are indicators that someone might be trying to do so - we have government agents who monitor those types of things. A gun can be purchased in under 15 minutes.
http://news.yahoo.com/children-stabbed-attack-chinese-school-084449002.html
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/children-stabbed-attack-chinese-school-084449002.htmlor he would pick another toolAny other tool would not be as convenient. Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died? A bomb takes planning and forethought and even then there are indicators that someone might be trying to do so - we have government agents who monitor those types of things. A gun can be purchased in under 15 minutes.
Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died?
The worst one resulted in 8 deaths. Not more than 20 deaths. That one was unique. The rest of them only resulted in injuries.
http://news.yahoo.com/children-stabbed-attack-chinese-school-084449002.htmlor he would pick another toolAny other tool would not be as convenient. Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died? A bomb takes planning and forethought and even then there are indicators that someone might be trying to do so - we have government agents who monitor those types of things. A gun can be purchased in under 15 minutes.Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died?The worst one resulted in 8 deaths. Not more than 20 deaths. That one was unique. The rest of them only resulted in injuries.
I'm not convinced it's all that unique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/children-stabbed-attack-chinese-school-084449002.htmlor he would pick another toolAny other tool would not be as convenient. Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died? A bomb takes planning and forethought and even then there are indicators that someone might be trying to do so - we have government agents who monitor those types of things. A gun can be purchased in under 15 minutes.Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died?The worst one resulted in 8 deaths. Not more than 20 deaths. That one was unique. The rest of them only resulted in injuries.I'm not convinced it's all that unique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)
Unique in that he killed so many is what I meant. So in 9 separate attacks the death toll added up to less than one mass killing spree in the United States. I guess I am not seeing your point. Perhaps I should clarify mine. My point is that if it is harder to obtain a firearm, and a mass murderer is forced to use an alternative "tool", most likely his success rate will be much lower than if he obtained a gun. I am fairly certain that your wiki link supports that.
So lets put it in perspective. In total, 9 separate mass stabbings resulted in 21 deaths. The Virginia Tech shooting killed 33 people. The Columbine shooting took 15. The Aurora shooting took 12 lives. This recent shooting claimed 26. The number of injuries are also much higher.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why will I be punished?
I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying, honorably-discharged-from-military-service father of two with no criminal record (AT ALL) and no history whatsoever of mental illness, by what right do you tell me that I cannot be trusted?
I own some guns, that I and my son enjoy shooting (it's a bonding thing...). We've never turned our weapons on anything more menacing than a paper zombie, and neither of us have ever broken a law (not even a speeding ticket, man...).
So why am I a dangerous lunatic? If you people get your way, I will lose a right that I have never abused, never once even thought of turning against my fellow man, and have never given anyone at all any justifiable reason to fear. (I've never even hunted an animal with a firearm, and probably never will...in short, I've never spilled blood of any kind with a gun, even in the military.)
I deserve to know why I am unceremoniously lumped in with criminals and lunatics. This is supposed to be America, where I am innocent until proven guilty. I want to know what evidence that you, personally, have obtained against me, personally, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I am a murderer?
Since no one is talking about banning guns, I think you can probably take this rant elsewhere. Maybe to the fictional America in your head where people are actually calling for a ban on firearms. And where calling for gun control is the same thing as calling all gun-owners murderers.
There's no need to be this ridiculous.
Exactly what gun control laws would you say are reasonable?
or he would pick another tool
You mean like the guy in China who attacked 22 kids on Friday with a knife because it's very hard to get ahold of a firearm in China, and only managed to seriously injure four instead of killing all of them?
So yeah, let's have them pick another tool, please.
I'm predicting Andrew R will ignore this post.
http://news.yahoo.com/children-stabbed-attack-chinese-school-084449002.htmlor he would pick another toolAny other tool would not be as convenient. Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died? A bomb takes planning and forethought and even then there are indicators that someone might be trying to do so - we have government agents who monitor those types of things. A gun can be purchased in under 15 minutes.Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died?The worst one resulted in 8 deaths. Not more than 20 deaths. That one was unique. The rest of them only resulted in injuries.I'm not convinced it's all that unique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)
Unique in that he killed so many is what I meant. So in 9 separate attacks the death toll added up to less than one mass killing spree in the United States. I guess I am not seeing your point. Perhaps I should clarify mine. My point is that if it is harder to obtain a firearm, and a mass murderer is forced to use an alternative "tool", most likely his success rate will be much lower than if he obtained a gun. I am fairly certain that your wiki link supports that.
So lets put it in perspective. In total, 9 separate mass stabbings resulted in 21 deaths. The Virginia Tech shooting killed 33 people. The Columbine shooting took 15. The Aurora shooting took 12 lives. This recent shooting claimed 26. The number of injuries are also much higher.
My point is that someone intent on causing harm will do so. We hear about the shootings because they are in America and they hit home. People do go on killing sprees with knives. The problem isn't really the weapon of choice but the person with the weapon. While I still support some level of gun control, I would support a stronger mental health system even more.
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?
What exactly are the sensible gun regulations that people are talking about?
A 14 day waiting period?
A state and federal background check?
A gun safety course before owning a handgun?
An assault weapons ban that specifically lists more than 35 semiautomatic and automatic weapons?The state of Connecticut has all of these and has in fact some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
The fact is this horrible tragedy happened anyway.
So what do we lack in this country that could make a real difference?
Access to affordable medical and psychiatric care would be a good start
We've discussed the idea of requiring a clean mental bill of health for firearm owners and others in the household who would have access. We should already be treating mental health as much of a priority as physical health.
I've heard that China is kind of a big, perhaps even larger then the USA, and also that they may have more people. In two years and at least seven different incidents they only seem to have managed to tie what the good old USA and it's easy access to firearms produced in one horrific instance.
China is a police state with severe restrictions on people's rights and freedoms. I blame the low murder rate on that more so than on what weapons they have lying around.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that someone intent on causing harm will do so. We hear about the shootings because they are in America and they hit home. People do go on killing sprees with knives. The problem isn't really the weapon of choice but the person with the weapon. While I still support some level of gun control, I would support a stronger...http://news.yahoo.com/children-stabbed-attack-chinese-school-084449002.htmlor he would pick another toolAny other tool would not be as convenient. Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died? A bomb takes planning and forethought and even then there are indicators that someone might be trying to do so - we have government agents who monitor those types of things. A gun can be purchased in under 15 minutes.Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing where over 20 people died?The worst one resulted in 8 deaths. Not more than 20 deaths. That one was unique. The rest of them only resulted in injuries.I'm not convinced it's all that unique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)
Unique in that he killed so many is what I meant. So in 9 separate attacks the death toll added up to less than one mass killing spree in the United States. I guess I am not seeing your point. Perhaps I should clarify mine. My point is that if it is harder to obtain a firearm, and a mass murderer is forced to use an alternative "tool", most likely his success rate will be much lower than if he obtained a gun. I am fairly certain that your wiki link supports that.
So lets put it in perspective. In total, 9 separate mass stabbings resulted in 21 deaths. The Virginia Tech shooting killed 33 people. The Columbine shooting took 15. The Aurora shooting took 12 lives. This recent shooting claimed 26. The number of injuries are also much higher.
But surely you realize that it absolutely DOES matter which tool they obtain to use in a mass killing. I mean, I am not saying that tighter gun control will reduce mass killings, but ALL the evidence shows that it will reduce the number of people affected by it.
I don't see why we can't have tighter gun control and better access to mental health treatment. It isn't one or the other. Even if you had better mental health treatment, people would slip through the cracks. When that happens I would much rather prefer them attempt a mass killing with a knife as opposed to a high capacity semi-automatic rifle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?
Restricting firearms ownership to those of sound mind would unquestionably make the country safer. The fact that the type of murder that is spurring this to action makes up a small percentage of overall murders is not important. Something needed to provide the impetus.
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?Restricting firearms ownership to those of sound mind would unquestionably make the country safer.
Can't argue with that.
The fact that the type of murder that is spurring this to action makes up a small percentage of overall murders is not important. Something needed to provide the impetus.
It just seems that we're throwing around who has more and less such incidents around quite a bit here. It seems like more of a "what will reduce massacres" argument that a "what will reduce murders" argument, and I'd much rather reduce murder in general.
My point is that someone intent on causing harm will do so. We hear about the shootings because they are in America and they hit home. People do go on killing sprees with knives. The problem isn't really the weapon of choice but the person with the weapon. While I still support some level of gun control, I would support a stronger mental health system even more.Unique in that he killed so many is what I meant. So in 9 separate attacks the death toll added up to less than one mass killing spree in the United States. I guess I am not seeing your point. Perhaps I should clarify mine. My point is that if it is harder to obtain a firearm, and a mass murderer is forced to use an alternative "tool", most likely his success rate will be much lower than if he obtained a gun. I am fairly certain that your wiki link supports that.
So lets put it in perspective. In total, 9 separate mass stabbings resulted in 21 deaths. The Virginia Tech shooting killed 33 people. The Columbine shooting took 15. The Aurora shooting took 12 lives. This recent shooting claimed 26. The number of injuries are also much higher.
But access to easier deadlier weapons makes it easier to kill more people. If the weapons don't matter, only the intent, why not allow nuclear weapons or even just conventional military explosives with the same restrictions as knives or rocks. After all, if someone wants to cause harm they'll do so. It doesn't matter what they use to do it.
Except that some weapons let them be much more successful.
I'm pretty sure I said I support some level of gun control...let me go back and check...there it is! I bolded it for you.
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?Yes. Different types of crimes require different approaches.
Mass killings need to be addressed differently than domestic violence murders which need to be addressed differently than gang violence, etc.
Yes, but the policies put in place regarding guns effect every violent crime statistic.
|
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?
All criminal laws (and policies concerning crime)are. Statistically the number of murderer, robbers, muggers etc. in a given population is insignificant. Yet we have and in my opinion should have laws as well as law enforcement dealing with those people.
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?Restricting firearms ownership to those of sound mind would unquestionably make the country safer.Can't argue with that.
The fact that the type of murder that is spurring this to action makes up a small percentage of overall murders is not important. Something needed to provide the impetus.It just seems that we're throwing around who has more and less such incidents around quite a bit here. It seems like more of a "what will reduce massacres" argument that a "what will reduce murders" argument, and I'd much rather reduce murder in general.
Focusing on the latter helps us fix the former, so you're absolutely right.
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?All criminal laws (and policies concerning crime)are. Statistically the number of murderer, robbers, muggers etc. in a given population is insignificant. Yet we have and in my opinion should have laws as well as law enforcement dealing with those people.
Still, basing overall weapons policy on a small minority of crimes is kind of like basing the entire economic policy on oil.
Betts, have you noticed that we agree more than we disagree?
Betts, have you noticed that we agree more than we disagree?
Yes, though frankly that's true of most people. There is very little that your average person disagrees with any other average person on. But the handful of significant issues that people do disagree on is capable of creating all the tension in public discourse that we see. It's important to keep that in mind, even when in passionate disagreement over something. You're arguing over one thing, not everything.
I should note, this cautionary tale applies to me just as readily as everyone else in this thread.