shooting at an oregon community college, at least 10 dead

[ThePhantasm]

How would you even enforce it? Go door to door and check every house for unregistered guns? Its unfeasible.

 

[The Shape]

What would a limit to the amount of weapons accomplish? You can only shoot a max of two at a time anyways.

How would a limit to the amount of weapons hurt or make things worse?

The Aurora shooter had several weapons on him when he re-entered that movie theater. First, he fired a 12-gauge tactical shotgun. When he emptied that, he began to fire a semi-automatic rifle with 100-round magazine. That malfunctioned after he fired a few rounds, so he then moved onto to a Glock handgun he had with him. Many of the mass-shooters seems to carry several guns with them (like this Oregon guy), which means they don't have to waste time reloading one gun and can ultimately cause more damage and not give people the time to rush/tackle them or escape.

Unless you're in the military or fighting off a zombie apocolypse, I fail to see why someone needs to have their own weapons cache of guns of varying degrees of power and size.

 

[Octoberist]

How would you even enforce it? Go door to door and check every house for unregistered guns? Its unfeasible.

So what you're saying is don't have a restriction? You gotta have other suggestions other than countering debates. This is not directed towards you, but I've seen it happen so many times online where people just say 'nah' and then not offer anything counter measurements.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I fail to see why someone needs to have their own weapons cache of guns of varying degrees of power and size.

I would assume for the fun of shooting, which I'm told is a sport.

I'm skeptical that a gun limit would make any difference, or be enforceable.

 

[ThePhantasm]

So what you're saying is don't have a restriction? You gotta have other suggestions other than countering debates.

I don't have a solution. I'm saying the situation with the US is a lot more complicated than say the UK or Australia. One reason for that is the second amendment. Another is the size of the country. Another is the illegal gun trafficking from Mexico. All of those make gun registration, limits, and confiscation either impossible or of negligible effect.

I'm sorry I can't conjure up a quick-fire solution from thin air, but I'm just pointing out the complexity of the problem. Everyone here seems to be saying "oh well the solution is so obvious, why don't these stupid people just do this" and I'm saying well maybe the solution isn't that obvious... at least not to me.

 

[The Shape]

I would assume for the fun of shooting, which I'm told is a sport.

I'm skeptical that a gun limit would make any difference, or be enforceable.

There are thousands of shooting ranges across the country where people can shoot and try all kinds of guns in the presence of trained professionals. I've been to one myself and had the pleasure of shooting a Magnum and M-16, among others.

How could it not be enforceable? It would be just like lines of credit in this country. There needs to be a comprehensive record linked to the SS# of each person. If you already have a big car loan in your name, another bank likely won't give you an additional loan because they can see you already have one on record. If you try to buy a bunch of guns, you will not be legally allowed to because it will be on record that you already have one or two. Quite simple, really.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Maybe once the complexity of the issue is recognized, someone who is more clever than I can articulate a solution that fits the bill.

 

[ThePhantasm]

How could it not be enforceable? It would be just like lines of credit in this country. There needs to be a comprehensive record linked to the SS# of each person. If you already have a big car loan in your name, another bank likely won't give you an additional loan because they can see you already have one on record. If you try to buy a bunch of guns, you will not be legally allowed to because it will be on record that you already have one or two. Quite simple, really.

Because people already own guns. And not everyone is going to volunteer that information for registration. And the only way to find out if they have a gun or not would be to thoroughly search the premises of their house.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't have a solution. I'm saying the situation with the US is a lot more complicated than say the UK or Australia. One reason for that is the second amendment. Another is the size of the country. Another is the illegal gun trafficking from Mexico. All of those make gun registration, limits, and confiscation either impossible or of negligible effect.

I'm sorry I can't conjure up a quick-fire solution from thin air, but I'm just pointing out the complexity of the problem. Everyone here seems to be saying "oh well the solution is so obvious, why don't these stupid people just do this" and I'm saying well maybe the solution isn't that obvious... at least not to me.

So let's do nothing then.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm posting this again.

I'm not anti-gun at all, but I'm down for stricter laws and yet, people STILL go 'uhhh..duuuh' because of their damn hobby or get into these silly theories about how it's not gonna work b/c they want..I don't know what they want. "Statically speaking, so and so counties' crimes didn't go down due to stricter gun laws." Oh poop that.

Then nothing gets done (and probably won't since the NRA owns a part of the government anyway.) The right wing don't have stricter guns laws. Okay, then that it. I'm sick of it.

It's dumb.

 

[ThePhantasm]

So let's do nothing then.

I didn't say do nothing. But recognizing the complexity of the problem is the first step toward a viable solution.

Sorry, I'm just a guy on an internet forum who doesn't pretend to have all the answers.

 

[jmc]

Sure. But you specifically mentioned Australia, which confiscated guns.

Specific types of fire weapons were compulsory acquired, the government reimbursed the gun owners financially, our constitution say the government must provide fair compensation if it is to take something away from someone. You can still get weapons here but you have to go through a series of checks to get a licence, but you can't get the military style guns that you can in the US.

The main difference between Australia and the US is after the Port Arthur massacre in 1997 there was the moral outrage for something to be done, the advantage we had was the local gun lobby here didn't have the voice the one in the US does, as such it was easy for our then conservative government to pass the gun law changes with both sides of politics working together. And they did it in less than 4 months. On top of that, there were politicians who voted to amend gun laws knowing it would cost them their seat in the next election, there was a sense of civic duty by a lot of people during that time, and thankfully they did.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yes, and Australia doesn't have the second amendment, along with the culture of gun ownership that accompanies it.

Believe it or not (and I'm not directing this at you, jmc), not all countries are the same. A solution that worked in one country may not work in another. Or, at least not as easily. That's something we have to recognize here.

 

[Octoberist]

Is there gun owners in the US who are anti-NRA?

 

[ThePhantasm]

Also, I don't really have a dog in the whole Republican/Democrat debate since I'm Scottish and from the UK, but let's not forget a Democrat controlled senate in 2013 couldn't pass expanded gun purchase background checks, etc. And that was with four Republicans siding with them.

Both parties are real good at articulating quick-fire, seemingly simple solutions from the podium, but when it gets down to a vote people tend to realize the problem is more complex than all that.

 

[jmc]

Yes, and Australia doesn't have the second amendment, along with the culture of gun ownership that accompanies it.

Believe it or not (and I'm not directing this at you, jmc), not all countries are the same. A solution that worked in one country may not work in another. Or, at least not as easily. That's something we have to recognize here.

If there's no willingness on the part of the citizen to make some sacrifices then nothing will get done.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Agreed.

 

[The Shape]

Because people already own guns. And not everyone is going to volunteer that information for registration. And the only way to find out if they have a gun or not would be to thoroughly search the premises of their house.

If people in the US aren't willing to give their social security number and personal information to buy a gun, then they shouldn't be buying a gun nor should they be allowed to buy a gun.

A social security number is required to purchase cars and homes, to enroll in schools and take out loans, rent apartments, etc.

Just as there are credit bureaus and organizations that track other aspects of people's lives and backgrounds, there should be something similar for gun purchases.

 

[ThePhantasm]

If people in the US aren't willing to give their social security number and personal information to buy a gun, then they shouldn't be buying a gun nor should they be allowed to buy a gun.

A social security number is required to purchase cars and homes, to enroll in schools and take out loans, rent apartments, etc.

Just as there are credit bureaus and organizations that track other aspects of people's lives and backgrounds, there should be something similar for gun purchases.

Sure, but that's not really my point. The fact is that there are about 300 million guns out there already unregistered. How do you find all of those and register them? How do you ensure that guns which are sold hand-to-hand get registered? How do you tell if someone already owns a gun? Not everyone will volunteer than information. Do you raid everyone's houses looking for unregistered guns?

Its easy to say "require registration from here on out" but that doesn't address the millions of guns already out there that would probably never get registered.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Requiring registration to buy ammo would make more sense - slightly - but even then you're going to have people with stockpiles of it that won't be willing to volunteer that info.

 

[The Shape]

Sure, but that's not really my point. The fact is that there are about 300 million guns out there already unregistered. How do you find all of those and register them? How do you ensure that guns which are sold hand-to-hand get registered? How do you tell if someone already owns a gun? Not everyone will volunteer than information. Do you raid everyone's houses looking for unregistered guns?

Its easy to say "require registration from here on out" but that doesn't address the millions of guns already out there that would probably never get registered.

I don't really understand your line of thinking here. I understand there are already millions of guns/ammo out there and that not all of them can be tracked at this point. But why should that stop us from adding more gun regulation/tracking and taking on more preventative measures going forward? For the future of our country?

If there's one thing we know for sure about this issue, it's that there's no band-aid fix to this problem. There is no immediate solution or quick fix to make us all feel better. What needs to happen is that we must attempt to fundamentally change something in this country with regard to gun control moving forward. If it's more difficult for even some people to buy guns, or loads of guns, it means that lives can be saved.

Many of these mass-shootings have been done by younger people. If there had been more regulation, screening, tracking, background checks, and limits just 5 years ago and it had been more difficult or impossible for people like James Holmes and this guy to legally obtain guns and lives could have been saved.

The whole viewpoint of "the damage is done so there's no point in rebuilding" kind of baffles me. When someone brings up one possible method of change, someone else will suggest that it's pointless and won't accomplish anything. When really, they should be saying, "That's a good idea. That might help. Now what else can be done to address the other facets of this problem?"

 

[ThePhantasm]

I don't really understand your line of thinking here. I understand there are already millions of guns/ammo out there and that not all of them can be tracked at this point. But why should that stop us from adding more gun regulation/tracking and taking on more preventative measures going forward? For the future of our country?

Because a lot of people don't go to a store to buy a gun, they buy it from other people. Some people have guns handed down to them. Or gifted to them. Its easy to say "more gun regulation/tracking," I'm just wondering what does that look like, practically? Other than tracking newly made and purchased guns, how does that solve anything? You're plugging one little hole in the wall when there's already a flood in the house.

If there's one thing we know for sure about this issue, it's that there's no band-aid fix to this problem. There is no immediate solution or quick fix to make us all feel better. What needs to happen is that we must attempt to fundamentally change something in this country with regard to gun control moving forward. If it's more difficult for even some people to buy guns, or loads of guns, it means that lives can be saved.

I'm not sure how inconvenience saves lives. Many of these mentally disturbed people plan these things for months. They will acquire a gun if they want it.

Again, lots of people propose something and claim it will save lives, but I don't see practically how it will.

Many of these mass-shootings have been done by younger people. If there had been more regulation, screening, tracking, background checks, and limits just 5 years ago and it had been more difficult or impossible for people like James Holmes and this guy to legally obtain guns and lives could have been saved.

More difficult, yes. Impossible? Don't see how. Again, you can buy guns on craigslist from a total stranger in the USA.

The whole viewpoint of "the damage is done so there's no point in rebuilding" kind of baffles me.

I've never, not once, ever said that.

When someone brings up one possible method of change, someone else will suggest that it's pointless and won't accomplish anything.

I don't understand why people are offended that I'm being realistic. I'm mentioning the obstacles. They are real. They have to be overcome somehow, but they won't be overcome by wishful thinking or ignoring them.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'll just bow out of this conversation. I'm getting the sense that I'm upsetting people and I don't want to do that. I apologize for critiquing some of the suggestions. Carry on, folks.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I'll just bow out of this conversation. I'm getting the sense that I'm upsetting people and I don't want to do that. I apologize for critiquing some of the suggestions. Carry on, folks.

I thought you were doing a pretty good job, considering you aren't even in the US. If gun ownership and control were such an easy, cut-and-dried issue in the US, then it wouldn't have so many differing opinions on it like it still does.

 

[Cobblepot]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566

Some numbers.
300 million guns in the US..why? Because it's a billion dollar industry and they want to make money. They don't care about your children or the avarage American. They just want to make MONEY.

So what if it take 20 years to get to 50 million guns, is that a valid reason not to do it?
The can show starving kids and babies with flies on them, to getr to the public and make them donate money to Africa. Why not show the dead American children on TV and make them turn in their guns?