The Guns thread - Part 1

[moviedoors]

I'm sure the bullet makers were thrilled. Made their money.

So much money. I'm actively upset that I played a part in facilitating that profit. The most horrific tragedy imaginable made these corporations see dollar signs. Walmart put on a mask of concern: a mask that exactly matched what their suppliers could give them. They didn't care. They knew ammo would be scarce and they spun that lack of supply into a ******** "policy" meant to deceive people into thinking they had morals. They don't.

 

[LTuser]

Why would anyone in their right mind read objectively terrible tabloid trash and disreputable news channels, knowingly?

The same reason i wonder why anyone in their right mind listens to the overtly leftist propaganda put out by CNN and MSNBC?

Now being reported that on social media, the shooter was following a bunch of armed resistance groups, namely those in Syria and Iraq, and had been looking up stuff on bomb-making.

What i want to know, is HOW HE could have amassed such an arsenal of weaponry, when he's still a student age kid??

Terrible incident. All too common nowadays. These laws won't get changed regardless.

Pray tell, what law changes would have prevented most of these shootings?? When these perps either 'borrow (steal) them from someone who legally bought them (such as adam lanza who got them from his mother's or was it aunt's gun closet), or got them on their own after passing the necessary backround checks??

If the laws we ALREADY have on the books, are not getting enforced enough (such as with that killer in texas who the AF failed to alert the FBI to his dismissal for mental health reasons, which MIGHT have stopped him getting the guns), what hope do you think making MORE LAWS will do, to prevent other shootings?

I don't understand American conservatives. Maybe LTuser can enlighten me. On Twitter, the conservative narrative is always "It's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue". Ok.

Then if mental health is an issue, why applaud Trump striking down a regulation that kept people with mental issues from guns? If it's not about guns, then why do these shootings keep happening in the developed country with the most lax guns law? Why doesn't these shootings happen regularly in Canada, the UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, etc? Why the USA only?

For ME, i actually DISAGREE with what Trump did there, especially when a # of these shooters HAVE BEEN (sorry to use the word) but total whak jobs..

And as to why other countries don;t have it this bad? I honestly can't say.
Hell, back in the 50s to 80s, where having schools with their OWN military like ROTC courses and drill squads, you often saw guns ON campuses, and never had these shootings...
So what changed in the late 80s to early 90s, to have 'flipped the switch' in the minds of these killers? Other than discipline being removed from a lot of schools (and house holds, with the barring of spankings, and the like)?

I can never comprehend how any parent, liberal, conservative, black, white, whatever, wouldn’t want to do everything possible to do more after what happened in Newton. It’s not that hard to imagine that happening to your child.

But as i asked above, exactly what could have been done in most of these shootings, to have prevented them, when most of the guns were legally purchased? Unless you want to force confiscations of everyone's guns (licensed or not)...

I’m in no way a gun expert so I can’t speak to what constitutes an assault weapon or not. But it does seem like the AR-15 seems to be the weapon of choice in these scenarios so that needs to be looked into.

Lets examine that then.. As per this site (going from Columbine in Apr 99, to 2013 Jan)
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm
We see a total of 7 out of 49 shootings that had AR-15s or "ak-47 look alikes). 4 shootings where the gun(s) listed as "unidentified". The rest were with pistols...

Then there was this from the Washington examiner (again in 2014)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...s-used-in-most-mass-shootings/article/2542118
also showing pistols, not ARs or automatic weapons were most used..

And this article from NBC, shows over 80% of all guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally..
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/s...-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

Tougher backgrounds checks, need to be in a gun club/or be a hunter (no more guns for the sake of having them), no sales without background checks, longer waiting period before getting the firearm, mandatory course and exam before license, registration of all restricted firearms.

May i enquire, are you for or against Voter ID laws, or any law restricting one's right to vote?? So why are you for such restrictive rules on another right?

Especially that. I'm fine with hunters, but guns aren't ****ing toys, and I loathe the way we act like paranoid vigilante fantasies are a good reason to keep them so readily available..

Currently i personally know just under 50 people who own guns.. 8 do so for hunting reasons only, 19 for home defense (mostly small pistols or shotguns), the others own one cause they have security (private) jobs and require one.. Would you say THEY shouldn't have one??

 

[TheCardPlayer]

For ME, i actually DISAGREE with what Trump did there, especially when a # of these shooters HAVE BEEN (sorry to use the word) but total whak jobs..

And as to why other countries don;t have it this bad? I honestly can't say.
Hell, back in the 50s to 80s, where having schools with their OWN military like ROTC courses and drill squads, you often saw guns ON campuses, and never had these shootings...
So what changed in the late 80s to early 90s, to have 'flipped the switch' in the minds of these killers? Other than discipline being removed from a lot of schools (and house holds, with the barring of spankings, and the like)?

Gun proliferation. Number of gun owners jumped up considerably from 2007-onwards and never stopped, and the numbers are there to back that up. It's not that people are crazier. It's that crazy people have easier access to guns then they used to. Glad to see, you also disagree with Trump striking down that particular regulation.

May i enquire, are you for or against Voter ID laws, or any law restricting one's right to vote?? So why are you for such restrictive rules on another right?

Because that "right" is causing a ridiculously disproportionate number of shooting incidents vs the rest of the developed world. And I do believe you know that the US's lax gun laws are totally the reason why there's constant mass shootings. You just believe that "liberty" is more important.

That's fine but it this case I think you are wrong. I do believe in gun rights but not the freakshow that is the current US system. It's obviously broken, these killings are more than proof of that (again nowhere else but the US), and something needs to be done.

 

[Krystal]

Glad there are no gun nuts here!

 

[Aximili86]

I’m in no way a gun expert so I can’t speak to what constitutes an assault weapon or not. But it does seem like the AR-15 seems to be the weapon of choice in these scenarios so that needs to be looked into.

It's the most popular rifle in the U.S. The percentage of people ever doing anything wrong with one is still infinitesimally miniscule, that's the thing.

It's not even all that formidable weapon in the scheme of things, certainly not "military grade", or an "assault weapon". It's easy to use, that's probably spurring the popularity. Thing is, it's still basically just an entry-level hunting rifle put in a big mean-looking M-16-looking casing, that causes a lot of the confusion on the "military grade" stuff.

Any weapon in the wrong hands is a problem. One of these loons with a shotgun and a glock can still spread a whole lot of misery. On some level I'd almost be fine with banning the AR-10 and AR-15 if only to see the reaction when the shootings just keep continuing, only with other weapons, people don't seem to get that. If you ban an AR-10/AR-15, you've logically gotta ban all semi-automatics, no? The most basic pistols on the market these days are semi-automatics. A glock with two or three extra clips, in the hand of one of these scumbags and in a room full of innocent people, is a scary goddamn thing. Nobody would ever reasonably talk about banning glocks.

Something needs to change though, agreed. There's stuff we can do to prevent at least some of these - like the Vegas guy having bump-stocks and some of these stooges wearing body armor is just insane. That can be cracked down on hard. You could make background checks tougher, and maybe re-organize the system so there's better communication between stores and agencies (sort of like what we did with the homeland security stuff after 9/11). Mandatory minimums for anyone who points a gun at anyone, even if they don't fire.

Hell, I don't know, maybe even bump up purchasing age to 21 or something, like with booze. Doubtful that'd do much, but you might cut off a few of these school-age or recently-out-of-school guys from being able to get them legally, at least.

Outright banning of specific models isn't warranted though, when it's something this basic. Any gun in the wrong hands is a problem, they'll just switch to something else.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The shootings happening at all are the biggest problem. But what is right up there is the amount of death that can be done in such a quick manner. There is so little effort to kill so many people.

When are we going to acknowledge that weapons built to literally kill things and nothing else are a big part of the problem?

 

[Aximili86]

Just about every weapon is "made to kill things". Where's the line? A lot of pistols hold 14 bullets. They're easy to use. Ammo is readily available.

A loonyburger with a modern pistol and two extra clips and a 5 minute police response time is a terrifying proposition. What are we going to do, ban pistols too because some horrible loser can wreak absolute havoc?

I get the mentality - AR-10's/15's seem to be the weapon of choice here. They're really not all that much more dangerous than any other semi-automatic though, rifle or pistol alike. What's the next step when we ban these, and the massacres keep happening? Ban all semi-autos?

That'd be 3/4 + of the entire modern gun market. Which, sure, would please people on the "ban it all!" side of things. America as a whole isn't of that mindset though. Restrictions, regulations? Absolutely. You start banning entry-level semi-automatic rifles though, you've basically gotta ban it all if you're consistent.

Which, hell, I'd be able to get on board with even as an experiment. Most of the country wouldn't be though, and not just the hardcore NRA types.

 

[samsnee]

Let’s say that fine, it’s not a gun issue but a mental health issue. Why has Congresss done NOTHING to address it?

Why has Congress explicitly denied funding toward research into these mass killings to validate that it is a mental health issue and not just guns?

This would never happen but would love to see a company like Wal-mart say “until Congress gets to the bottom of what is going on, we will stop selling guns/ammo”. People may have the right to a gun but there’s nothing in the Constitution that says companies have to sell them.

 

[Orba]

Let’s say that fine, it’s not a gun issue but a mental health issue. Why has Congresss done NOTHING to address it?

Why has Congress explicitly denied funding toward research into these mass killings to validate that it is a mental health issue and not just guns?

This would never happen but would love to see a company like Wal-mart say “until Congress gets to the bottom of what is going on, we will stop selling guns/ammo”. People may have the right to a gun but there’s nothing in the Constitution that says companies have to sell them.

Thats an easy one to answer.. the NRA

[YT]WK_jkPhrddc[/YT]

 

[Hypestyle]

another awful event. Just don't look for Mr. 45 or any of his lieutenants to propose anything helpful. The GOP won't either. Most Dems won't either, especially "red/purple" state Dems (and racially speaking, usually Caucasian) who always want to stress their 2nd Amendment bonafides.

 

[obredaan]

But as i asked above, exactly what could have been done in most of these shootings, to have prevented them, when most of the guns were legally purchased? Unless you want to force confiscations of everyone's guns (licensed or not)...

Typical right-wing warrior response. Making up broad generalizations to feed into the right-wing fear tactic that the "evil" liberals wanna take all your guns.

I see your offering no solutions and just repeating the same old right-wing warrior talking points you've been spinning ever since Columbine.

Notice that not a single Republican is willing to face the American people today and will only go on Fox News and hide behind their state-run media. Bunch of cowards.

 

[Lily Adler]

Ted Cruz Blames Dems for Politicizing Florida Shooting

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/brea...ticizing-shootings/ar-BBJaRPM?ocid=spartanntp

 

[Teelie]

Naturally when your party and beliefs are the exact result of a tragedy you find someone else to deflect your failings onto in order to distract from it.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The same reason i wonder why anyone in their right mind listens to the overtly leftist propaganda put out by CNN and MSNBC?

Those networks are corporate. Not lefty.

But regardless, you watch Foxtertainment to own liberals? That's juvenile.

 

[Aximili86]

Let’s say that fine, it’s not a gun issue but a mental health issue. Why has Congresss done NOTHING to address it?

A lot of it's probably due to a lack of public appetite for committing people anymore, y'know? Like, I doubt even if this guy's classmates had reported him, the principal took it to the cops, the cops spoke to him, that he'd end up forcibly in a funny farm. You can't really put him in juvie as a minor, or jail after he's 18, for something he "might" do, too.

Can't speak to the congressional funding, it seems like something they should be doing. But in terms of the public, I think we're more sort of in the "understanding and empathizing" mode these days, like he's threatening to kill people he must be "troubled" and not "dangerous and unstable". You can go talk to & counsel a "troubled" kid, but he's not ending up in an institution or even temporary hospital psych evaluation over mere talk. Maybe that needs to change: even threaten anything with a gun, even if you don't own one yet and there's no physical evidence of a plot in-motion, maybe that's gotta be enough to be detained and analyzed now.

Why would/should somewhere like Walmart stop selling though? They're not responsible for this, it's the guys doing it. Not like it'd have any effect, Walmart stops selling then some other big chain will fill the market gap. And of course there are god knows how many little mom & pop shop gunbrokers all across the country, the psychos will just take their business there.

Seems maybe we've gotta get all extreme with the background checks though. More inter-agency communication, new more thorough databases, a lower bar for what constitutes "mentally unfit". Sure, this kid's school expulsions shouldn't be enough on their own to warrant him not being able to buy guns, but those threats he'd made sure as hell should be. If any teachers were aware of his prior talk, that really needs to make it to the cops and the law needs to say that's enough to prevent him from purchasing.

 

[Herofan]

If it's not about guns, then why do these shootings keep happening in the developed country with the most lax guns law? Why doesn't these shootings happen regularly in Canada, the UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, etc? Why the USA only?

I'm not sure how you would measure and compare overall severity/laxness of gun laws but Canada and Australia (while not as high as the U.S. rate) do have a lot more per capita guns than does the U.K. without having more shootings so that suggests more quantity isn't a cause.

 

[Aximili86]

Canada has guns aplenty. Not U.S. level, but more than Australia or the UK or most of Europe.

Switzerland has a higher rate of guns than the U.S. does. And, heh, they're fully-autos, not semis like these things being used over here for most of these awful shootings.

No shooting spree problems there. Gotta be a social thing, logic would dictate.

Also, Australia's gun crime isn't down since their new laws in '96. It's virtually the same as beforehand, even with a slight uptick in gang-related stuff. They haven't had another massacre, no, but they'd had one major one anyway. A single data point does not a statistical trend make, it's hard to make a call on Australia. They're still on a higher shootings level per capita than the UK or wherever, not sure how they compare to Canada but it's likely the same ballpark with those two.

 

[Orba]

Also, Australia's gun crime isn't down since their new laws in '96. It's virtually the same as beforehand, even with a slight uptick in gang-related stuff. They haven't had another massacre, no, but they'd had one major one anyway. A single data point does not a statistical trend make, it's hard to make a call on Australia. They're still on a higher shootings level per capita than the UK or wherever, not sure how they compare to Canada but it's likely the same ballpark with those two.

Where did you read that?

Australia's gun laws stopped mass shootings and reduced homicides, study finds

 

[Donner]

Switzerland doesn't have a standing army, so the citizens are armed. The difference is that they're fully trained and there is no way in hell anyone with mental illness or drug issues or anything like that would get a gun. There is mandatory military service for able bodied men. Owning a gun is rooted in tradition.

Also, the Swiss aren't super paranoid. They tend to solve problems with each other through discourse and not firing a weapon.

The American citizens are afraid. That's why gun ownership and gun deaths are so high. You guys scare too easily.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I'm deeply concerned that the idiot gun nuts in this country are going to push for a witch hunt against the mentally ill all in the name of preserving their hobby.

This country should be more afraid of losing children than guns. It's disgusting that anyone would try and block the clear and necessary action needed to save lives. If my hobby lead to the mass deaths of children and fellow citizens I'd give it up. No matter how much I loved it I'd give it up in a heartbeat if it meant preserving human life.

We regulate the **** out of automobile operation and ownership. Guns are far more destructive, but there's nothing doing there? The NRA is a terrorist organization. That's all there is to it.

 

[Chance Jackson]

To early to talk about it again, plenty of thoughts and prayers instead *sigh*

Psych Evaluations for every gun purchase. Japan does this for people who want to use B.B. Guns

 

[Aximili86]

Switzerland doesn't have a standing army, so the citizens are armed. The difference is that they're fully trained and there is no way in hell anyone with mental illness or drug issues or anything like that would get a gun. There is mandatory military service for able bodied men. Owning a gun is rooted in tradition.

Also, the Swiss aren't super paranoid. They tend to solve problems with each other through discourse and not firing a weapon.

The American citizens are afraid. That's why gun ownership and gun deaths are so high. You guys scare too easily.

Yep, that's why I pointed out the Swiss. Every adult male deemed fit for national service has to keep & maintain their *actual* military-grade (not what's falsely descibed as "military grade" in the American press, referring to these ARs) weapon afterward.

But that's just the point, regarding your part about fear and paranoia. It's a social thing in the U.S., as much as the guns. It's a violent, aggressive, divisive society and pretty much always has been. Canada's not that way - despite having plenty of guns flowing around, you generally don't see this crap up there.

And yeah Orba, you're right, looks like I ****ed up there. Seems they've gone down, though not consistently year by year, and they're not quite sure whether to attribute it to the laws or the trend already going that way. But on balance they've dropped, not sure what I was conflating there, maybe gang-related crimes gun crimes specifically instead or something.

This gets a little more into the weeds on it, from their own state-funded PBS style broadcaster.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...-and-suicides-john-howard-port-arthur/7254880

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Because that "right" is causing a ridiculously disproportionate number of shooting incidents vs the rest of the developed world. And I do believe you know that the US's lax gun laws are totally the reason why there's constant mass shootings. You just believe that "liberty" is more important.

This is where it's nice to have logic.

These school shootings didn't used to happen. What changed?

Did gun laws become more lax or less lax during that time?

Answer: Less lax/more strict You could easily bring a gun to school before the 1980s....and yet this didn't happen.

So what does a logical person think when gun laws become more strict and shootings get worse? Do they claim that lax gun laws are the problem or do they see that more gun laws haven't had any effect at all?

Obviously the latter. No logical person would cling to the idea of "more gun laws" when that's so clearly not what changed.

So there is no logic behind this claim. That's emotion.

What did change? Well...go back to Columbine. The media made those shooters famous. ...Which is exactly what they wanted. They became important...immortal.

As as we speak, the media is creating the next shooter.

Some disturbed kid who thinks he doesn't matter and that no one cares about him is seeing YET ANOTHER SHOOTER get famous. Everyone is talking about another shooter. Now he's "important". The media will talk about every detail of his life. All the "mistreatment" he endured. Now everyone will understand!

But....Freedom of the Press! It's a Constitutional amendment! You can bet the media would suddenly change their tone about how important a Constitutional amendment is if you talked about the one that effects them.


How about passing a law that no shooter should ever get the attention they want? No one should ever know their name or their "sad backstory". No one will ever see their face. You shoot at a bunch of people...you die in anonymity or go to prison in anonymity. You don't get what you wanted.

But that would be admitted that this really started when the media made the Columbine shooters famous. And that doesn't push the same emotional and political buttons, does it?

 

[Sithborg]

As opposed the gun culture?

Seriously, I think Waco and Ruby Ridge had just as big of an effect in terms of gun culture.

 

[Donner]

JeetKuneDo is close, but I don't think it's making the shooter "famous" that is causing the rise in shootings (at least not entirely). It's the fear narrative that the media pushes every single day. Scared people are not only easier to convince of things (Iraq War), they're easier to sell guns to. If it bleeds, it leads. And given how much disaster and tragedy the American public is subject to every day through the media, it's no surprise that people think rapists, pedophiles, home invaders, etc are just around the corner waiting to strike.